Search

Background: Screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reduces prostate cancer mortality but can lead to adverse outcomes. We aimed to compare a traditional screening approach with a diagnostic strategy of blood-based risk prediction combined with MRI-targeted biopsies.Methods: We did a prospective, population-based, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial (STHLM3-MRI) in Stockholm county, Sweden. Men aged 50-74 years were randomly selected by Statistics Sweden and invited by mail to participate in screening; those with an elevated risk of prostate cancer, defined as either a PSA of 3 ng/mL or higher or a Stockholm3 score of 0·11 or higher were eligible for randomisation. Men with a previous prostate cancer diagnosis, who had undergone a prostate biopsy within 60 days before the invitation to participate, with a contraindication for MRI, or with severe illness were excluded. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (2:3) using computer-generated blocks of five, stratified by clinically significant prostate cancer risk, to receive either systematic prostate biopsies (standard group) or biparametric MRI followed by MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy in MRI-positive participants (experimental group). The primary outcome was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer at prostate biopsy, defined as a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or higher. We used a margin of 0·78 to assess non-inferiority for the primary outcome. Key secondary outcome measures included the proportion of men with clinically insignificant prostate cancer (defined as a Gleason score of 3 + 3), and the number of any prostate MRI and biopsy procedures done. We did two comparisons: Stockholm3 (using scores of 0·11 and 0·15 as cutoffs) versus PSA in the experimental group (paired analyses) and PSA plus standard biopsy versus Stockholm3 plus MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy (unpaired, randomised analyses). All analyses were intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03377881.Findings: Between Feb 5, 2018, and March 4, 2020, 49 118 men were invited to participate, of whom 12 750 were enrolled and provided blood specimens, and 2293 with elevated risk were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n=1372) or the standard group (n=921). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer was 0·76 (95% CI 0·72-0·80) for Stockholm3 and 0·60 (0·54-0·65) for PSA. In the experimental group, a Stockholm3 of 0·11 or higher was non-inferior to a PSA of 3 ng/mL or higher for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (227 vs 192; relative proportion [RP] 1·18 [95% CI 1·09-1·28], p<0·0001 for non-inferiority), and also detected a similar number of low-grade prostate cancers (50 vs 41; 1·22 [0·96-1·55], p=0·053 for superiority) and was associated with more MRIs and biopsies. Compared with PSA of 3 ng/mL or higher, a Stockholm3 of 0·15 or higher provided identical sensitivity to detect clinically significant cancer, and led to fewer MRI procedures (545 vs 846; 0·64 [0·55-0·82]) and fewer biopsy procedures (311 vs 338; 0·92 (0·86-1·03). Compared with screening using PSA and systematic biopsies, a Stockholm3 of 0·11 or higher combined with MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies was associated with higher detection of clinically significant cancers (227 [3·0%] men tested vs 106 [2·1%] men tested; RP 1·44 [95% CI 1·15-1·81]), lower detection of low-grade cancers (50 [0·7%] vs 73 [1·4%]; 0·46 [0·32-0·66]), and led to fewer biopsy procedures. Patients randomly assigned to the experimental group had a lower incidence of prescription of antibiotics for infection (25 [1·8%] of 1372 vs 41 [4·4%] of 921; p=0·0002) and a lower incidence of admission to hospital (16 [1·2%] vs 31 [3·4%]; p=0·0003) than those in the standard group.Interpretation: The Stockholm3 test can inform risk stratification before MRI and targeted biopsies in prostate cancer screening. Combining the Stockholm3 test with an MRI-targeted biopsy approach for prostate cancer screening decreases overdetection while maintaining the ability to detect clinically significant cancer.Funding: The Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Research Council, and Stockholm City Council. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies describing treatment utilization for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) are limited. We aimed to describe the treatment utilization of a contemporary population-based CRPC cohort between 2006 and 2016. We identified 1699 men with a PC diagnosis between 2005 and 2015, who developed CRPC between 2006 and 2015 in the Stockholm region of Sweden. Demographic information, stage and grade at PC diagnosis, stage at CRPC, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir, PSA doubling time, treatment utilization rate within 1 year of CRPC diagnosis, reason for stopping therapy, treatment sequence trajectory, overall and PC specific survival was described. Treatment for men with de novo metastatic disease (n = 463) was 32%, treatment for men with progressive metastatic disease after PC diagnosis (n = 66) was 44%, treatment for men with nonmetastatic CRPC (n = 113) was 34% and treatment for those with an unknown stage at time of CRPC diagnosis (n = 857) was 12%. Docetaxel was used in 39%, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in 15%, enzalutamide in 13%, cabazitaxel in 11% and radium-223 in 5% of treatments. Treatment increased from 22% in 2006–2009 for metastatic cancer to 50% in 2013–2015 (p <.001). Factors associated with treatment were an unknown stage at diagnosis (OR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.2–0.4), age ≥75 years (OR: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.1 − 0.3), PSA doubling time >3 months (OR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.3 − 0.6) and a diagnosis between 2013 and 2015 (OR: 3.4, 95% CI: 2.0 − 5.8). Despite treatment availability, in this large real-world cohort we found treatment utilization to remain low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Incidence and prevalence of prostate cancer in Sweden have increased markedly due to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Moreover, new diagnostic tests and treatment technologies are expected to further increase the overall costs. Our aims were (i) to estimate the societal costs for existing testing, diagnosis, management and treatment of prostate cancer, and (ii) to provide reference values for future cost-effectiveness analyses of prostate cancer screening and treatment.Methods: Taking a societal perspective, this study aimed to investigate the annual cost of prostate cancer in Sweden using a prevalence-based cost-of-illness approach. Resource utilisation and related costs within Stockholm Region during 2016 were quantified using data from the Stockholm PSA and Biopsy Register and other health and population registers. Costs included: (i) direct medical costs for health care utilisation at primary care, hospitals, palliative care and prescribed drugs; (ii) informal care; and (iii) indirect costs due to morbidity and premature mortality. The resource utilisation was valued using unit costs for direct medical costs and the human capital method for informal care and indirect costs. Costs for the Stockholm region were extrapolated to Sweden based on cancer prevalence and the average costs by age and resource type.Results: The societal costs due to prostate cancer in Stockholm in 2016 were estimated to be €64 million Euro (€Mn), of which the direct medical costs, informal care and productivity losses represented 62, 28 and 10% of the total costs, respectively. The total annual costs extrapolated to Sweden were calculated to be €281 Mn. The average direct medical cost, average costs for informal care and productivity losses per prevalent case were €1510, €828 and €271, respectively. These estimates were sensitive to assumptions related to the proportion of primary care visits associated with PSA testing and the valuation method for informal care.Conclusion: The societal costs due to prostate cancer were substantial and constitute a considerable burden to Swedish society. Data from this study are relevant for future cost-effectiveness evaluations of prostate cancer screening and treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study investigated prostate cancer (PC)-specific survival and overall survival (OS) in a population-based castration-resistant PC (CRPC) cohort. Methods: Data from Stockholm Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) and Biopsy Register patients with increasing PSA despite gonadotropin-releasing hormone treatment or surgical castration (n = 1,712) included PSA values and biopsies from 2003 to 2015 and were linked to the National Prostate Cancer Register and Prescribed Drug Register. Kaplan-Meier method estimated PC-specific survival and OS, stratified by metastasis at PC diagnosis, and Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for Gleason score and T-stage at PC diagnosis and for age and calendar period at CRPC onset by metastasis status at diagnosis. Results: Median OS after CRPC onset was 23.2 months (95% CI = 21.0–25.9) among patients without metastases (M0) at primary diagnosis, and 13.2 months (11.3–14.5) among patients with metastases (M1). Median PC-specific survival from CRPC onset was 30.3 (27.5–34.1) months and 13.3 (12.1–15.8) months for M0 and M1 patients, respectively. Biopsy Gleason score ≥ 8 was associated with higher all-cause mortality than ≤6 (HR = 2.07 [95% CI = 1.43–3.01]) and PC-specific mortality (2.07 [1.27–3.40]) after CRPC among patients with M0 disease. Patients developing CRPC from 2012 onward had lower all-cause mortality (HR = 0.71 [95% CI = 0.60–0.85] [M0]; 0.60 [0.47–0.77] [M1]) and PC-specific mortality (0.73 [0.57–0.94] [M0]; 0.62 [0.46–0.84] [M1]) compared with those prior to 2012. Conclusions: M1 disease at PC diagnosis was associated with worse survival after CRPC onset versus M0. Higher Gleason score at diagnosis was associated with higher mortality after CRPC onset in M0 patients at diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The four-kallikrein panel and the Prostate Health Index (PHI) have been shown to improve prediction of prostate cancer (PCa) compared with prostate-specific antigen (PSA). No comparison of the four-kallikrein panel and PHI has been presented. Objective To compare the four-kallikrein panel and PHI for predicting PCa in an independent cohort. Design, setting, and participants Participants were from a population-based cohort of PSA-tested men in Stockholm County. We included 531 men with PSA levels between 3 and 15 ng/ml undergoing first-time prostate biopsy during 2010–2012. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Models were fitted to case status. We computed calibration curves, the area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC), decision curves, and percentage of saved biopsies. Results and limitations The four-kallikrein panel showed AUCs of 69.0 when predicting any-grade PCa and 71.8 when predicting high-grade cancer (Gleason score ≥7). Similar values were found for PHI: 70.4 and 71.1, respectively. Both models had higher AUCs than a base model with PSA value and age ( p < 0.0001 for both); differences between models were not significant. Sensitivity analyses including men with any PSA level or a previous biopsy did not materially affect our findings. Using 10% predicted risk of high-grade PCa by the four-kallikrein panel or PHI of 39 as cut-off for biopsy saved 29% of performed biopsies at a cost of delayed diagnosis for 10% of the men with high-grade cancers. Both models showed limited net benefit in decision analysis. The main study limitation was lack of digital rectal examination data and biopsy decision being based on PSA information. Conclusions The four-kallikrein panel and PHI similarly improved discrimination when predicting PCa and high-grade PCa. Both are simple blood tests that can reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies compared with screening with total PSA, representing an important new option to reduce harm. Patient summary Prostate-specific antigen screening is controversial due to limitations of the test. We found that two blood tests, the Prostate Health Index and the four-kallikrein panel, performed similarly and could both aid in decision making among Swedish men undergoing a prostate biopsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing has increased in several countries. There is incomplete knowledge of PSA testing patterns. Objective: Determine the prevalence of PSA testing and explore patterns of PSA retesting in Stockholm County, Sweden. Design, setting, and participants: A population-based study was performed. Through registry linkages, we collected population information, data on PSA tests, pathology reports, and clinical information. The study population comprised males living in Stockholm County in 2011 (n =1034129), of which 229 872 had a PSA test during the period 2003–2011. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We determined limited-duration-point prevalence of PSA testing and performed survival analysis on PSA retesting for men aged 40–89 yr. Results and limitations: The number of PSA tests increased from 54239 in 2003 to 124613 in 2011. During the 9-yr study period, 46%, 68%, and 77% of men without a prior prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and aged 50–59 yr, 60–69 yr, and 70–79 yr, respectively, had a PSA test. During 2010 and 2011, 25%, 40%, and 46% of men aged 50–59 yr, 60–69 yr, and 70–79 yr, respectively, had a PSA test. The prevalence of PSA testing increased from 2003 to 2011. The probability of retesting was PSA and age dependent, with a 26-mo cumulative incidence of 0.337 (95% confidence interval, 0.333–0.341) if the first PSA value was <1 ng/ml. The main limitations were (1) that PSA data prior to 2003 were not available and (2) that the study cohort was restricted to men who were alive in 2011. Conclusions: Although screening for PCa is not recommended in Sweden, PSA testing in Stockholm County was high across ages ranging from 40 to 89 yr and increased during the period 2003–2011. The probability of PSA retesting was high, regardless of the original PSA level. These results contrast with current clinical recommendations and raise calls for a change, either through structured PCa testing or more detailed guidelines on PSA testing. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]