Search

Objectives: To assess the applicability of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial High Grade (Gleason grade ≥ 7) Risk Calculator (PCPTHG) in ten international cohorts, representing a range of populations., Methods: A total of 25,512 biopsies from 10 cohorts (6 European, 1 UK and 3 US) were included; 4 implemented 6-core biopsies, and the remaining had 10 or higher schemes; 8 were screening cohorts, and 2 were clinical. PCPTHG risks were calculated using prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, age, African origin and history of prior biopsy and evaluated in terms of calibration plots, areas underneath the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and net benefit curves., Results: The median AUC of the PCPTHG for high-grade disease detection in the 10- and higher-core cohorts was 73.5% (range, 63.9-76.7%) compared with a median of 78.1% (range, 72.0-87.6%) among the four 6-core cohorts. Only the 10-core Cleveland Clinic cohort showed clear evidence of under-prediction by the PCPTHG, and this was restricted to risk ranges less than 15%. The PCPTHG demonstrated higher clinical net benefit in higher-core compared with 6-core biopsy cohorts, and among the former, there were no notable differences observed between clinical and screening cohorts, nor between European and US cohorts., Conclusions: The PCPTHG requires minimal patient information and can be applied across a range of populations. PCPTHG risk thresholds ranging from 5 to 20%, depending on patient risk averseness, are recommended for clinical prostate biopsy decision-making.

The "European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer" (ERSPC) was initiated in 1993 and up to 1998 six other European countries were joined. The main goal is to establish the effect of Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA)-based screening on prostate cancer (PCa) mortality with morbidity as secondary end point. At present, with 11 and 12 years of follow-up significant relative reductions of 21 % and 31 % relating to both end points have been reported. The diagnosis of non-life threatening PCA (over diagnosis) is estimated to be in the range of 50 % and represents the main "harm", which prevents the introduction of population-based screening. As a result, the prevention of over diagnosis is now given top research priority. PSA as a screening test has poor performance characteristics including a low specificity. With the cut-off value of 3.0 ng/ml chosen within ERSPC, about 25 % of men aged 55--69 test positively, 75 % have "negative" test results, which do not definitely exclude the presence of PCa. Research to establish empirical schemes of follow-up based on PSA levels and other parameters are ongoing worldwide. In the meantime, we are, by approximation, capable to identify over diagnosed PCa detected by screening. Active surveillance can be applied to avoid side effects and expenses of treatment and is, among others, based on the grade of differentiation determined on biopsies. The assignment of the most favorable "Gleason score 6" is a crucial decision element. Unfortunately, biopsy pathology underestimates the true degree of PC aggressiveness by 25--30 % which establishes the need of careful follow-up.

Screening for prostate cancer by use of serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) remains controversial. In the recent Cochrane analysis, an attempt is made to clarify the issue by conducting a meta analysis of available randomized screening trials. Two large trials are considered to provide data of similar and sufficient quality to conduct a separate meta analysis. However, in the view of this author, this analysis fails because standard Cochrand quality criteria are not observed. Details are given and the outcome suggests that one of the trials, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) should be considered superior to the Prostate, Lung, Colon, Ovary screening trial (PLCO) conducted in the USA.

Background: Transrectal prostate needle biopsy (PNB) is a standard procedure for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. We recently found an increasing frequency of hospitalization with infectious complications associated with PNB over time., Objective: To perform an updated analysis of overall complication rates in a large screening population over the past 18 years and to examine possible predictors of complications on initial PNB., Design, Setting and Participants: From 1993-2011, 7216 men underwent initial lateralized sextant PNB in European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Rotterdam. After 2 weeks a questionnaire was administered to 6962 men regarding PNB-related complications. Outcome Measurements & Statistical Analysis: Overall complication rates as well as specific complications (hematuria for >3 days, hematospermia, significant pain after biopsy, fever, and hospitalizations) were prospectively recorded. Multivariable logistic regression models were performed to assess the relationship between age, comorbidities, and prostate volume with specific complications., Results and Limitations: A total of 4674 (67.1%) men reported any sequelae after initial PNB, with hematospermia as the most frequent (53.8%), followed by hematuria (24.3%). Significant pain (4.8%), fever (4.1%), and hospital admission (0.7%) were reported less frequently. Hematospermia was significantly more likely in younger men with fewer comorbidities and smaller prostate volume; whereas hematuria was significantly more frequent among men with increasing comorbidities and prostate volume. In addition, pain was inversely associated with age and was also reported less frequently during later years of biopsy. Limitations of our study include the use of sextant biopsies and a relatively healthy population, while strengths include the large sample size and data on patient-specific covariates., Conclusion: Many men experience minor complications after initial PNB, although the frequency of specific complications such as hematospermia and hematuria differed based upon factors such as prostate volume and comorbidities. Overall, these data are useful to counsel patients who are undergoing their first PNB on the frequency of complications in a screening population.

Background: Evidence from randomized trials on the effects of screening for prostate cancer (PCa) on disease-specific mortality accumulates slowly with increasing follow-up., Objective: To assess data on PCa-specific mortality in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized controlled trial with randomization after signed, written informed consent (efficacy trial). In the period 1993-1999, a total of 42 376 men aged 54-74 yr were randomized to a screening arm (S-arm) (n = 21 210 with screening every 4 yr, applying a total prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level cut-off ≥ 3.0 ng/ml as biopsy indication) or a control arm (C-arm) (n = 21 166; no intervention)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Number of PCas detected per arm depicted by predefined time periods and prognostic groups. PCa-specific mortality analyses using Poisson regression in age group 55-74 yr at randomization and separately in the predefined age group of 55-69 yr., Results and Limitations: After a median follow-up of 12.8 yr, 19 765 men (94.2%) were screened at least once and 2674 PCas were detected (of which 561 [21.0%] were interval PCas). In the C-arm, 1430 PCas were detected, resulting in an excess incidence of 59 PCas per 1000 men randomized (61 PCas per 1000 in age group 55-69 yr). Thirty-two percent of all men randomized have died. PCa-specific mortality relative-risk (RR) reductions of 20.0% overall (age: 55-74 yr; p = 0.042) and 31.6% (age: 55-69 yr; p = 0.004) were found. A 14.1% increase was found in men aged 70-74 yr (not statistically significant). Absolute PCa mortality was 1.8 per 1000 men randomized (2.6 per 1000 men randomized in age group 55-69 yr). The number needed to invite and number needed to manage were 565 and 33, respectively, for age group 55-74 yr, and 392 and 24, respectively, for age group 65-69 yr. Given the slow natural history of the disease, follow-up might be too short., Conclusions: Systematic PSA-based screening reduced PCa-specific mortality by 32% in the age range of 55-69 yr. The roughly twofold higher incidence in the S-arm underlines the importance of tools to better identify those men who would benefit from screening., (Copyright © 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore whether a panel of kallikrein markers in blood: total, free and intact prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and kallikrein-related peptidase 2, could be used as a non-invasive alternative for predicting prostate cancer on biopsy in a screening setting., Subjects and Methods: The study cohort comprised previously unscreened men who underwent sextant biopsy owing to elevated PSA (≥3 ng/mL) in two different centres of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam (n = 2914) and Göteborg (n = 740). A statistical model, based on kallikrein markers, was compared with one based on established clinical factors for the prediction of biopsy outcome., Results: The clinical tests were found to be no better than blood markers, with an area under the curve in favour of the blood measurements of 0.766 vs. 0.763 in Rotterdam and 0.809 vs. 0.774 in Göteborg. Adding digital rectal examination (DRE) or DRE plus transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) volume to the markers improved discrimination, although the increases were small. Results were similar for predicting high-grade cancer. There was a strong correlation between the blood measurements and TRUS-estimated prostate volume (Spearman's correlation 0.60 in Rotterdam and 0.57 in Göteborg)., Conclusions: In previously unscreened men, each with indication for biopsy, a statistical model based on kallikrein levels was similar to a clinical model in predicting prostate cancer in a screening setting, outside the day-to-day clinical practice. Whether a clinical approach can be replaced by laboratory analyses or used in combination with decision models (nomograms) is a clinical judgment that may vary from clinician to clinician depending on how they weigh the different advantages and disadvantages (harms, costs, time, invasiveness) of both approaches., (© 2013 BJU International.)

Introduction: To assess the extent of overestimation of the cumulative probability of death by the Kaplan-Meier method with the competing-risks regression analysis as reference approach., Materials and Methods: Data were derived from the screening arm of the Rotterdam branch of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). The screening arm consisted of 21210 men between the ages of 55 and 74 at study entry. Follow up concerning mortality was complete through 2008. Endpoints were 5 and 10 year cumulative probabilities of prostate cancer death and death from other causes. Relative bias was defined as the ratio of the cumulative probability of death as determined by the Kaplan-Meier method, relative to the cumulative probability obtained by the competing-risks analysis., Results: According to the Kaplan-Meier method, the 5 year cumulative probability of death from prostate cancer was 0.0101, compared with 0.0099 according to the competing-risk analysis [1.8% overestimation]. At 10 year, these numbers were 0.0347 and 0.0321, respectively [8.0% overestimation]. For death from other causes, the cumulative probabilities at 5 year were 0.0399 and 0.0397 according to the Kaplan-Meier and the competing-risks method [0.6% overestimation], respectively. At 10 year, the probabilities were 0.141 and 0.139 [1.7% overestimation], respectively., Conclusions: When competing events are present, the competing-risks regression analysis is to be preferred over the Kaplan-Meier method in the estimation of the cumulative probability of the event of interest.

Background: Men with screen-detected prostate cancer can choose to undergo immediate curative treatment or enter into an expectant management programme. We quantified how the benefits and harms of immediate treatment vary according to the prognostic factors of clinical T-stage, Gleason score, and patient age., Methods: A microsimulation model based on European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer data was used to predict the benefits and harms of immediate treatment versus delayed treatment of local-regional prostate cancer in men aged 55-74 years. Benefits included life-years gained and reduced probability of death from prostate cancer. Harms included lead time and probability of overdiagnosis., Results: The ratio of mean lead time to mean life-years gained ranged from 1.8 to 31.2, and the additional number of treatments required per prostate cancer death prevented ranged from 0.3 to 11.6 across the different prognostic groups. Both harm-benefit ratios were lowest, most favourable, for men aged 55-59 years and diagnosed with moderate-risk prostate cancer. Ratios were high for men aged 70-74 years regardless of clinical T-stage and Gleason score., Conclusion: Men aged 55-59 years with moderate-risk prostate cancer are predicted to derive greatest benefit from immediate curative treatment. Immediate treatment is least favourable for men aged 70-74 years with either low-risk or high-risk prostate cancer.

Background: Overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment are important side effects of screening for, and early detection of, prostate cancer (PCa). Active surveillance (AS) is of growing interest as an alternative to radical treatment of low-risk PCa., Objective: To update our experience in the largest worldwide prospective AS cohort., Design, Setting, and Participants: Eligible patients had clinical stage T1/T2 PCa, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 10 ng/ml, PSA density <0.2 ng/ml per milliliter, one or two positive biopsy cores, and Gleason score ≤ 6. PSA was measured every 3-6 mo, and volume-based repeat biopsies were scheduled after 1, 4, and 7 yr. Reclassification was defined as more than two positive cores or Gleason >6 at repeat biopsy. Recommendation for treatment was triggered in case of PSA doubling time <3 yr or reclassification., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Multivariate regression analysis was used to evaluate predictors for reclassification at repeat biopsy. Active therapy-free survival (ATFS) was assessed with a Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox regression was used to evaluate the association of clinical characteristics with active therapy over time., Results and Limitations: In total, 2494 patients were included and followed for a median of 1.6 yr. One or more repeat biopsies were performed in 1480 men, of whom 415 men (28%) showed reclassification. Compliance with the first repeat biopsy was estimated to be 81%. During follow-up, 527 patients (21.1%) underwent active therapy. ATFS at 2 yr was 77.3%. The strongest predictors for reclassification and switching to deferred treatment were the number of positive cores (two cores compared with one core) and PSA density. The disease-specific survival rate was 100%. Follow-up was too short to draw definitive conclusions about the safety of AS., Conclusions: Our short-term data support AS as a feasible strategy to reduce overtreatment. Clinical characteristics and PSA kinetics during follow-up can be used for risk stratification. Strict monitoring is even more essential in men with high-risk features to enable timely recognition of potentially aggressive disease and offer curative intervention. Limitations of using surrogate end points and markers in AS should be recognized., Trial Registration: The current program is registered at the Dutch Trial Register with ID NTR1718 (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1718)., (Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inconclusive test results often occur after prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa), leading to uncertainty on whether, how, and when to repeat testing., Objective: To develop and validate a prediction tool for the risk of PCa 4 yr after an initially negative screen., Design, Setting, and Participants: We analyzed data from 15 791 screen-negative men aged 55-70 yr at the initial screening round of the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Follow-up and repeat screening at 4 yr showed either no PCa, low-risk PCa, or potentially high-risk PCa (defined as clinical stage >T2b and/or biopsy Gleason score ≥ 7 and/or PSA ≥ 10.0 ng/ml). A multinomial logistic regression analysis included initial screening data on age, PSA, digital rectal examination (DRE), family history, prostate volume, and having had a previous negative biopsy. The 4-yr risk predictions were validated with additional follow-up data up to 8 yr after initial screening., Results and Limitations: Positive family history and, especially, PSA level predicted PCa, whereas a previous negative biopsy or a large prostate volume reduced the likelihood of future PCa. The risk of having PCa 4 yr after an initially negative screen was 3.6% (interquartile range: 1.0-4.7%). Additional 8-yr follow-up data confirmed these predictions. Although data were based on sextant biopsies and a strict protocol-based biopsy indication, we suggest that men with a low predicted 4-yr risk (eg, ≤ 1.0%) could be rescreened at longer intervals or not at all, depending on competing risks, while men with an elevated 4-yr risk (eg, ≥ 5%) might benefit from immediate retesting. These findings need to be validated externally., Conclusions: This 4-yr future risk calculator, based on age, PSA, DRE, family history, prostate volume, and previous biopsy status, may be a promising tool for reducing uncertainty, unnecessary testing, and overdiagnosis of PCa., (Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In addition to disease-specific mortality, a randomized controlled cancer screening trial may be evaluated in terms of excess mortality, in which case no patient-specific information on causes of death is needed. We studied the effect of not accounting for attendance on the calculated excess mortality in a prostate cancer screening trial., Methods: The numerator of the excess mortality rate related to prostate cancer diagnoses in each study arm equals the excess number of deaths observed in the cancer patients. The estimation of the expected number of deaths in the absence of the prostate cancer diagnoses has to account for the self-selection of those participating in the trial, particularly if the proportion of non-participants is substantial., Setting: The European prostate cancer screening trial (ERSPC)., Results: In the screening arm, non-attendees had roughly twice the mortality rate of attendees. Approximately twice as many cancers were detected in the screening arm compared with the control arm, primarily in attendees. Unless attendance is properly accounted for, the expected mortality of prostate cancer patients in the screening arm is overestimated by 0.9-3.6 deaths per 1000 person-years., Conclusions: Attendees have a lower all-cause mortality rate (are healthier) and a higher probability of a prostate cancer diagnosis than non-attendees and the men randomized to the control arm. If attendance is not accounted for, the excess mortality and the between-arm excess mortality rate ratio are underestimated and screening is considered more effective than it actually is. These effects may be sizeable, notably if non-attendance is common. Correcting for attendance status is important in the calculation of the excess mortality rate in prostate cancer patients that can be used in conjunction with a disease-specific mortality analysis in a randomized controlled cancer screening trial.

Objective: Despite the prevalence of hypogonadism (HG) and widespread use of testosterone therapy, little is known about the safety/effectiveness of long-term testosterone use. The Registry of Hypogonadism in Men (RHYME) is a multi-national patient registry assessing prostate health and other outcomes associated with testosterone treatment in men., Design: Observational patient disease registry., Methods: RHYME is a non-interventional disease registry with longitudinal data collection on a large sample (N = 999) of well-characterized, hypogonadal men aged 18 years or older. The Registry will prospectively evaluate male patients diagnosed with HG, who have not previously been treated with testosterone therapy. Key design features include: (1) broad inclusion/exclusion criteria, (2) standardized central laboratory hormone assays, (3) independent adjudication of prostate biopsies and mortalities, (4) standard of care treatment, (5) comprehensive medical record and questionnaire data at six months and annually post-enrollment and (6) adequate statistical power for assessing prostate endpoints at 36 months., Results: A total of 25 clinical sites in six European countries (Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) have completed recruitment for the study. Recruitment was initiated in May 2009, and completed in December 2011. Data collection is ongoing with a minimum of two years of follow-up on all patients.

Objectives: To assess the effect of screening in terms of excess mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)., Methods: A total of 141,578 men aged 55–69 were randomized to systematic screening or usual care in ERSPC sections in Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. The excess number of deaths was defined as the difference between the observed number of deaths in the prostate cancer (PC)patients and the expected number of deaths up to 31 December 2006. The expected number was derived from mortality of all study participants before a diagnosis with PC adjusted for study centre,study arm and study attendance. The excess mortality rates were compared between the two study arms., Results: The PC incidence was 9.25 per 1000 person-years in the intervention arm and 5.49 per 1000 person-years in the control arm, relative risk (RR) 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI]1.62–1.76). The excess mortality among men with PC was 0.29 per 1000 person-years in the intervention arm and 0.37 per 1000 person-years in the control arm; the RR for excess mortality was 0.77 (95% CI 0.55–1.08). The absolute risk reduction in the excess mortality was 0.08 per 1000 person-years. The overall mortality was not significantly different between the intervention and the control arms of the study: RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.96–1.01)., Conclusions: Although the reduction in excess mortality was not statistically significant, the between arm reduction in excess mortality rate was in line with the previously reported 20% reduction in the disease-specific mortality. This finding indicates that the reduction in PC mortality in the ERSPC trial cannot be due to a bias in cause of death adjudication.

Active surveillance (AS) is an important management strategy for men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The need for AS is increasing due to the awareness that many PCa are identified that show a low growth potential and therefore are likely to remain clinically asymptomatic during the lifetime of an individual. Currently there is no good method to prevent the overdiagnosis of indolent cancers upfront. During the last decade, several studies on AS around the world have made observations that feed the discussion on how to select and monitor these patients, how to proceed with the research to develop a better and more precise clinical definition of indolent cancers and how to manage men under AS clinically. Furthermore, patients' perspectives have become clearer, and quality of life studies give direction to the practical approach and care for patients and partners. This paper reflects the consensus on the state of the art and the future direction of AS, based on the Inside Track Conference "Active Surveillance for low risk prostate cancer" (Chairmen: C.H. Bangma, NL, and L. Klotz, CA; Co-Chairmen: L.J. Denis, BE, and C. Parker, UK; Scientific Coordinators: M. J. Roobol, NL, and E.W. Steyerberg, NL), organized by the European School of Oncology in collaboration with Europa Uomo in Rotterdam, the Netherlands in January 2012. Topics for discussion were the optimisation of patient selection based on indolent disease definition, the incorporation of therapeutic agents into AS programs, the optimisation of patient care, and the application of emerging technologies and biomarkers., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: Study Type--Therapy (outcomes) Level of Evidence 2b. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Active surveillance aims to reduce overtreatment by selecting patients with low risk prostate cancer (PCa) based on favourable disease characteristics. However, most studies on active surveillance do not have long-term results available; in particular, data on patients with intermediate risk disease are lacking. Our findings demonstrate that withholding radical treatment in men with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized PCa leads to a substantial delay or even avoidance of radical treatment in a majority of men. Favourable disease-specific outcomes confirm the feasibility of active surveillance for low risk PCa and also support a role for active surveillance in selected patients with intermediate risk PCa., Objective: • To assess the longer-term feasibility of active surveillance, we aimed to evaluate outcomes of patients with screen-detected localized prostate cancer (PCa) who initially elected to withhold radical treatment for either low or intermediate risk disease., Patients and Methods: • All men underwent screening for PCa in the Rotterdam and Helsinki arms of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC); eligible men were diagnosed with PCa prior to the establishment of the ERSPC-affiliated Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study (1994-2007) and were initially expectantly managed in the absence of a fixed follow-up protocol. • Low risk PCa was defined as clinical stage T1/T2, PSA ≤ 10 ng/mL, PSA density < 0.2 ng/mL/mL, Gleason ≤ 6 and maximum two positive biopsy cores, whereas PSA 10-20 ng/mL, Gleason score 7 and three positive biopsy cores were considered intermediate risk features. • Disease-specific, overall and treatment-free survival were analysed using the Kaplan-Meier and competing risks methods., Results: • In all, 509 patients with PCa were eligible, of whom 381 were considered low risk and 128 intermediate risk. • During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, a total of 221 patients (43.4%) switched to deferred treatment after a median of 2.6 years. • The calculated 10-year disease-specific survival rates were 99.1% and 96.1% for low and intermediate risk patients, respectively (P = 0.44), and for overall survival 79.0% and 64.5%, respectively (P = 0.003). • Competing risks analysis showed similar results., Conclusions: • Withholding radical treatment in men with low to intermediate risk screen-detected PCa leads to a substantial delay or even avoidance of radical treatment and its potential side-effects in a majority of patients. • Disease-specific outcomes at 7.4 years of follow-up are favourable in low as well as intermediate risk patients. • This confirms the feasibility of active surveillance according to contemporary criteria, and also suggests a potential role for active surveillance in selected men with intermediate risk features., (© 2012 BJU INTERNATIONAL.)

Unlabelled: Study Type--Diagnosis (validating cohort) Level of Evidence 1b. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) showed a reduction in prostate cancer mortality of 21% for PSA-based screening at a median follow-up of 11 years. In the ERSPC, men are screened at 4-year intervals. A prostate biopsy is recommended for men with a PSA level ≥ 3.0 ng/mL. The study shows that the positive predictive value (PPV) of a prostate biopsy indicated by PSA-based screening remains equal throughout consecutive screening rounds in men without a previous biopsy. In men who have previously had a benign biopsy, the PPV drops considerably, but 20% of the cancers detected still show aggressive characteristics., Objective: • To assess the positive predictive value (PPV) of prostate biopsy, indicated by a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) threshold of ≥ 3.0 ng/mL, over time, in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)., Patients and Methods: • In the Rotterdam section of the ERSPC, a total of 42,376 participants, aged 55-74 years, identified from population registries were randomly assigned to a screening or control arm. • For the ERSPC men undergo PSA screening at 4-year intervals. A total of three screening rounds were evaluated; therefore, only men aged 55-69 years at the first screening were eligible for the present study., Results: • PPVs for men without previous biopsy remained equal throughout the three subsequent screenings (25.5, 22.3 and 24.8% respectively). • Conversely, PPVs for men with a previous negative biopsy dropped significantly (12.0 and 15.2% at the second and third screening, respectively). • Additionally, in men with and without previous biopsy, the percentage of aggressive prostate cancers (clinical stage >T2b, Gleason score ≥ 7) decreased after the first round of screening from 44.4 to 23.8% in the second (P < 0.001) and 18.6% in the third round (P < 0.001). • Repeat biopsies accounted for 24.6% of all biopsies, but yielded only 8.6% of all aggressive cancers., Conclusions: • In consecutive screening rounds the PPV of PSA-based screening remains equal in previously unbiopsied men. • In men with a previous negative biopsy the PPV drops considerably, but 20% of cancers detected still show aggressive characteristics. • Individualized screening algorithms should incorporate previous biopsy status in the decision to perform a repeat biopsy with the aim of further reducing unnecessary biopsies., (© 2012 BJU INTERNATIONAL.)

Background: Metastatic disease is a major morbidity of prostate cancer (PCa). Its prevention is an important goal., Objective: To assess the effect of screening for PCa on the incidence of metastatic disease in a randomized trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: Data were available for 76,813 men aged 55-69 yr coming from four centers of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). The presence of metastatic disease was evaluated by imaging or by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values >100 ng/ml at diagnosis and during follow-up., Intervention: Regular screening based on serum PSA measurements was offered to 36270 men randomized to the screening arm, while no screening was provided to the 40543 men in the control arm., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The Nelson-Aalen technique and Poisson regression were used to calculate cumulative incidence and rate ratios of M+ disease., Results and Limitations: After a median follow-up of 12 yr, 666 men with M+ PCa were detected, 256 in the screening arm and 410 in the control arm, resulting in cumulative incidence of 0.67% and 0.86% per 1000 men, respectively (p<0.001). This finding translated into a relative reduction of 30% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.82; p=0.001) in the intention-to-screen analysis and a 42% (p=0.0001) reduction for men who were actually screened. An absolute risk reduction of metastatic disease of 3.1 per 1000 men randomized (0.31%) was found. A large discrepancy was seen when comparing the rates of M+ detected at diagnosis and all M+ cases that emerged during the total follow-up period, a 50% reduction (HR: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.41-0.62) versus the 30% reduction. The main limitation is incomplete explanation of the lack of an effect of screening during follow-up., Conclusions: PSA screening significantly reduces the risk of developing metastatic PCa. However, despite earlier diagnosis with screening, certain men still progress and develop metastases. The ERSPC trial is registered under number ISRCTN49127736., (Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been widely applied to diagnosis and follow-up of prostate cancer, which led to research on its potential role in the early detection of the disease and its use in screening. • The value of PSA screening in reducing disease mortality is controversial and several studies have been conducted to determine the actual benefits. One of the early studies, the Tyrol Screening Study conducted in 1993, showed that during 2004 to 2008 there was a significant reduction in prostate cancer mortality in men aged >60 years compared with the mortality rate during 1989 to 1993. • Two studies that showed no benefit of screening in terms of prostate cancer death were conducted in Sweden in 1987 and 1988. • The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Study conducted in the USA during 1993 to 2001 and involving 76,693 men showed no benefit of screening at 10 years but the trial can be criticised due to excessive contamination of the unscreened group. • In contrast, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), the largest randomised study with 162,388 participants study, showed that at a median follow-up of 9 years a prostate cancer mortality reduction of 20% resulted (P= 0.04). In an analysis limited to four ERSPC centres with a follow-up of 12.0 years, screening resulted in an overall reduction of metastatic disease of 31%. • The arguments against PSA screening include the risks associated with screening tests themselves, e.g. biopsy-related haematuria, urosepsis, and over diagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. The overall evidence points in favour of PSA screening and steps can be taken to avoid overtreatment by offering patients active surveillance., (© 2012 THE AUTHOR. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2012 BJU INTERNATIONAL.)

Objective: To assess the impact of different study designs on outcome data within the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)., Methods: Observed data from the Gothenburg centre (effectiveness trial with upfront randomization before informed consent) and the Rotterdam centre (efficacy trial with randomization after informed consent) were compared with expected data, which were retrieved from national cancer registries and life tables. Endpoints were 11-year cumulative prostate cancer (PC) incidence, overall mortality and PC-specific mortality., Results: In Gothenburg, the 11-year PC incidence was higher than predicted (5.8%) in both the intervention (12.4%) and control arms (7.3%). The observed overall mortality was higher than predicted (15.9%) in both the intervention (17.8%) and control arms (18.5%). The observed PC-specific mortality in the intervention arm was 0.56% versus 0.83% in the control arm, while the expected mortality was 0.83%. In Rotterdam, the observed PC incidence in the intervention arm (10.4%) was higher than expected (4.4%). The incidence in the control arm was 4.6%. The observed overall mortality was lower than expected: 13.6% in the intervention arm and 14.0% in the control arm versus an expected mortality of 16.1%. The observed PC-specific mortality was lower than expected (0.65%) in both the intervention (0.27%) and control arms (0.41%)., Conclusions: Our results suggest that an efficacy trial with informed consent prior to randomization may have introduced a 'healthy screenee bias'. Therefore, an effectiveness trial with consent after randomization may more accurately estimate the PC-specific mortality reduction if population-based screening is introduced.

Background: After 11 years of follow-up, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) reported a 29% reduction in prostate-cancer mortality among men who underwent screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. However, the extent to which harms to quality of life resulting from overdiagnosis and treatment counterbalance this benefit is uncertain., Methods: On the basis of ERSPC follow-up data, we used Microsimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN) to predict the number of prostate cancers, treatments, deaths, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained after the introduction of PSA screening. Various screening strategies, efficacies, and quality-of-life assumptions were modeled., Results: Per 1000 men of all ages who were followed for their entire life span, we predicted that annual screening of men between the ages of 55 and 69 years would result in nine fewer deaths from prostate cancer (28% reduction), 14 fewer men receiving palliative therapy (35% reduction), and a total of 73 life-years gained (average, 8.4 years per prostate-cancer death avoided). The number of QALYs that were gained was 56 (range, -21 to 97), a reduction of 23% from unadjusted life-years gained. To prevent one prostate-cancer death, 98 men would need to be screened and 5 cancers would need to be detected. Screening of all men between the ages of 55 and 74 would result in more life-years gained (82) but the same number of QALYs (56)., Conclusions: The benefit of PSA screening was diminished by loss of QALYs owing to postdiagnosis long-term effects. Longer follow-up data from both the ERSPC and quality-of-life analyses are essential before universal recommendations regarding screening can be made. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others.).

Unlabelled: Study Type - Prognosis (case control). Level of Evidence 3a. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Treatment of advanced PC might put patients at an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Recent studies have suggested that the excess mortality is lower among men who were diagnosed with screen detected PC in comparison to men with clinically diagnosed PC, possibly due to the use of medications for cardiovascular disease and the change to a healthier lifestyle of men with a screen detected PC. Men with clinically diagnosed PC have an increased risk of death unrelated to PC itself, i.e., the excess mortality is based on an increased risk of dying from other neoplasm and diseases of the circulatory or respiratory system., Objective: • To assess the cause-specific mortality unrelated to prostate cancer (PC) itself in patients with screen- and clinically diagnosed PC., Patients and Methods: • The present study was conducted among participants of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. • Based on consensus of the causes of death committee (CODC), all patients who died from PC were excluded. • In the intervention arm, cases were patients with a screen-detected PC, aged 55-74 years, between 1993 and 2001. • These cases were matched to two controls in whom no cancer was found after biopsy, and two controls in whom no cancer was suspected after screening. In the control arm, cases were patients with clinically diagnosed PC, aged 55-74 years, between 1993 and 2001. These cases were matched to four controls without PC. Matching was done with respect to date of birth, screening and/or diagnosis. Men were followed up to 31 December 2007., Results: • No statistically significant difference in overall mortality between cases and controls in the intervention arm was observed: relative risk (RR) 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.65; P = 0.102) and RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.86-1.47; P = 0.381). • In the control arm, the overall mortality was statistically significantly higher in cases relative to controls: RR 1.43 (95% CI 1.03-2.00; P = 0.033). • This difference was because of an increased risk of dying from neoplasms and disease of the circulatory or respiratory system among cases: RR 1.61 (95% CI 1.12-2.29; P = 0.009). • The present study was limited by the relatively small sample size., Conclusions: • Increased mortality unrelated to PC itself was observed in men with clinically diagnosed PC, but not in screen-detected PC. • The excess mortality in men with clinically diagnosed PC seems to be as a result of a significantly increased risk of dying from neoplasm and disease of the circulatory or respiratory system. • Results have to be studied more thoroughly in further clinical trials., (© 2012 BJU INTERNATIONAL.)

Background: The complications of prostate needle biopsy (PNB) are important when considering the benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening. Studies from the United States and Canada have recently reported increasing numbers of hospitalizations for infectious complications after PNB., Objective: Examine the risk of infectious complications and hospital admissions after PNB in a European screening trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: From 1993 to 2011, 10 474 PNBs were performed in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (Rotterdam section). Prophylaxis originally consisted of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Beginning in 2008, it was changed to ciprofloxacin., Measurements: Febrile complications and hospital admissions were assessed by questionnaires 2 wk after PNB. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for biopsy-related fever and hospital admission., Results and Limitations: Fever and hospital admission were reported on 392 of 9241 questionnaires (4.2%) and 78 of 9198 questionnaires (0.8%), respectively. Although most fevers were managed on an outpatient basis, 81% of hospital admissions were for infection. Of the 56 available blood cultures, 34 were positive with Escherichia coli as the predominant organism. On multivariable analysis, prostate enlargement and diabetes were significantly associated with an increased risk of fever after PNB, whereas later year of biopsy was the only factor significantly associated with an increased risk of hospital admission., Conclusions: In a European screening trial, <5% PNBs resulted in febrile complications. Significant risk factors included diabetes and prostatic enlargement. Although most fevers were managed on an outpatient basis, infection remained the leading cause of hospital admission after PNB. Consistent with prior international reports, the frequency of hospital admissions after PNB significantly increased over time. Nevertheless, the absolute frequency of hospital admissions related to PNB was low and should not dissuade healthy men who would benefit from early prostate cancer diagnosis from undergoing biopsy when clinically indicated., (Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: We developed a korean prostate cancer risk calculator (KPCRC) for predicting the probability of a positive initial prostate biopsy using clinical and laboratory data from a Korean male population (http://pcrc.korea.ac.kr). We compared its performance to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and the Prostate Risk Calculator 3 (PRC 3) based on data from the Dutch part of European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), which predicts biopsy results for previously unscreened men., Methods: Data were collected from 602 Korean men who were previously unscreened and underwent initial ten-core prostate biopsies. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the significant predictors. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots of both calculators were evaluated., Results: Prostate cancer (PCa) was detected in 172 (28.6%) men. Independent predictors of a positive biopsy included advanced age, elevated PSA levels, reduced volume of the transition zone, and abnormal digital rectal examination findings. The AUC of the KPCRC was higher than the PRC 3 and PSA alone on internal and external validation. Calibration plots of the KPCRC showed better performance than the other models on internal and external validation. Applying a cut-off of 10% of KPCRC implied that 251 of the 602 men (42%) would not have been biopsied and that 12 of the 172 PCa cases (7%) would not have been diagnosed., Conclusions: The KPCRC improves the performance of the PRC 3 and PSA testing in predicting Korean population's risk of PCa. It implies that Asian populations need their own risk calculators for PCa., (Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: To evaluate the discrimination, calibration, and net benefit performance of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPTRC) across five European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), 1 United Kingdom, 1 Austrian, and 3 US biopsy cohorts., Methods: PCPTRC risks were calculated for 25,733 biopsies using prostate-specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination, family history, history of prior biopsy, and imputation for missing covariates. Predictions were evaluated using the areas underneath the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), discrimination slopes, chi-square tests of goodness of fit, and net benefit decision curves., Results: AUCs of the PCPTRC ranged from a low of 56% in the ERSPC Goeteborg Rounds 2-6 cohort to a high of 72% in the ERSPC Goeteborg Round 1 cohort and were statistically significantly higher than that of PSA in 6 out of the 10 cohorts. The PCPTRC was well calibrated in the SABOR, Tyrol, and Durham cohorts. There was limited to no net benefit to using the PCPTRC for biopsy referral compared to biopsying all or no men in all five ERSPC cohorts and benefit within a limited range of risk thresholds in all other cohorts., Conclusions: External validation of the PCPTRC across ten cohorts revealed varying degree of success highly dependent on the cohort, most likely due to different criteria for and work-up before biopsy. Future validation studies of new calculators for prostate cancer should acknowledge the potential impact of the specific cohort studied when reporting successful versus failed validation.

Objectives: To compare the predictive performance and potential clinical usefulness of risk calculators of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC RC) with and without information on prostate volume., Methods: We studied 6 cohorts (5 European and 1 US) with a total of 15,300 men, all biopsied and with pre-biopsy TRUS measurements of prostate volume. Volume was categorized into 3 categories (25, 40, and 60 cc), to reflect use of digital rectal examination (DRE) for volume assessment. Risks of prostate cancer were calculated according to a ERSPC DRE-based RC (including PSA, DRE, prior biopsy, and prostate volume) and a PSA + DRE model (including PSA, DRE, and prior biopsy). Missing data on prostate volume were completed by single imputation. Risk predictions were evaluated with respect to calibration (graphically), discrimination (AUC curve), and clinical usefulness (net benefit, graphically assessed in decision curves)., Results: The AUCs of the ERSPC DRE-based RC ranged from 0.61 to 0.77 and were substantially larger than the AUCs of a model based on only PSA + DRE (ranging from 0.56 to 0.72) in each of the 6 cohorts. The ERSPC DRE-based RC provided net benefit over performing a prostate biopsy on the basis of PSA and DRE outcome in five of the six cohorts., Conclusions: Identifying men at increased risk for having a biopsy detectable prostate cancer should consider multiple factors, including an estimate of prostate volume.

Context: Widespread mass screening of prostate cancer (PCa) is not recommended because the balance between benefits and harms is still not well established. The achieved mortality reduction comes with considerable harm such as unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnoses, and overtreatment. Therefore, patient stratification with regard to PCa risk and aggressiveness is necessary to identify those men who are at risk and may actually benefit from early detection., Objective: This review critically examines the current evidence regarding risk-based PCa screening., Evidence Acquisition: A search of the literature was performed using the Medline database. Further studies were selected based on manual searches of reference lists and review articles., Evidence Synthesis: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been shown to be the single most significant predictive factor for identifying men at increased risk of developing PCa. Especially in men with no additional risk factors, PSA alone provides an appropriate marker up to 30 yr into the future. After assessment of an early PSA test, the screening frequency may be determined based on individualized risk. A limited list of additional factors such as age, comorbidity, prostate volume, family history, ethnicity, and previous biopsy status have been identified to modify risk and are important for consideration in routine practice. In men with a known PSA, risk calculators may hold the promise of identifying those who are at increased risk of having PCa and are therefore candidates for biopsy., Conclusions: PSA testing may serve as the foundation for a more risk-based assessment. However, the decision to undergo early PSA testing should be a shared one between the patient and his physician based on information balancing its advantages and disadvantages., (Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several trials evaluating the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing on prostate-cancer mortality have shown conflicting results. We updated prostate-cancer mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer with 2 additional years of follow-up., Methods: The study involved 182,160 men between the ages of 50 and 74 years at entry, with a predefined core age group of 162,388 men 55 to 69 years of age. The trial was conducted in eight European countries. Men who were randomly assigned to the screening group were offered PSA-based screening, whereas those in the control group were not offered such screening. The primary outcome was mortality from prostate cancer., Results: After a median follow-up of 11 years in the core age group, the relative reduction in the risk of death from prostate cancer in the screening group was 21% (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.91; P=0.001), and 29% after adjustment for noncompliance. The absolute reduction in mortality in the screening group was 0.10 deaths per 1000 person-years or 1.07 deaths per 1000 men who underwent randomization. The rate ratio for death from prostate cancer during follow-up years 10 and 11 was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.85; P=0.003). To prevent one death from prostate cancer at 11 years of follow-up, 1055 men would need to be invited for screening and 37 cancers would need to be detected. There was no significant between-group difference in all-cause mortality., Conclusions: Analyses after 2 additional years of follow-up consolidated our previous finding that PSA-based screening significantly reduced mortality from prostate cancer but did not affect all-cause mortality. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN49127736.).

In prostate cancer genomic rearrangements involving genes encoding ETS transcription factors are commonly present, with androgen-regulated transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMPRSS2)-v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogen homologue (ERG) gene fusion occurring in 40-70%. Studies on the predictive value of ERG rearrangement as detected by in-situ hybridization or polymerase chain reaction have resulted in varying outcomes. The objective of this study was to correlate immunohistochemical ERG protein expression with clinico-pathological parameters at radical prostatectomy specimens, and to determine its predictive value for postoperative disease recurrence and progression in a prostate cancer screening cohort. Since androgen receptor is downregulated by ERG in cell lines, we also compared the expression of respective proteins. We selected 481 participants from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer treated by radical prostatectomy for prostate adenocarcinoma. A tissue microarray was constructed containing representative cores of all prostate cancer specimens as well as 22 xenografts and seven cell lines. Immunohistochemical expression of ERG and androgen receptor was correlated with prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason sum, pT-stage, surgical margins, biochemical recurrence, local recurrence, overall death and disease-specific death. ERG expression was detected in 284 patients (65%). Expression occurred significantly more frequent in patients with PSA ≤10 ng/ml (P=0.024). There was no significant association between ERG and Gleason sum, pT-stage or surgical margin status. PSA (P=0.011), Gleason sum (P=0.003), pT-stage (P=0.001) and surgical margin status (P<0.001) all had independent value for postoperative biochemical recurrence, while positive surgical margin (P=0.021) was the only independent predictor for local recurrence. ERG protein expression did not have prognostic value for the clinical end points in uni- and multivariate analyses. A positive correlation existed between ERG and androgen receptor expression in single tissue cores (P<0.001). In conclusion, immunohistochemical ERG expression has no predictive value for prostate cancer recurrence or progression after radical prostatectomy. Increasing ERG levels are associated with the upregulation of androgen receptor expression in clinical specimens.

Background: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators (RCs) are validated tools for prostate cancer (PCa) risk assessment and include prostate volume (PV) data from transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)., Objective: Develop and validate an RC based on digital rectal examination (DRE) that circumvents the need for TRUS but still includes information on PV., Design, Setting, and Participants: For development of the DRE-based RC, we studied the original ERSPC Rotterdam RC population including 3624 men (885 PCa cases) and 2896 men (547 PCa cases) detected at first and repeat screening 4 yr later, respectively. A validation cohort consisted of 322 men, screened in 2010-2011 as participants in ERSPC Rotterdam., Measurements: Data on TRUS-assessed PV in the development cohorts were re-coded into three categories (25, 40, and 60 cm3) to assess the loss of information by categorization of volume information. New RCs including PSA, DRE, and PV categories (DRE-based RC) were developed for men with and without a previous negative biopsy to predict overall and clinically significant PCa (high-grade [HG] PCa) defined as T stage>T2b and/or Gleason score≥7. Predictive accuracy was quantified by the area under the receiver operating curve. We compared performance with the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) RC in the validation study., Results and Limitations: Areas under the curve (AUC) of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) alone, PSA and DRE, the DRE-based RC, and the original ERSPC RC to predict PCa at initial biopsy were 0.69, 0.73, 0.77, and 0.79, respectively. The corresponding AUCs for predicting HG PCa were higher (0.74, 0.82, 0.85, and 0.86). Similar results were seen in men previously biopsied and in the validation cohort. The DRE-based RC outperformed the PCPT RC (AUC 0.69 vs 0.59; p=0.0001) and a model based on PSA and DRE only (AUC 0.69 vs 0.63; p=0.0075) in the relatively small validation cohort. Further validation is required., Conclusions: An RC should contain volume estimates based either on TRUS or DRE. Replacing TRUS measurements by DRE estimates may enhance implementation in the daily practice of urologists and general practitioners., (Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The rate of decrease in advanced cancers is an estimate for determining prostate cancer (PCa) screening program effectiveness., Objective: Assess the effectiveness of PCa screening programs using a 2- or 4-yr screening interval., Design, Setting, and Participants: Men aged 55-64 yr were participants at two centers of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer: Gothenburg, Sweden (2-yr screening interval, n=4202), and Rotterdam, the Netherlands (4-yr screening interval, n=13 301). We followed participants until the date of PCa, the date of death, or the last follow-up at December 31, 2008, or up to a maximum of 12 yr after initial screening. Potentially life-threatening (advanced) cancer was defined as cancer with at least one of following characteristics: clinical stage ≥T3a, M1, or N1; serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20.0 ng/ml; or Gleason score ≥8 at biopsy., Intervention: We compared the proportional total (advanced) cancer incidence (screen-detected and interval cases), defined as the ratio of the observed number of (advanced) cancers to the expected numbers of (advanced) cancers based on the control arm of the study., Measurements: The proportional cancer incidence from the second screening round until the end of observation was compared using a 2- or 4-yr screening interval., Results and Limitations: From screening round 2 until the end of observation, the proportional cancer incidence was 3.64 in Gothenburg and 3.08 in Rotterdam (relative risk [RR]: 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.33; p=0.009). The proportional advanced cancer incidence was 0.40 in Gothenburg and 0.69 in Rotterdam (RR: 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.99; p=0.048); the RR for detection of low-risk PCa was 1.46 (95% CI, 1.25-1.71; p<0.001). This study was limited by the assumption that PSA testing in the control arm was similar in both centers., Conclusions: A 2-yr screening interval significantly reduced the incidence of advanced PCa; however, the 2-yr interval increased the overall risk of being diagnosed with (low-risk) PCa compared with a 4-yr interval in men aged 55-64 yr. Individualized screening algorithms must be improved to provide the strategy for this issue., (Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) represents one of the most effective systemic palliative treatments known for solid tumors. Although clinical trials have assessed the role of ADT in patients with metastatic and advanced locoregional disease, the risk-benefit ratio, especially in earlier stages, remains poorly defined. Given the mounting evidence for potentially life-threatening adverse effects with short- and long-term ADT, it is important to redefine the role of ADT for this disease., Objective: Review the published experience with currently available ADT approaches in various contemporary clinical settings of PCa and reported serious treatment-related adverse events. This review addresses the level of evidence associated with the use of ADT in PCa, focusing upon survival outcome measures. Furthermore, this paper discusses evolving approaches targeting androgen receptor signaling pathways and emerging evidence from clinical trials with newer compounds., Evidence Acquisition: A comprehensive review of the literature was performed, focusing on data from the last 10 yr (January 2000 to July 2011) and using the terms androgen deprivation, hormone treatment, prostate cancer and adverse effects. Abstracts from trials reported at international conferences held in 2010 and 2011 were also evaluated., Evidence Synthesis: Data from randomized controlled trials and population-based studies were analyzed in different clinical paradigms. Specifically, the role of ADT was evaluated in patients with nonmetastatic disease as the primary and sole treatment, in combination with radiation therapy (RT) or after surgery, and in patients with metastatic disease. The data suggest that in men with nonmetastatic disease, the use of primary ADT as monotherapy has not shown a benefit and is not recommended, while ADT combined with conventional-dose RT (<72Gy) for patients with high-risk disease may delay progression and prolong survival. The postoperative use of ADT remains poorly evaluated in prospective studies. Likewise, there are no trials evaluating the role of ADT in patients with biochemical relapses after surgery or RT. In patients with metastatic disease, there is a clear benefit in terms of quality of life, reduction of disease-associated morbidity, and possibly survival. Treatment with bilateral orchiectomy, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy, with and without antiandrogens has been associated with various serious adverse events, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and skeletal complications that may also affect mortality., Conclusions: Although ADT is an effective treatment of PCa, consistent long-term benefits in terms of quality and quantity of life are predominantly evident in patients with advanced/metastatic disease or when ADT is used in combination with RT (<72Gy) in patients with high-risk tumors. Implementation of ADT should be evidence based, with special consideration to adverse events and the risk-benefit ratio., (Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The prostate may often harbor a prostate cancer (PC) which will not cause morbidity if left untreated. Screening for PC leads to increased detection of these insignificant cancers. Objective of this study is to compare PC detected by PSA screening at subsequent screening rounds and treated by radical prostatectomy (RP) with PC incidentally found in cystoprostatectomy specimens., Methods: Radical prostatectomy specimens of 617 screen-detected PC were compared with 123 PC identified in cystoprostatectomy specimens. Surgical specimens were systematically examined and stage, grade, tumor volume were recorded. Next, we classified PC as clinically significant or insignificant (i.e., tumor volume <0.5 cm(3), absence of Gleason pattern 4/5, organ confined). Pathological features of incidentally detected PC were compared with PC detected in subsequent screening rounds and with screen-detected T1c PC., Results: Screen-detected PC overall were more often multifocal, larger in volume, more advanced in tumor stage and of higher grade, while the frequency of insignificant PC was lower as compared to those in cystoprostatectomy specimens. This effect became more pronounced during subsequent screening rounds. Screen-detected T1c PC were also more often multifocal (73% vs. 37%) in average fivefold larger (0.85 cm(3) vs. 0.16 cm(3)), less often organ confined (81% vs. 94%), and less frequently clinically insignificant (33% vs. 81%)., Conclusions: Screen-detected (T1c) PC treated with RP shows more aggressive features than incidentally found PC. This PSA screening-related selection seems to be mainly driven by tumor volume and-in later screening rounds-by the preferential treatment by prostatectomy of more aggressive PC., (Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

We aim to identify and characterize "escapes," men who developed metastasis and/or died from prostate cancer (PCa) despite screening, in the framework of the novel international ESCAPE-project. With this knowledge, the ultimate goal is to improve screening strategy. In this article, we focus on the study cohort of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), section Rotterdam. In all, 21,210 men were randomized to the screening arm of whom 19,950 were actually screened. The screening interval was 4 years. Men with prostate-specific antigen ≥3.0 ng/ml were recommended to undergo lateralized sextant prostate biopsy. The follow-up was complete until January 1, 2009. Of 19,950 screened men, 2,317 were diagnosed with PCa. Of these cancers 1,946 were detected in a screening round and 371 during an interval. The median follow-up was 11.1 years for the whole cohort and 7.3 years for men diagnosed with PCa. In total, we identified 168 escapes among 2,317 cancers (7.3%) within our screening cohort of 19,950 men (0.8%). More than half of these escapes were found in the initial screening round (94 of 168). Possible mechanisms behind escaping are nonattending, inadequate screening tests, the relative long screening interval, the age cut-off at 75 years, and undertreatment. International cooperation is crucial to compare the escapes of our cohort with other study groups participating in the ESCAPE-project which have different, more aggressive screening strategies. Subsequently, we can achieve improvements of the current screening algorithm, which hopefully will further decrease PCa-specific mortality without increasing overdiagnosis and overtreatment., (Copyright © 2011 UICC.)

Introduction: Value of characteristics assessed prior to diagnosis predicting aggressive prostate cancer, metastases and mortality in men participating in a screening study were identified., Materials and Methods: This study included 19950 men, aged 55 to 74 years at first screening, in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Age, Charlson comorbidity, prostate cancer family history, vasectomy status, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) score, digital rectal examination (DRE) status, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) findings, prostate volume and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level were assessed. Men were followed for median 11.1 years after first screening visit. Multivariate estimates of the probability of aggressive prostate cancer [stage ≥ T2c, or N1, M1, PSA > 20 ng/mL, or Gleason score ≥ 8], developing distant metastases and dying from prostate cancer stratified for predictors measured before prostate biopsies. Harrell's concordance index (c-index) was used for predictive accuracy., Results: Among 19950 men, 2420 men (12.1%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer, of which 623 men (3.1%) had aggressive prostate cancer, 157 men (0.8%) developed metastases and 104 men (0.5%) died due to a prostate cancer related cause of death. In multivariate analysis, PSA, DRE, TRUS findings and prostate volume had a significant association with detection of aggressive prostate cancer, metastases and prostate cancer mortality. Family history was significantly associated with aggressive prostate cancer. Accuracy for predicting aggressive prostate cancer c-index = 0.90, distant metastases c-index = 0.87, and prostate cancer specific mortality c-index = 0.87., Conclusions: In a large population of men who were screened for prostate cancer, detection of aggressive prostate cancer, metastases and prostate cancer mortality was predicted based on predictors available before biopsy. These results support the value of a multivariate risk assessment and stratification tools.

Objectives: • To investigate whether cysteine-rich secretory protein 3 (CRISP-3) and/or β-microseminoprotein (β-MSP) expression in diagnostic prostate needle biopsies have predictive value for prostate cancer (PC) on radical prostatecomy (RP). • To evaluate their potential clinical implementation in a preoperative setting., Patients and Methods: • In total, 174 participants from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam section, treated by RP for PC were included in the present study. • CRISP-3 and β-MSP immunohistochemistry was performed on corresponding diagnostic needle biopsies. • Outcome was correlated with clinicopathological parameters (prostate-specific-antigen, PSA; number of positive biopsies; Gleason score, GS; pT-stage; surgical margins at RP) and significant PC at RP (pT3/4, or GS > 6, or tumour volume ≥ 0.5 mL) in the total cohort (n= 174) and in a subgroup with low-risk features at biopsy (PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml, cT ≤ 2, PSA density <0.20 ng/mL/g, GS < 7 and ≤ 2 positive biopsy cores; n= 87)., Results: • β-MSP and CRISP-3 expression in PC tissue was heterogeneous, with variable staining intensities occurring in the same tissue specimen. • High expression of β-MSP significantly correlated with GS < 7 at RP; it was not a predictor for significant PC at RP neither in the total group (n= 174; odds ratio, OR, 0.319; 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.060-1.695; P= 0.180), nor in the low-risk group (n= 87; OR, 0.227; 95% CI, 0.040-1.274; P= 0.092). • CRISP-3 expression was not related to clinicopathological parameters, and did not predict significant PC at RP in the total group (n= 174; OR, 1.056; 95% CI, 0.438-2.545; P= 0.904) or the low-risk group (n= 87; OR, 1.856; 95% CI, 0.626-5.506; P= 0.265)., Conclusions: • High β-MSP expression correlated with low GS in subsequent RP specimens, supporting the view that β-MSP exerts a tumour-suppressive effect. • No significant prognostic value of β-MSP or CRISP-3 in prostate needle biopsies for significant PC at RP was found. • β-MSP or CRISP-3 do not have additional value in the therapeutic stratification of patients with PC., (© 2011 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL.)

Background: In a screening program, interval cancers are cancers diagnosed between two screening visits., Objective: To assess the disease-specific survival (DSS) of men with prostate cancer (PCa) detected during the screening interval., Design, Setting, and Participants: Within the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer section Rotterdam, 42 376 men identified from population registries (55-74 yr of age) were randomized to a screening or control arm. The median follow-up was 11 yr., Intervention: Men with prostate-specific antigen ≥ 3.0 ng/ml were recommended to undergo lateralized sextant biopsy. The screening interval was 4 yr., Measurements: The disease-specific mortality of men with interval cancers was compared with that of men with PCa in the control arm; the secondary end point was overall mortality. An independent committee determined the causes of death., Results and Limitations: In the screening arm, 139 men were diagnosed with interval cancer of whom 8 died of the disease. In the control arm, the corresponding numbers were 1149 and 128, respectively. When comparing men with interval cancer to men with PCa in the control arm, no statistically significant difference in disease-specific mortality (hazard ratio [HR]:1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-2.36; p = 0.77) and overall mortality (HR: 0.98; 95% CI, 0.68-1.38; p = 0.90) was found, adjusted for age, prognostic factors, and treatment modality. The follow-up is too limited to address the difference in DSS stratified for screening interval., Conclusions: In the setting of population-based PCa screening at 4-yr intervals, the DSS of men with interval cancer seems to be similar to that of men with PCa in the control arm. Given that interval cancers contribute significantly to PCa mortality, further benefit in DSS in the screening arm may be achieved by decreasing the occurrence of interval cancer. However, the balance between mortality reduction and overdiagnosis should be preserved., Trial Registration: ISRCTN49127736., (Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: • To assess possible excess mortality associated with prostate biopsy among screening participants of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)., Patients and Methods: • From three centres in the ERSPC (Finland, The Netherlands and Sweden) 50,194 screened men aged 50.2-78.4 years were prospectively followed. A cohort of 12,959 first-time screening-positive men (i.e. with biopsy indication) was compared with another cohort of 37,235 first-time screening-negative men. • Overall mortality rates (i.e. other cause than prostate cancer mortality) were calculated and the 120-day and 1-year cumulative mortality were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, with a log-rank test for statistical significance. • Incidence rate ratios (RR) and statistical significance were evaluated using Poisson regression analyses, adjusting for age, total PSA level, screening centre and whether a biopsy indication was present, or whether a biopsy was actually performed or not., Results: • There was no statistically significant difference in cumulative 120-day other cause mortality between the two groups of men: 0.24% (95% CI, 0.17-0.34) for screening-positive men vs 0.24% (95% CI, 0.20-0.30) for screening-negative men (P= 0.96). This implied no excess mortality for screening-positive men. • Screening-positive men who were not biopsied (n= 1238) had a more than fourfold risk of other cause mortality during the first 120 days compared to screening-negative men: RR, 4.52 (95% CI, 2.63-7.74) (P < 0.001), adjusted for age, whereas men who were actually biopsied (n= 11,721) had half the risk: RR, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.23-0.73) (P= 0.002), adjusted for age. • Only 14/31 (45%) of the screening-positive men who died within 120 days were biopsied and none died as an obvious complication to the biopsy., Conclusion: • Prostate biopsy is not associated with excess mortality and fatal complications appear to be very rare., (© 2010 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2010 BJU INTERNATIONAL.)

Background: In 2009, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) was one of two studies to report interim data on the effect of screening for prostate cancer (PC) on the disease specific mortality. Contradictory results caused considerable discussion and misunderstanding in secondary literature., Methods: This document is based on a non systematic review of recent evidence for and against screening for PC, specifically considering three recently published randomized screening trials [ 1-3 ]., Results: The ERSPC data are based on a core age group of 162 387 men, aged 55-69 years, who were identified through population registries in seven European countries. Men were randomized between a screening group that received screening at an average of once every four years and a control group. After a median follow-up of nine years, a reduction in the rate of death from PC by 20% was shown which increased to 31% after adjusting for non-compliance and contamination. Overdetection and subsequent overtreatment (with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 48) are considered to be the major down sides of screening. The recently published 14-year results have shown that these down sides strongly depend on the duration of follow-up. In response to the outcomes of the ERSPC, several points of discussion have been brought up by various authors concerning the usefulness of screening considering benefits, harms and costs, the methodology of the ERSPC and the interpretation of its outcomes. Important issues to address regarding PC screening are addressed., Conclusions: This paper sheds a light on the controversial points of the ERSPC as well as on the priority issues of PC screening. On July 2, 2010 the Swedish section of ERSPC (Göteborg screening trial) published their results with a median follow-up of 14 years. With longer follow-up the data confirm the trend seen in improvement of PC mortality and suggest much more favorable future outcomes also with respect to the NNT to prevent one PC death.

Background: The European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) applies a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) cut-off value ≥3.0 ng/ml as an indication for lateralised sextant biopsy., Objective: To analyse the incidence and disease-specific mortality for prostate cancer (PCa) in men with an initial PSA <3.0 ng/ml., Design, Setting and Participants: From November 1993 to December 1999, a total of 42,376 men identified from population registries in the Rotterdam region (55-74 yr of age) were randomised to an intervention or control arm. A total of 19,950 men were screened during the first screening round., Intervention: A PSA <3.0 ng/ml was below the biopsy threshold. PCa cases were identified at rescreens every 4 yr or as interval cancers., Measurements: Distribution of incidence, aggressiveness, and disease-specific mortality of PCa per PSA range was measured. Causes of death were evaluated by an independent committee, and follow-up was complete until 31 December 2008., Results and Limitations: From 1993 to 2008, 915 PCa cases were diagnosed in 15,758 men (5.8%) with an initial PSA <3.0 ng/ml and a median age of 62.3 yr. Median overall follow-up was 11 yr. PCa incidence increased significantly with higher initial PSA levels. Aggressive PCa (clinical stage ≥T2c, Gleason score ≥8, PSA >20 ng/ml, positive lymph nodes, or metastases at diagnosis) was detected in 66 of 733 screen-detected PCa cases (9.0%) and 72 of 182 interval-detected PCa cases (39.6%). Twenty-three PCa deaths occurred in the total population (0.15%), with an increasing risk of PCa mortality in men with higher initial PSA values., Conclusions: The risk of PCa, aggressive PCa and PCa mortality in a screening population with initial PSA <3.0 ng/ml increases significantly with higher initial PSA levels. These results contribute to the risk stratification and individual management of men in PSA-based screening programmes., (Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prediction models need external validation to assess their value beyond the setting where the model was derived from., Objective: To assess the external validity of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator (www.prostatecancer-riskcalculator.com) for the probability of having a positive prostate biopsy (P(posb))., Design, Setting and Participants: The ERSPC risk calculator was based on data of the initial screening round of the ERSPC section Rotterdam and validated in 1825 and 531 men biopsied at the initial screening round in the Finnish and Swedish sections of the ERSPC respectively. P(posb) was calculated using serum prostate specific antigen (PSA), outcome of digital rectal examination (DRE), transrectal ultrasound and ultrasound assessed prostate volume., Measurements: The external validity was assessed for the presence of cancer at biopsy by calibration (agreement between observed and predicted outcomes), discrimination (separation of those with and without cancer), and decision curves (for clinical usefulness)., Results and Limitations: Prostate cancer was detected in 469 men (26%) of the Finnish cohort and in 124 men (23%) of the Swedish cohort. Systematic miscalibration was present in both cohorts (mean predicted probability 34% versus 26% observed, and 29% versus 23% observed, both p<0.001). The areas under the curves were 0.76 and 0.78, and substantially lower for the model with PSA only (0.64 and 0.68 respectively). The model proved clinically useful for any decision threshold compared with a model with PSA only, PSA and DRE, or biopsying all men. A limitation is that the model is based on sextant biopsies results., Conclusions: The ERSPC risk calculator discriminated well between those with and without prostate cancer among initially screened men, but overestimated the risk of a positive biopsy. Further research is necessary to assess the performance and applicability of the ERSPC risk calculator when a clinical setting is considered rather than a screening setting., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)