Screening for Prostate Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Blood-Based Biomarkers in High Grade Gliomas: a Systematic Review

High-grade gliomas (HGG) are the most common malignant primary brain tumor in adults. During the course of disease, several challenges occur, like measuring tumor burden, monitoring of treatment response, estimating the patient's prognosis, and distinguishing between true progression and pseudo-progression. So far, no blood-based biomarker has been established in the clinical routine to address these challenges. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the present evidence on blood-based biomarkers for HGG. We systematically searched in PubMed, Web of Sciences, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for publications before 30th of March 2018 reporting on associations of blood-based biomarkers in HGG patients with different endpoints as overall survival, progression-free survival, and postoperative monitoring. Quality assessment of the studies according to QUIPS and STARD guidelines was performed. In accordance with the GRADE guidelines, level of evidence (I-IV) for each of the tested biomarkers was assessed. One thousand six hundred eighty unique records were identified. Of these, 170 original articles were included to this review. Four hundred fifteen different blood-based biomarkers analyzed in 15.041 patients with HGG as also their corresponding recurrent tumors. Ten predictive biomarkers reached level II of evidence. No biomarker achieved level I of evidence. In this review, 10 blood-based biomarkers were selected as most promising biomarkers for HGG: α2-Heremans-Schmid glycoprotein (AHSG), albumin, glucose, insulin-like growth factor- binding protein 2 (IGFBP-2), macrophage inflammatory protein 1δ (MIP-1 δ), macrophage inflammatory protein 3ß (MIP-3ß), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), red blood cell distribution width (RDW), soluble glycoprotein 130 (Sgp130), and chitinase-3-like protein 1 (YKL-40). To further assess the clinical significance of these biomarkers, the evaluation in a larger cohort of HGG and their corresponding subgroups would be necessary.

Prostate care and prostate cancer from the perspectives of undiagnosed men: a systematic review of qualitative research

OBJECTIVES

To summarise and evaluate evidence from men who had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer about their perspectives on prostate care and prostate cancer.

DESIGN

A systematic review of qualitative research, on the perspectives of non-cancerous men regarding prostate cancer prevention and care.

SETTING

A wide range of settings including primary and secondary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Men from varied demographic backgrounds ranging between 40 to 80 years of age.

DATA SOURCES

Three databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Informit, PsychInfo) and Google Scholar were searched for peer-reviewed papers in English reporting research using qualitative methods (in-depth or semistructured interviews and focus groups).

REVIEW METHODS

Thematic analysis using inductive and deductive codes. Thematic synthesis was achieved through iterative open, axial and thematic coding.

RESULTS

Eight papers (reporting seven studies conducted in Australia, UK and Germany) met inclusion criteria. Four major themes were identified: understanding prostate cancer, masculinity and prostate cancer, barriers to prostate healthcare and managing prostate health. It was reported that men often did not understand screening, prostate anatomy or their prostate cancer risk, and that concerns about masculinity could deter men from seeking health checks. There was evidence of a need to improve doctor-patient communication about case finding.

CONCLUSION

Further investigation is required to identify and understand any differences in the perspectives and experiences of men who have not been diagnosed with prostate cancer in metropolitan and regional areas, especially where there may be variations in access to healthcare.

Cancer statistics, 2019

Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2015, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2016, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2019, 1,762,450 new cancer cases and 606,880 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2006-2015) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% per year in men, whereas the cancer death rate (2007-2016) declined annually by 1.4% and 1.8%, respectively. The overall cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2016 by a total of 27%, translating into approximately 2,629,200 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Although the racial gap in cancer mortality is slowly narrowing, socioeconomic inequalities are widening, with the most notable gaps for the most preventable cancers. For example, compared with the most affluent counties, mortality rates in the poorest counties were 2-fold higher for cervical cancer and 40% higher for male lung and liver cancers during 2012-2016. Some states are home to both the wealthiest and the poorest counties, suggesting the opportunity for more equitable dissemination of effective cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment strategies. A broader application of existing cancer control knowledge with an emphasis on disadvantaged groups would undoubtedly accelerate progress against cancer.

Shared decision making for men facing prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Aims: To synthesize the empirical evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision making (SDM) compared to usual care for prostate cancer (PC) treatment. Methods and results: A systematic review of academic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, PsychINFO, and Scopus) and grey (clinicaltrials.gov, WHO trial search, meta-Register ISRCTN, Google Scholar, opengrey, and ohri.ca) literature, also identified from contacting authors and hand-searching bibliographies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs): 1) comparing SDM to usual care for decisions about PC treatment, 2) conducted in primary or specialized care, 3) fulfilling the key SDM features, and 4) reporting quantitative outcome data. Four RCTs from Canada (n=3) and the USA were included and comprised 1,065 randomized men, most (89.8%) of whom were in PC stage T1-T2. The studies reported 24 outcome measures. In 62.5% study estimates, SDM was similar to usual care at improving patient satisfaction and mood, and at reducing decisional conflict and decisional regret. In 37.5% study estimates, SDM significantly improved knowledge, perception of being informed and patient-perceived quality of life (QoL) at four weeks. There was a dearth of outcome data, particularly on the adherence to treatment and on patient-important and clinically relevant health outcomes such as symptoms and mortality. Conclusion: SDM may positively influence men's knowledge and may have a positive but short-term effect on patient-perceived QoL. The (long-term) effects of SDM on patient-related outcomes for decisions about PC treatment are unclear. Future research needs consensus about the interventions and outcomes needed to evaluate SDM and should address the absence of evidence on health outcomes.

A blueprint for cancer screening and early detection: Advancing screening's contribution to cancer control

From the mid-20th century, accumulating evidence has supported the introduction of screening for cancers of the cervix, breast, colon and rectum, prostate (via shared decisions), and lung. The opportunity to detect and treat precursor lesions and invasive disease at a more favorable stage has contributed substantially to reduced incidence, morbidity, and mortality. However, as new discoveries portend advancements in technology and risk-based screening, we fail to fulfill the greatest potential of the existing technology, in terms of both full access among the target population and the delivery of state-of-the art care at each crucial step in the cascade of events that characterize successful cancer screening. There also is insufficient commitment to invest in the development of new technologies, incentivize the development of new ideas, and rapidly evaluate promising new technology. In this report, the authors summarize the status of cancer screening and propose a blueprint for the nation to further advance the contribution of screening to cancer control.

The value of MR textural analysis in prostate cancer

Current diagnosis and treatment stratification of patients with suspected prostate cancer relies on a combination of histological and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. The aim of this article is to provide a brief overview of prostate pathological grading as well as the relevant aspects of multiparametric (MRI) mpMRI, before indicating the potential that magnetic resonance textural analysis (MRTA) offers within prostate cancer. A review of the evidence base on MRTA in prostate cancer will enable discussion of the utility of this field while also indicating recommendations to future research. Radiomic textural analysis allows the assessment of spatial inter-relationships between pixels within an image by use of mathematical methods. First-order textural analysis is better understood and may have more clinical validity than higher-order textural features. Textural features extracted from apparent diffusion coefficient maps have shown the most potential for clinical utility in MRTA of prostate cancers. Future studies should aim to integrate machine learning techniques to better represent the role of MRTA in prostate cancer clinical practice. Nomenclature should be used to reduce misidentification between first-order and second-order energy and entropy. Automated methods of segmentation should be encouraged in order to reduce problems associated with inclusion of normal tissue within regions of interest. The retrospective and small-scale nature of most published studies, make it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions. Future larger prospective studies are required to validate the textural features indicated to have potential in characterisation and/or diagnosis of prostate cancer before translation into routine clinical practice.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease and the Risk of Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

There are limited data examining the risk of prostate cancer (PCa) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the incidence of PCa between men with and those without IBD.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a retrospective, matched-cohort study involving a single academic medical center and conducted from 1996 to 2017. Male patients with IBD (cases=1033) were randomly matched 1:9 by age and race to men without IBD (controls=9306). All patients had undergone at least one prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening test.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by age and race, evaluated the relationship between IBD and the incidence of any PCa and clinically significant PCa (Gleason grade group ≥2). A mixed-effect regression model assessed the association of IBD with PSA level.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

PCa incidence at 10yr was 4.4% among men with IBD and 0.65% among controls (hazard ratio [HR] 4.84 [3.34-7.02] [3.19-6.69], p<0.001). Clinically significant PCa incidence at 10yr was 2.4% for men with IBD and 0.42% for controls (HR 4.04 [2.52-6.48], p<0.001). After approximately age 60, PSA values were higher among patients with IBD (fixed-effect interaction of age and patient group: p=0.004). Results are limited by the retrospective nature of the analysis and lack of external validity.

CONCLUSIONS

Men with IBD had higher rates of clinically significant PCa when compared with age- and race-matched controls.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This study of over 10000 men treated at a large medical center suggests that men with inflammatory bowel disease may be at a higher risk of prostate cancer than the general population.

Prostate Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Although screening recommendations for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen testing often include shared decision making, the effect of patient decision aids on patients' intention and uptake is unclear. This study aimed to review the effect of decision aids on men's screening intention, screening utilization, and the congruence between intentions and uptake.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Data sources were searched through April 6, 2018, and included MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, CT.gov, Cochrane report, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and reference lists. This study included RCTs and observational studies of decision aids that measured prostate screening intention or behavior. The analysis was completed in April 2018.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Eighteen studies (13 RCTs, four before-after studies, and one non-RCT) reported data on screening intention for ≅8,400 men and screening uptake for 2,385 men. Compared with usual care, the use of decision aids in any format results in fewer men (aged ≥40 years) planning to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing (risk ratio=0.88, 95% CI=0.81, 0.95, p=0.006, I²=66%, p<0.001, n=8). Many men did not follow their screening intentions during the first year after using a decision aid; however, most men who were planning to undergo screening did so (probability that men who wanted to be screened would receive screening was 95%).

CONCLUSIONS

Integration of decision aids in clinical practice may result in a decrease in the number of men who elect prostate-specific antigen testing, which may in turn reduce screening uptake. To ensure high congruence between intention and screening utilization, providers should not delay the shared decision-making discussion after patients use a decision aid.

RETRACTED: Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l’AFU – Actualisation 2018–2020 : cancer de la prostate French ccAFU guidelines – Update 2018–2020: Prostate cancer

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). Cet article est retiré de la publication à la demande des auteurs car ils ont apporté des modifications significatives sur des points scientifiques après la publication de la première version des recommandations. Le nouvel article est disponible à cette adresse: DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.007. C’est cette nouvelle version qui doit être utilisée pour citer l’article. This article has been retracted at the request of the authors, as it is not based on the definitive version of the text because some scientific data has been corrected since the first issue was published. The replacement has been published at the DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.007. That newer version of the text should be used when citing the article.

Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries

This article provides a status report on the global burden of cancer worldwide using the GLOBOCAN 2018 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, with a focus on geographic variability across 20 world regions. There will be an estimated 18.1 million new cancer cases (17.0 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 9.6 million cancer deaths (9.5 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) in 2018. In both sexes combined, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer (11.6% of the total cases) and the leading cause of cancer death (18.4% of the total cancer deaths), closely followed by female breast cancer (11.6%), prostate cancer (7.1%), and colorectal cancer (6.1%) for incidence and colorectal cancer (9.2%), stomach cancer (8.2%), and liver cancer (8.2%) for mortality. Lung cancer is the most frequent cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among males, followed by prostate and colorectal cancer (for incidence) and liver and stomach cancer (for mortality). Among females, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, followed by colorectal and lung cancer (for incidence), and vice versa (for mortality); cervical cancer ranks fourth for both incidence and mortality. The most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, however, substantially vary across countries and within each country depending on the degree of economic development and associated social and life style factors. It is noteworthy that high-quality cancer registry data, the basis for planning and implementing evidence-based cancer control programs, are not available in most low- and middle-income countries. The Global Initiative for Cancer Registry Development is an international partnership that supports better estimation, as well as the collection and use of local data, to prioritize and evaluate national cancer control efforts. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2018;0:1-31. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

The Influence of Decision Aids on Prostate Cancer Screening Preferences: A Randomized Survey Study

PURPOSE

Shared decision making is recommended in regard to prostate cancer screening. Decision aids may facilitate this process but the impact of decision aids on screening preferences is poorly understood.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In an online survey we randomized a national sample of adults to the online decision aids of 1 of 6 professional societies. We compared survey responses before and after decision aid exposure. The primary outcome was the change in participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening on a scale of 1-unlikely to 100-extremely likely. Secondary outcomes included change in participant comfort with prostate cancer screening based on the average of 6, 5-point Likert-scale questions.

RESULTS

Median age was 53 years in the 1,336 participants and 50% were men. The randomized groups did not differ significantly by race, age, gender, income, marital status or education level. The likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening decreased from 83 to 78 following decision aid exposure (p <0.001). Reviewing the decision aid from the Centers for Disease Control or the American Academy of Family Physicians did not alter the likelihood (each p >0.2). However, the decision aid from the United States Preventive Services Task Force was associated with the largest decrease in screening preference (-16.0, p <0.001). Participants reported increased comfort (from 3.5 to 4.1 of 5) with the decision making process of prostate cancer screening following exposure to a decision aid (p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to a decision aid decreased the participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening and increased comfort with the screening process.

Factors Related to Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: Retrospective Cohort Study of 120,587 French Men Over the Age of 50 Years

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend avoiding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening in the elderly when life expectancy is less than 10 years. For younger men, most recommendations encourage a shared decision-making process taking into account patient comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess the performance of PSA-based prostate cancer screening in men older than 74 years and assess whether the presence (vs absence) of comorbidities was related to the performance of PSA testing in younger men aged 50 to 74 years who were eligible for screening.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the French national health care database (Loire-Atlantique geographic area). We reported the follow-up of two cohorts of men from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2016: 22,480 men aged over 74 years and 98,107 men aged 50 to 74 years. We analyzed whether these patients underwent PSA testing after 2 years of follow-up and whether PSA testing performance was related to the following patient-related variables: age, low income, proxy measures indicative of major comorbidities (repeated ambulance transportation, having one of 30 chronic diseases, taking 5 or more drugs per day), or proxy measures indicative of specific comorbidities (cancer diseases, cardiovascular diseases, or psychiatric disorders). Statistical analysis was based on a multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients who underwent a PSA-based screening test was 41.35% (9296/22,480) among men older than 74 years versus 41.05% (40,275/98,107) among men aged 50 to 74 years. The following factors were associated with less frequent PSA testing in men older than 74 years-age (odds ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.88-0.89), low income (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.69), suffering from a chronic disease (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76-0.88), repeated ambulance transportation (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31-0.44), diabetes requiring insulin (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43-0.60), dementia (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.84), and antipsychotic treatment (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.75)-whereas cardiovascular drug treatment was associated with more frequent PSA testing (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.53-1.84). The following factors were associated with less frequent PSA testing in men aged 50 to 74 years-low income (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.55-0.68); nonspecific conditions related to frailty: suffering from a chronic disease (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.76-0.83), repeated ambulance transportation (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.23-0.38), or chronic treatment with 5 or more drugs (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.96); and various specific comorbidities: anticancer drug treatment (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.83), diabetes requiring insulin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.49-0.61), and antiaggregant treatment (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.96)-whereas older age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.07-1.08) and treatment with other cardiovascular drugs (OR 2.23, 95% CI 2.15-2.32) were associated with more frequent PSA testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, 41.35% (9296/22,480) of French men older than 74 years had a PSA-based screening test. Although it depends on patient comorbidities, PSA testing remains inappropriate in certain populations.

The effects of shared decision-making compared to usual care for prostate cancer screening decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended for men facing prostate cancer (PC) screening decisions. We synthesize the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of SDM with usual care.

Methods

We searched academic and grey literature databases, and other sources for primary randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English comparing SDM to usual care and conducted in primary and specialised care. We assessed the individual study risk of bias, and calculated the study-specific and pooled relative risks (RR) or standardised mean differences (SMD) [with 95% confidence intervals (CI)] to perform random-effects meta-analyses for SDM-related and patient outcomes.

Results

Four RCTs comparing SDM to usual care, involving 1760 men, were included. SDM improved knowledge (SMD 0.23, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.43; 2 RCTs), but was not different to usual care in reducing either patient participation in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.90 to 1.19; 2 RCTs) or decisional conflict (SMD -0.04, 95%CI -0.23 to 0.15; SMD -0.05, 95%CI -0.24 to 0.14; 2 RCTs). Individual trial estimates (46.7%) also suggest that SDM may reduce or neutralise physicians’ tendency for PSA screening, and may improve the accuracy of patients’ perception of lifetime-risks and men’s views towards screening. There was no evidence on the effects of SDM on health outcomes. The studies represent various interventions and outcomes and are prone to risk of bias.

Conclusions

There is currently insufficient evidence to support a clear association of SDM on patient- and SDM-related outcomes for decisions about PSA testing. Further research needs to assess the clinical effectiveness of SDM using well-defined SDM interventions and outcomes. It should address the absence of evidence, particularly on health outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4794-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Baseline Prostate-specific Antigen Level in Midlife and Aggressive Prostate Cancer in Black Men

BACKGROUND

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement in midlife predicts long-term prostate cancer (PCa) mortality among white men.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether baseline PSA level during midlife predicts risk of aggressive PCa in black men.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Nested case-control study among black men in the Southern Community Cohort Study recruited between 2002 and 2009. A prospective cohort in the southeastern USA with recruitment from community health centers. A total of 197 incident PCa patients aged 40-64 yr at study entry and 569 controls matched on age, date of blood draw, and site of enrollment. Total PSA was measured in blood collected and stored at enrollment.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Total and aggressive PCa (91 aggressive: Gleason ≥7, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III/IV, or PCa-specific death). Exact conditional logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PCa by category of baseline PSA.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Median PSA among controls was 0.72, 0.80, 0.94, and 1.03ng/ml for age groups 40-49, 50-54, 55-59, and 60-64 yr, respectively; 90th percentile levels were 1.68, 1.85, 2.73, and 3.33ng/ml. Furthermore, 95% of total and 97% of aggressive cases had baseline PSA above the age-specific median. Median follow-up was 9 yr. The OR for total PCa comparing PSA >90th percentile versus ≤median was 83.6 (95% CI, 21.2-539) for 40-54 yr and 71.7 (95% CI, 23.3-288) for 55-64 yr. For aggressive cancer, ORs were 174 (95% CI, 32.3-infinity) for 40-54 yr and 51.8 (95% CI, 11.0-519) for 55-64 yr. A composite endpoint of aggressive PCa based on stage, grade, and mortality was used and is a limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

PSA levels in midlife strongly predicted total and aggressive PCa among black men. PSA levels among controls were similar to those among white controls in prior studies.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level during midlife strongly predicted future development of aggressive prostate cancer among black men. Targeted screening based on a midlife PSA might identify men at high risk while minimizing screening in those men at low risk.

Global Trends and Prostate Cancer: A Review of Incidence, Detection, and Mortality as Influenced by Race, Ethnicity, and Geographic Location

Although research has reported that prostate cancer (PCa) incidence and mortality rates are among the highest for African Americans, the data is inconclusive regarding PCa rates in native African men, Black men residing in other countries, and men in Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Data reveals that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and disease incidence have risen significantly in developing and Asian countries, and PCa has become one of the leading male cancers in many of those nations. The objective of this study was to review published peer-reviewed studies that address PCa in different regions of the world to get a better understanding of how PCa incidence, prevalence, detection, and mortality are influenced by race, ethnicity, and geography. A secondary goal was to compare PCa data from various world regions to contextualize how disproportionate the incidence and mortality rates are among men from the African diaspora versus men of European, Hispanic, and Asian descent, as well as to highlight the need for more robust screening and treatment guidelines in developing countries. There are differences in incidence and mortality rates between men of African, Asian, Hispanic, and European ancestry, confirming the involvement of genetic factors. However, differences between men of the same race and ethnicity who live in different countries suggest that environmental factors may also be implicated. Availability and access to diagnostic and health-care services as well as recommendations regarding PCa testing vary from country to country and contribute to the variability in incidence and mortality rates.

Values and preferences of men for undergoing prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To investigate men's values and preferences regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and grey literature up to 2 September 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Primary studies of men's values and preferences regarding the benefits and harms of PSA screening.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with a modified version of a risk of bias tool for values and preferences studies, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument V.3 and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

We identified 4172 unique citations, of which 11 studies proved eligible. Five studies investigated PSA screening using a direct choice study design, whereas six used decisions aids displaying patient-important outcomes. The direct choice studies used different methodologies and varied considerably in the reporting of outcomes. Two studies suggested that men were willing to forego screening with a small benefit in prostate cancer mortality if it would decrease the likelihood of unnecessary treatment or biopsies. In contrast, one study reported that men were willing to accept a substantial overdiagnosis to reduce their risk of prostate cancer mortality. Among the six studies involving decision aids, willingness to undergo screening varied substantially from 37% when displaying a hypothetical reduction in mortality of 10 per 1000 men, to 44% when displaying a reduction in mortality of 7 per 1000. We found no studies that specifically investigated whether values and preferences differed among men with family history, of African descent or with lower socioeconomic levels.

CONCLUSION

The variability of men's values and preferences reflect that the decision to screen is highly preference sensitive. Our review highlights the need for shared decision making in men considering prostate cancer screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018095585.

Genome-Based Classification and Therapy of Prostate Cancer

In the past decade, multi-national and multi-center efforts were launched to sequence prostate cancer genomes, transcriptomes, and epigenomes with the aim of discovering the molecular underpinnings of tumorigenesis, cancer progression, and therapy resistance. Multiple biological markers and pathways have been discovered to be tumor drivers, and a molecular classification of prostate cancer is emerging. Here, we highlight crucial findings of these genome-sequencing projects in localized and advanced disease. We recapitulate the utility and limitations of current clinical practices to diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy, and we provide examples of insights generated by the molecular profiling of tumors. Novel treatment concepts based on these molecular alterations are currently being addressed in clinical trials and will lead to an enhanced implementation of precision medicine strategies.

Prostate Cancer in Primary Care

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy seen worldwide. The incidence has risen in recent decades, mainly fuelled by more widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, although prostate cancer mortality rates have remained relatively static over that time period. A man's risk of prostate cancer is affected by his age and family history of the disease. Men with prostate cancer generally present symptomatically in primary care settings, although some diagnoses are made in asymptomatic men undergoing opportunistic PSA screening. Symptoms traditionally thought to correlate with prostate cancer include lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), such as nocturia and poor urinary stream, erectile dysfunction and visible haematuria. However, there is significant crossover in symptoms between prostate cancer and benign conditions affecting the prostate such as benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) and prostatitis, making it very challenging to distinguish between them on the basis of symptoms. The evidence for the performance of PSA in asymptomatic and symptomatic men for the diagnosis of prostate cancer is equivocal. PSA is subject to false positive and false negative results, affecting its clinical utility as a standalone test. Clinicians need to counsel men about the risks and benefits of PSA testing to inform their decision-making. Digital rectal examination (DRE) by primary care clinicians has some evidence to show discrimination between benign and malignant conditions affecting the prostate. Patients referred to secondary care for diagnostic testing for prostate cancer will typically undergo a transrectal or transperineal biopsy, where a number of samples are taken and sent for histological examination. These biopsies are invasive procedures with side effects and a risk of infection and sepsis, and alternative tests such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) are currently being trialled for their accuracy and safety in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer.

Design and Clinical Verification of Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy Diagnostic Technology for Individual Cancer Risk Prediction

The use of emerging nanotechnologies, such as plasmonic nanoparticles in diagnostic applications, potentially offers opportunities to revolutionize disease management and patient healthcare. Despite worldwide research efforts in this area, there is still a dearth of nanodiagnostics which have been successfully translated for real-world patient usage due to the predominant sole focus on assay analytical performance and lack of detailed investigations into clinical performance in human samples. In a bid to address this pressing need, we herein describe a comprehensive clinical verification of a prospective label-free surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) nanodiagnostic assay for prostate cancer (PCa) risk stratification. This contribution depicts a roadmap of (1) designing a SERS assay for robust and accurate detection of clinically validated PCa RNA targets; (2) employing a relevant and proven PCa clinical biomarker model to test our nanodiagnostic assay; and (3) investigating the clinical performance on independent training ( n = 80) and validation ( n = 40) cohorts of PCa human patient samples. By relating the detection outcomes to gold-standard patient biopsy findings, we established a PCa risk scoring system which exhibited a clinical sensitivity and specificity of 0.87 and 0.90, respectively [area-under-curve of 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.81-0.87) for differentiating high- and low-risk PCa] in the validation cohort. We envision that our SERS nanodiagnostic design and clinical verification approach may aid in the individualized prediction of PCa presence and risk stratification and may overall serve as an archetypical strategy to encourage comprehensive clinical evaluation of nanodiagnostic innovations.

Primary care perspective and implementation of a multidisciplinary, institutional prostate cancer screening algorithm embedded in the electronic health record

PURPOSE

In response to controversy regarding prostate cancer (CaP) screening recommendations, a consolidated Duke Cancer Institute (DCI) multidisciplinary algorithm for CaP screening was developed and implemented. We conducted an online survey within the year following its implementation to assess primary care provider (PCP) attitudes and adoption as well as to evaluate how this program affects screening rates.

METHODS

A web-based 18-item survey was programmed and was electronically mailed to practicing PCPs at clinics affiliated with the Duke Primary Care system. The survey assessed provider practices and attitudes regarding CaP screening, factors that influenced their general screening recommendations and the confidence related to communicating with patients about screening. The rate of PSA screening before and after implementation of the algorithm was reported across age and race categories.

RESULTS

In sum, 94 of 106 respondents (88.6%) reported discussing the benefits and harms of screening and let their patients decide (52.8%) or recommended for (31.1%) or against (4.7%) screening. Three-fourths of respondents followed a specific panel recommendation such as the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) (48.1%), DCI (20%), or the American Urological Association (AUA) (7.4%) guidelines. After integrating this algorithm into the electronic health record, the rate of prostate screening increased between 11% and 20.4% and 15.6% and 16.4% among different age and race categories, respectively. Overall, 79.2% of PCPs felt very confident regarding their ability to communicate the topic of CaP screening with patients.

CONCLUSION

The DCI multidisciplinary CaP screening algorithm was well adopted among PCPs shortly after its implementation. The rate of screening increased among all age and race categories thereafter. The majority of PCPs involved in this survey felt confident regarding their CaP screening knowledge and most discuss this topic with patients in a shared decision-making model.

Changes in the outcome of prostate biopsies after preventive task force recommendation against prostate-specific antigen screening

Background

The benefits of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa) are controversial. The Canadian and American Task Forces on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC & USPSTF) have released recommendations against the use of routine PSA-based screening for any men. We thought to assess the impact of these recommendations on the outcomes and trends of prostate needle biopsies.

Methods

A complete chart review was conducted for all men who received prostate needle biopsies at McGill University Health Center between 2010 and 2016. Of those, we included 1425 patients diagnosed with PCa for analysis. We Compared 2 groups of patients (pre and post recommendations’ release date) using Welch’s t-tests and Chi-square test. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyze variables predicting worse pathological outcomes.

Results

When the release date of the USPSTF draft (October 2011) was used as a cut-off, we found an average annual decrease of 10.6% in the total number of biopsies. The median (IQR) baseline PSA levels were higher in post-recommendations group (n = 977) when compared to pre-recommendations group (n = 448) [8 ng/ml (5.7–12.9) versus 6.4 ng/ml (4.9–10.1), respectively. P = 0.0007]. Also, post-recommendations group’s patients had higher Gleason score (G7: 35.4% versus 28.4% and G8-G10: 31.2% versus 18.1%, respectively. P < 0.0001). Moreover, they had higher intermediate and high-risk PCa classification (36.4% versus 32.8% and 35.5% versus 22.1%, respectively. P < 0.0001). The recommendations release date was an independent variable associated with higher Gleason score in prostate biopsies (OR: 2.006, 95%CI: 1.477–2.725). Using the CTFPHC recommendations release date (October 2014) as a cut-off in further analysis, revealed similar results.

Conclusions

Our results revealed a reduction in the number of prostate needle biopsies performed over time after the recommendations of the preventive task forces. Furthermore, it showed a significant relative increase in the higher risk PCa diagnosis. The oncological outcomes associated with this trend need to be examined in further studies.

Defining low-value PSA testing in a large retrospective cohort: Finding common ground between discordant guidelines

BACKGROUND

Reports of low-value prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing (testing in which the harms outweigh the benefits) generally employ population level data sources. While such results may be generalizable, they often lack the detail necessary to understand provider clinical decision making and guideline concordance. Using a retrospective study of PSA testing at our institution we intend to characterize the frequency and patterns associated with low-value PSA testing.

METHODS

We leveraged the electronic health record to determine guideline-defined low-value testing in our health system from 07/01/2012 to 06/30/2017. Secondarily, we measured the between-testing interval for repeat tests and the rates of prostate cancer risk factors and comorbidities among men receiving screening.

RESULTS

Overall, 21,145 PSA tests were performed on 12,303 men. The rate of low-value testing ranged from 23.4 to 56.8%, depending upon the specific guideline. For repeat tests, the median between-testing interval was 12.6 months. Risk factors for prostate cancer were uncommon, but more frequent in men age <55 years compared to men age 55-69 years (17.6% vs. 13.5%, p < 0.001). Screened older men (age >70 years) were more likely to have a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 3, compared to the 55-69 reference group (31.4% vs. 17.3%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Low-value prostate cancer testing is prevalent. Between-testing intervals were often times shorter than recommended. Screening among younger men was frequent despite low rates of risk factors. High rates of comorbidity may limit life expectancy among older men receiving screening. These findings highlight the need for improved guidance with prostate cancer screening.

Patterns and Trends in Cancer Screening in the United States

Introduction

We examined the prevalence of cancer screening reported in 2015 among US adults, adjusted for important sociodemographic and access-to-care variables. By using data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for 2000 through 2015, we examined trends in prevalence of cancer screening that adhered to US Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations in order to monitor screening progress among traditionally underserved population subgroups.

Methods

We analyzed NHIS data from surveys from 2000 through 2015 to estimate prevalence and trends in use of recommended screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers. We used logistic regression and report predictive margins for population subgroups adjusted for various socioeconomic and demographic variables.

Results

Colorectal cancer screening was the only test that increased during the study period. We found disparities in prevalence of test use among subgroups for all tests examined. Factors that reduced the use of screening tests included no contact with a doctor in the past year, no usual source of health care, and no insurance coverage.

Conclusion

Understanding use of cancer screening tests among different population subgroups is vital for planning public health interventions with potential to increase screening uptake and reduce disparities in cancer morbidity and mortality. Overarching goals of Healthy People 2020 are to “achieve health equity, eliminate disparities, and improve the health of all groups.” Adjusted findings for 2015, compared with previous years, show persistent screening disparities, particularly among the uninsured, and progress for colorectal cancer screening only.

Testing of a Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening Discussions in Primary Care

Background

As prostate cancer (PCa) screening decisions often occur in outpatient primary care, a brief tool to help the PCa screening conversation in busy clinic settings is needed.

Methods

A previously created 9-item tool to aid PCa screening discussions was tested in five diverse primary care clinics. Fifteen providers were recruited to use the tool for 4 weeks, and the tool was revised based upon feedback. The providers then used the tool with a convenience sample of patients during routine clinic visits. Pre- and post-visit surveys were administered to assess patients’ knowledge of the option to be screened for PCa and of specific factors to consider in the decision. McNemar’s and Stuart–Maxwell tests were used to compare pre-and post-survey responses.

Results

14 of 15 providers completed feedback surveys and had positive responses to the tool. All 15 providers then tested the tool on 95 men aged 40–69 at the five clinics with 2–10 patients each. The proportion of patients who strongly agreed that they had the option to choose to screen for PCa increased from 57 to 72% (p = 0.018) from the pre- to post-survey, that there are factors in the personal or family history that may affect PCa risk from 34 to 47% (p = 0.012), and that their opinions about possible side effects of treatment for PCa should be considered in the decision from 47 to 61% (p = 0.009).

Conclusion

A brief conversation tool for the PCa screening discussion was well received in busy primary-care settings and improved patients’ knowledge about the screening decision.

Focal Ablation of Prostate Cancer

The challenge to the urology community is to reduce the risks of screening and treatment by reducing the number of men undergoing unnecessary biopsy and whole-gland curative treatment of low-risk disease. There is compelling evidence that focal ablation of prostate cancer is truly minimally invasive and offers major functional advantages over whole-gland treatment.

Serum fucosylated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) improves the differentiation of aggressive from non-aggressive prostate cancers

BACKGROUND

Clinically, it is still challenging to differentiate aggressive from non-aggressive prostate cancers (Pca) by non-invasive approaches. Our recent studies showed that overexpression of alpha (1-6) fucosyltransferase played an important role in Pca cells. In this study, we have investigated levels of glycoproteins and their fucosylated glycoforms in sera of Pca patients, as well as the potential utility of fucosylated glycoproteins in the identification of aggressive Pca.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Serum samples from histomorphology-proven Pca cases were included. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA), tissue inhibitor of metallopeptidase 1 (TIMP1) and tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), and their fucosylated glycoforms were captured by Aleuria Aurantia Lectin (AAL), followed by the multiplex magnetic bead-based immunoassay. The level of fucosylated glycoproteins was correlated with patients' Gleason score of the tumor.

RESULT

Among three fucosylated glycoproteins, the fucosylated PSA was significantly increased and correlated with the tumor Gleason score (p<0.05). The ratio of fucosylated PSA showed a marked increase in aggressive tumors in comparison to non-aggressive tumors. ROC analysis also showed an improved predictive power of fucosylated PSA in the identification of aggressive Pca.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrated that fucosylated PSA has a better predictive power to differentiate aggressive tumors from non-aggressive tumors, than that of native PSA and two other glycoproteins. The fucosylated PSA has the potential to be used as a surrogate biomarker.