Screening, treatment, and prostate cancer mortality in the Seattle area and Connecticut: fifteen-year follow-up

Decoding the heterogeneous landscape in the development prostate cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) is characterized as being histologically and molecularly heterogeneous; however, this is not only incorrect among individuals, but also at the multiple foci level, which originates in the prostate gland itself. The reasons for such heterogeneity have not been fully elucidated; however, understanding these may be crucial in determining the course of the disease. PCa is characterized by a complex network of chromosomal rearrangements, which simultaneously deregulate multiple genes; this could explain the appearance of exclusive events associated with molecular subtypes, which have been extensively investigated to establish clinical management and the development of therapies targeted to this type of cancer. From a clinical aspect, the prognosis of the patient has focused on the characteristics of the index lesion (the largest focus in PCa); however, a significant percentage of patients (11%) also exhibit an aggressive secondary foci, which may determine the prognosis of the disease, and could be the determining factor of why, in different studies, the classification of the subtypes does not have an association with prognosis. Due to the aforementioned reasons, the analysis of molecular subtypes in several foci, from the same individual could assist in determining the association between clinical evolution and management of patients with PCa. Castration-resistant PCa (CRPC) has the worst prognosis and develops following androgen ablation therapy. Currently, there are two models to explain the development of CRPC: i) The selection model and ii) the adaptation model; both of which, have been found to include alterations described in the molecular subtypes, such as Enhancer of zeste 2 polycomb repressive complex 2 subunit overexpression, isocitrate dehydrogenase (NAPD⁺)1 and forkhead box A1 mutations, suggesting that the presence of specific molecular alterations could predict the development of CRPC. This type of analysis could lead to a biological understanding of PCa, to develop personalized medicine strategies, which could improve the response to treatment thus, avoiding the development of resistance. Therefore, the present review discusses the primary molecular factors, to which variable heterogeneity in PCa progress has been attributed.

Screening for prostate cancer: History, evidence, controversies and future perspectives toward individualized screening

Differences in the incidence and mortality rate of prostate cancer between the USA and Japan have been decreasing over time, and were only twofold in 2017. Therefore, countermeasures against prostate cancer could be very important not only in Western countries, but also in developed Asian countries. Screening for prostate cancer in the general population using transrectal ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and/or prostate acid phosphatase began in Japan in the early 1980s, and screening with prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination has been widespread in the USA since the late 1980s. Large- and mid-scale randomized controlled trials on screening for prostate cancer began around 1990 in the USA, Canada and Europe. However, most of these studies failed as randomized controlled trials because of high contamination in the control arm, low compliance in the screening arm or insufficient screening setting about screening frequency and/or biopsy indication. The best available level 1 evidence is data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer and the Göteborg screening study. However, several non-urological organizations and lay media around the world have mischaracterized the efficacy of prostate-specific antigen screening. To avoid long-term confusion about screening for prostate cancer, leading professional urological organizations, including the Japanese Urological Association, are moving toward the establishment of an optimal screening system that minimizes the drawbacks of overdetection, overtreatment and loss of quality of life due to treatment, and maximizes reductions in the risk of death as a result of prostate cancer and the development of metastatic prostate cancer.

Impact of cause of death adjudication on the results of the European prostate cancer screening trial

BACKGROUND

The European Randomised Study of Prostate Cancer Screening has shown a 21% relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality at 13 years. The causes of death can be misattributed, particularly in elderly men with multiple comorbidities, and therefore accurate assessment of the underlying cause of death is crucial for valid results. To address potential unreliability of end-point assessment, and its possible impact on mortality results, we analysed the study outcome adjudication data in six countries.

METHODS

Latent class statistical models were formulated to compare the accuracy of individual adjudicators, and to assess whether accuracy differed between the trial arms. We used the model to assess whether correcting for adjudication inaccuracies might modify the study results.

RESULTS

There was some heterogeneity in adjudication accuracy of causes of death, but no consistent differential accuracy by trial arm. Correcting the estimated screening effect for misclassification did not alter the estimated mortality effect of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings were consistent with earlier reports on the European screening trial. Observer variation, while demonstrably present, is unlikely to have materially biased the main study results. A bias in assigning causes of death that might have explained the mortality reduction by screening can be effectively ruled out.

What explains the differences between centres in the European screening trial? A simulation study

BACKGROUND

The European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) is a multicentre, randomised screening trial on men aged 55-69 years at baseline without known prostate cancer (PrCa) at randomisation to an intervention arm invited to screening or to a control arm. The ERSPC has shown a significant 21% reduction in PrCa mortality at 13 years of follow-up. The effect of screening appears to vary across centres, for which several explanations are possible. We set to assess if the apparent differences in PrCa mortality reduction between the centres can be explained by differences in screening protocols.

METHODS

We examined the centre differences by developing a simulation model and estimated how alternative screening protocols would have affected PrCa mortality.

RESULTS

Our results showed outcomes similar to those observed, when the results by centres were reproduced by simulating the screening regimens with PSA threshold of 3 versus 4ng/ml, or screening interval of two versus four years. The findings suggest that the differences are only marginally attributable to the different screening protocols.

CONCLUSION

The small screening impact in Finland was not explained by the differences in the screening protocols. A possible reason for it was the contamination of and the unexpectedly low PrCa mortality in the Finnish control arm.

Geographical Factors Associated with Health Disparities in Prostate Cancer

Background

Treatment variation in prostate cancer is common, and it is driven by clinical and clinician factors, patient preferences, availability of resources, and access to physicians and treating facilities. Most research on treatment disparities in men with prostate cancer has focused on race and socioeconomic factors. However, the geography of disparities — capturing racial and socioeconomic differences based on where patients live — can provide insight into barriers to care and help identify outlier areas in which access to care, health resources, or both are more pronounced.

Methods

Research regarding treatment patterns and disparities in prostate cancer using the Geographical Information System (GIS) was searched. Studies were limited to English-language articles and research focused on US populations. A total of 43 articles were found; of those, 30 provided information about or used spatial or geographical analyses to assess and describe differences or disparities in prostate cancer and its treatment. Two additional GIS resources were included.

Results

The research on geographical and spatial determinants of prostate cancer disparities was reviewed. We also examined geographical analyses at the state level, focusing on Florida. Overall, we described a geographical framework to disparities that affect men with prostate cancer and reviewed existing published evidence supporting the interplay of geographical factors and disparities in prostate cancer.

Conclusions

Disparities in prostate cancer are common and persistent, and notable differences in treatment are observable across racial and socioeconomic strata. Geographical analysis provides additional information about where disparate groups live and also helps to map access to care. This information can be used by public health officials, health-systems administrators, clinicians, and policymakers to better understand and respond to geographical barriers that contribute to disparities in care.

Opportunistic testing versus organized prostate-specific antigen screening: outcome after 18 years in the Göteborg randomized population-based prostate cancer screening trial

BACKGROUND

It has been shown that organized screening decreases prostate cancer (PC) mortality, but the effect of opportunistic screening is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the ability to reduce PC mortality and the risk of overdiagnosis between organized and opportunistic screening.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Göteborg screening study invited 10 000 randomly selected men for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing every 2 yr since 1995, with a prostate biopsy recommended for men with PSA ≥2.5 ng/ml. The control group of 10 000 men not invited has been exposed to a previously reported increased rate of opportunistic PSA testing. Both groups were followed until December 31, 2012.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Observed cumulative PC incidence and mortality rates in both groups were calculated using the actuarial method. Using historical data from 1990-1994 (pre-PSA era), we calculated expected PC incidence and mortality rates in the absence of any PSA testing. The number needed to invite (NNI) and the number needed to diagnose (NND) were calculated by comparing the expected versus observed incidence and mortality rates.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

At 18 yr, 1396 men were diagnosed with PC and 79 men died of PC in the screening group, compared to 962 and 122, respectively, in the control group. In the screening group, the observed cumulative PC incidence/mortality was 16%/0.98% compared to expected values of 6.8%/1.7%. The corresponding values for the control group were 11%/1.5% and 6.9%/1.7%. Organized screening was associated with an absolute PC-specific mortality reduction of 0.72% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.94%) and relative risk reduction of 42% (95% CI 28-54%). There was an absolute reduction in PC deaths of 0.20% (95% CI -0.06% to 0.47%) and a relative risk reduction of 12% (95% CI -5 to 26%) associated with opportunistic PSA testing. NNI and NND were 139 (95% CI 107-200) and 13 for organized biennial screening and 493 (95% CI 213- -1563) and 23 for opportunistic screening. The extent of opportunistic screening could not be measured; incidence trends were used as a proxy.

CONCLUSIONS

Organized screening reduces PC mortality but is associated with overdiagnosis. Opportunistic PSA testing had little if any effect on PC mortality and resulted in more overdiagnosis, with almost twice the number of men needed to be diagnosed to save one man from dying from PC compared to men offered an organized biennial screening program.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening within the framework of an organized program seems more effective than unorganized screening.

Variation in general practice prostate-specific antigen testing and prostate cancer outcomes: an ecological study

Knowledge is sparse about the consequences of variation in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing rates in general practice. This study investigated associations between PSA testing and prostate cancer- related outcomes in Danish general practice, where screening for prostate cancer is not recommended. National registers were used to divide general practices into four groups based on their adjusted PSA test rate 2004-2009. We analysed associations between PSA test rate and prostate cancer-related outcomes using Poisson regression adjusted for potential confounders. We included 368 general practices, 303,098 men and 4,199 incident prostate cancers. Men in the highest testing quartile of practices compared to men in the lowest quartile had increased risk of trans-rectal ultrasound (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.20, 95% CI, 0.95-1.51), biopsy (IRR: 1.76, 95% CI, 1.54-2.02), and getting a prostate cancer diagnosis (IRR: 1.37, 95% CI, 1.23-1.52). More were diagnosed with local stage disease (IRR: 1.61, 95% CI, 1.37-1.89) with no differences regarding regional or distant stage. The IRR for prostatectomy was 2.25 (95% CI, 1.72-2.94) and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.02-1.62) for radiotherapy. No differences in prostate cancer or overall mortality were found between the groups. These results show that the highest PSA testing general practices may not reduce prostate cancer mortality but increase the downstream use of diagnostic and surgical procedures with potentially harmful side effects.

Prostate cancer mortality in areas with high and low prostate cancer incidence

Background

The effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on prostate cancer mortality remains debated, despite evidence from randomized trials. We investigated the association between prostate cancer incidence, reflecting uptake of PSA testing, and prostate cancer mortality.

Methods

The study population consisted of all men aged 50 to 74 years residing in eight counties in Sweden with an early increase in prostate cancer incidence and six counties with a late increase during two time periods. Incidence of metastatic prostate cancer was investigated in the period from 2000 to 2009, and prostate cancer–specific mortality and excess mortality were investigated in the period from 1990 to 1999 and the period from 2000 to 2009 by calculating rate ratios for high- vs low-incidence counties and rate ratios for the period from 2000 to 2009 vs the period from 1990 to 1999 within these two groups. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

There were 4528134 person-years at risk, 1577 deaths from prostate cancer, and 1210 excess deaths in men with prostate cancer in high-incidence counties and 2471373 person-years at risk, 985 prostate cancer deaths, and 878 excess deaths in low-incidence counties in the period from 2000 to 2009. Rate ratios in counties with high vs low incidence adjusted for time period were 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73 to 0.90) for prostate cancer– specific mortality and 0.74 (95% CI = 0.64 to 0.86) for excess mortality, and the rate ratio of metastatic prostate cancer was 0.85 (95% CI = 0.79 to 0.92).

Conclusions

The lower prostate cancer mortality in high-incidence counties reflecting a high PSA uptake suggests that more-intense as compared with less-intense opportunistic PSA screening reduces prostate cancer mortality.

Genomic Rearrangements of PTEN in Prostate Cancer

The phosphatase and tensin homolog gene (PTEN) on chromosome 10q23.3 is a negative regulator of the PIK3/Akt survival pathway and is the most frequently deleted tumor suppressor gene in prostate cancer. Monoallelic loss of PTEN is present in up to 60% of localized prostate cancers and complete loss of PTEN in prostate cancer is linked to metastasis and androgen-independent progression. Studies on the genomic status of PTEN in prostate cancer initially used a two-color fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay for PTEN copy number detection in formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissue preparations. More recently, a four-color FISH assay containing two additional control probes flanking the PTEN locus with a lower false-positive rate was reported. Combined with the detection of other critical genomic biomarkers for prostate cancer such as ERG, androgen receptor, and MYC, the evaluation of PTEN genomic status has proven to be invaluable for patient stratification and management. Although less frequent than allelic deletions, point mutations in the gene and epigenetic silencing are also known to contribute to loss of PTEN function, and ultimately to prostate cancer initiation. Overall, it is clear that PTEN is a powerful biomarker for prostate cancer. Used as a companion diagnostic for emerging therapeutic drugs, FISH analysis of PTEN is promisingly moving human prostate cancer closer to more effective cancer management and therapies.

Trends in prostate cancer in the United States

In the United States, prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death. The American Cancer Society estimates that 241 740 American men will be diagnosed with the disease and 28 170 men will die of it in 2012. Prostate cancer demographics have changed dramatically over the past 30 years. The prostate cancer age-adjusted incidence rate increased through the 1980s and peaked in the early to mid-1990s. The incidence rate has declined since. American mortality rates rose through the 1980s and peaked in 1991. Today, the American incidence rates are below 1975 levels. Both the incidence rate and the 5-year survival rates are heavily influenced by the introduction of serum prostate-specific antigen test and the widespread use of it in cancer screening. The effect of screening on prostate cancer mortality is less certain. Screening has caused a dramatic increase in the number and proportion of men diagnosed with localized disease. Outcomes studies among men treated with radical prostatectomy show that greater than 30% serum prostate-specific antigen relapse rates are common. This suggests that many men who are diagnosed with "localized early stage disease" actually have "apparently localized early stage disease," which is really low-volume metastatic disease.

Relationship between prostate-specific antigen, age, and body mass index in a prostate cancer screening population

BACKGROUND

Recent studies questioning the benefit of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening have increased the need for evaluating factors contributing to variance in levels and their clinical relevance. An inverse relationship between body mass index (BMI) and PSA has been illustrated, however the clinical implications have not been specified. We performed a retrospective review of patients screened through our free screening clinic to delineate any relationship between PSA and BMI in an attempt to understand its possible clinical significance.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed data collected in relation to PSA values and patient characteristics from a community outreach program supplying information and screening for prostate cancer between June of 2003 and August of 2009.

RESULTS

Mean BMI of our patient population was 28.7 m/kg(2) (SD 5.4) and our mean PSA value was 1.28 (SD 1.77). Our data indicate a small, but statistically significant decrease in PSA for an increasing BMI with a 0.026 decrease in PSA for every unit increase in BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the previously reported inverse relationship between PSA value and BMI. The significance of this finding and its impact on the value do not seem to indicate a rationale to change the accepted abnormal value in obese patients and should be used in the context of the clinical scenario and other PSA altering factors.

Prostate-specific antigen testing across the spectrum of prostate cancer

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a protein produced by the prostate, and this protein may be elevated for several reasons, including prostatitis, benign prostatic hypertrophy and/or cancer. PSA is not cancer-specific, cannot be used as a cancer marker and it has been demonstrated that there is no level of PSA that is definitive for prostate cancer. The value of the PSA test varies when used for screening, diagnosis, prognosis or as a signal of disease recurrence. Misuse of the test for screening has created unnecessary anxiety and costs, and has led to the significant overdiagnosis and overtreatment of men. More important than whether or not to screen is how one acts upon the data from a single test; with the exception of extremely high double- or triple-digit levels of PSA, it is prudent only to use a single PSA determination as a baseline, with biopsy and cancer treatment reserved for those with significant PSA changes over time, or for those with clinical manifestations mandating immediate therapy. Using the PSA test to monitor disease progression or recurrence is appropriate, provided one understands that absolute levels of PSA are rarely meaningful; it is the relative change in PSA levels over time that provides insight, but not definitive proof of a cancerous condition necessitating therapy. PSA secretion is under hormonal control and thus PSA levels may be affected differently by the type of drug therapy, by the stage of a patients' disease, and by genetic factors suggesting some men are 'high PSA producers'. Until a validated alternative test for prostate cancer is found and adopted, the current flawed PSA test needs to be used more judiciously and not used for routine screening as studies have demonstrated that screening, as defined, does not lead to a reduction in patient mortality. All men, their families and their physicians need to understand the significant limitations of PSA testing.

Historical prostate cancer screening and treatment outcomes from a single institution

OBJECTIVE

To quantify outcomes of individuals diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer in a single institution.

DESIGN

Retrospective electronic chart abstraction.

SETTING

Marshfield Clinic, the largest private multispecialty group practice in Wisconsin, and one of the largest in the United States, provides health care services annually to approximately 385,000 unique patients through 1.8 million annual patient encounters.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals within the Marshfield Clinic cancer registry who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1960 and 2009.

METHODS

Electronic chart abstraction from the cancer registry and the electronic medical record was conducted (N=6,181). Data abstracted included age at diagnosis; stage and grade of tumor; prostate specific antigen (PSA) values before, at, and after diagnosis; initial cancer treatment; follow-up time; subsequent cancer treatments; evidence of metastasis; age of death; and cause of death, if known.

RESULTS

The average age of prostate cancer diagnosis has decreased from 70-71 years in the 1960's and 1970's to an average age at diagnosis of 67 years in the 2000's (P<0.001). This decrease in age occurred within the decades of implementation of PSA screening. Approximately 74% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer within the PSA screening era had at least one PSA test, and the presence of a PSA test did not appear to change treatment outcome. Age, grade, and stage were the biggest predictors of prostate cancer outcome. There was no difference in event-free survival between current treatment types (radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy, photon treatment, or intensity-modulated radiation therapy) (2003 or later) when stratified by age (greater than 85%, 5-year event-free survival P=0.85); however, more events occurred with older external beam radiation treatment regimens (1993-2003) (70% to 75%, 5-year event-free survival P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Individuals diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer within the Marshfield Clinic comprehensive care setting follow national trends with a decreased age of diagnosis since the advent of PSA screening. Outcomes for individuals treated within the Clinic system are also comparable to national trends.

The prognostic value of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy in patients over 70 years old with a prostate specific Antigen (PSA) level ≤ 15 ng/ml and normal digital rectal examination: a 10-year prospective follow-up study of 427 consecutive patients

INTRODUCTION

As a urologist, it is common to review a patient above the age of 70 being referred to a prostate assessments clinic with an elevated PSA. We evaluate the prognosis of these patients clinically as there is no international consensus on the exact PSA cutoff level or a single international guideline as to when these patients should be offered a prostate biopsy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

On receiving ethic committee approval, we recruited 427 consecutive patients aged 70 years and above referred with a PSA of ≥ 4 ng/ml, from January 1996 to December 2000, into our study. All patients were assessed, examined with a digital rectal examination (DRE) of the prostate, and a subsequent prostate biopsy. We followed up on their histologic diagnosis for up to 10 years and analyzed their outcome. The main outcome measures were disease-free survival and overall survival, stratified according to the PSA level (≤ 15 vs. >15 ng/ml) and DRE findings (normal vs. sbnormal).

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference in the overall survival (P value < 0.011) and disease specific survival (P value < 0.0001) of cancer patients with a PSA was >15 ng/ml and an abnormal DRE. However, in patients with a PSA ≤ 15 ng/ml and normal DRE, the incidence of cancer was low and they had no disease-specific or overall survival benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

A policy of deferring prostate biopsy in patients with a PSA ≤ 15 ng/ml and normal DRE (Group A) would significantly decrease the need of unnecessary prostate biopsies. Within this group, patients did not have any survival advantage compared with those without cancer. We conclude that up to 20% of the prostate biopsies performed in this age group could have been avoided.

The impact of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality and overdiagnosis of prostate cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND

The study assessed the impact of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in the United States by comparing the rates of PSA testing in U.S. counties to the rates of prostate biopsies and newly treated prostate cancer and to deaths from prostate cancer.

METHODS

We examined the association between the percentage of men aged 66-74 from a nationally representative 5% Medicare sample who received PSA testing in each U.S. county in 1997 and the percent of men who received prostate biopsies or treatment for newly diagnosed prostate cancer in 1997 as well as mortality from prostate cancer and from all other causes from 1998 to 2007.

RESULTS

Analyses of 1,067 U.S. counties showed a significant relationship between the rate of PSA testing and both the rate of men undergoing treatment for prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality (both p < .001) but no relationship with mortality from other causes. For every 100,000 men receiving a PSA test in 1997, an additional 4,894 men underwent prostate biopsy and 1,597 additional men underwent prostate cancer treatment in 1997, and 61 fewer men died from prostate cancer during 1998-2006. Analyses stratified by age and race produced similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

PSA testing was associated with modest reductions in prostate cancer mortality and large increases in the number of men overdiagnosed with and overtreated for prostate cancer. The results are similar to those obtained by the large European randomized prospective trial of PSA testing.

Prostate cancer epidemiology in the United States

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is a significant public health issue in the United States. It is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2011, 240,890 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 33,720 men died of it.

METHODS

A review of the peer-reviewed literature was conducted: American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results. Program data were assessed to describe trends in incidence, mortality, and survival rates and look at other predictors of risk of prostate cancer diagnosis and death.

RESULTS

Since 1985, there have been significant changing trends in prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival rates, as well as changes in the age distribution of the population diagnosed and even in the distribution of pathologies at diagnosis. Major risk factors for diagnosis include age, family history, race, and screening behavior.

CONCLUSION

While prostate cancer remains largely a disease diagnosed in older men (over age 65), screening has increased risk of diagnosis among men in their 40s and 50s. The incidence rates and 5-year survival rates are heavily influenced by the introduction of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and widespread screening. The effects of PSA usage and screening on mortality rates are less certain. Outcome studies among men treated with radical prostatectomy show that greater than 30% relapse rates are common. This suggests that many men who are diagnosed with "localized early stage disease" actually have "apparently localized early stage disease," which is really low volume metastatic disease.

Screening for Prostate Cancer with Prostate-Specific Antigen: What's the Evidence?

In October 2011, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF, or "Task Force") released draft recommendations on prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA), concluding that "PSA-based screening results in small or no reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality and is associated with harms related to subsequent evaluation and treatments, some of which may be unnecessary." This statement was accompanied by a grade "D" recommendation, which indicates that in the Task Force's judgment there "is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits." The Task Force, an independent panel of nonfederal (U.S.) experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine, conducts systematic evidence reviews of preventive health care services and makes recommendations about preventive services in primary care. Task Force recommendations do not set U.S. federal policy but can and do influence reimbursement and clinical practice. In this article, we will present evidence the Task Force considered when making its decision, including two highly influential randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prostate cancer screening, the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO). The two trials arrived at different conclusions about the efficacy of routine prostate cancer screening, but similar conclusions about the accompaniment of clinically relevant harms with prostate cancer screening, including overdiagnosis (screen detection of cancers that never would be diagnosed in the absence of screening). We also will present other available evidence on benefits and harms of PSA-based screening and consider that evidence and the findings of ERSPC and PLCO in conjunction with one another.

Screening for prostate cancer: early detection or overdetection?

A sophisticated reading of the randomized trial evidence suggests that, although screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) can reduce cancer-specific mortality, it does so at considerable cost in terms of the number of men who need to be screened, biopsied, and treated to prevent one death. The challenge is to design screening programs that maximize benefits (reducing prostate cancer mortality) and minimize costs (overtreatment). Recent research has suggested that this can be achieved by risk-stratifying screening and biopsy; increasing reliance on active surveillance for low-risk cancer; restricting radical prostatectomy to high-volume surgeons; and using appropriately high-dose radiotherapy. In current U.S. practice, however, many men who are screened are unlikely to benefit, most men found to have low-risk cancers are referred for unnecessary curative treatment, and much treatment is given at low-volume centers.

Does urological cancer mortality increase with low population density of physicians?

PURPOSE

We examined the association between urological cancer mortality rates and the presence of physicians. We hypothesized that cancer mortality rates increase with a low physician population density since this would decrease the detection of cancers at an early stage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mortality rates for prostate cancer, bladder cancer, kidney and renal pelvis cancer, and cancer at all sites for white patients in United States counties from 2003 to 2007 were obtained from the National Vital Statistics System. High and low rate groups of counties were reviewed for each type of cancer. The high rate groups consisted of 15 or 25 counties with the highest cancer mortality rates. The low rate groups consisted of counties, selected from the same states as high rate groups, with the lowest mortality rates. Levels of physicians per 10,000 general population, income, poverty and no health insurance were compared between the high and low cancer rate groups.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant inverse association between physician population density levels and kidney and renal pelvis cancer mortality rates. The association was suggestive for bladder cancer and prostate cancer mortality but not for cancer at all sites. There was also a tendency for an inverse association between family income and cancer mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Kidney and renal pelvis cancer mortality rates increased significantly with a low physician population density. We found a suggestive but not significant negative association between physician population density and mortality rates for prostate cancer and bladder cancer but not for cancer at all sites. Low family income was associated with higher cancer rates.

Screening for prostate cancer: have we resolved the controversy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate cancer (PCa) screening has long been a source of controversy. In this review, we discuss the interim results of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Implications of these studies will also be underlined.

RECENT FINDINGS

With systematic prostate-specific antigen-based screening, the ERSPC reported a statistically significant PCa-specific mortality reduction of 20% favouring screening in the intention-to-treat analysis and 31% in the secondary analysis. In contrast, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial showed no mortality reduction. On the basis of critical appraisal of the study design and methods, it is justified to rely on the results of the ERSPC, as the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial is rather a comparison between a screening group and a less screened group.

SUMMARY

Despite the effects demonstrated by the ERSPC, there is currently insufficient evidence to introduce a population-based screening programme. The studies evaluating quality of life and cost-efficiency need to be completed with the highest urgency and their results should be considered together with more mature data from the ERSPC to reach an effective implementation of screening on PCa. Meanwhile, we have to improve the screening test, screening protocol and further develop an accurate individualized risk assessment to decrease the rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, while the mortality reduction and the detection of clinically relevant PCa should be maintained.

Prostate cancer screening 2010: updated recommendations from the American Cancer Society

In 2009, the American Cancer Society (ACS) initiated a series of systematic evidence reviews to update recommendations for early prostate cancer detection. The evidence reviews focused on studies of screening, the performance of screening tests, harms associated with testing and therapy for localized prostate cancer, and shared and informed decision making in prostate cancer screening. Based on this evidence, the ACS recommends that asymptomatic men who have at least a 10-year life expectancy have an opportunity to make an informed decision with their health care provider about screening for prostate cancer after receiving information about the uncertainties, risks, and potential benefits associated with prostate cancer screening. Prostate cancer screening should not occur without an informed decision-making process. Men at average risk should receive this information beginning at age 50. Men in higher-risk groups should receive this information before age 50. Men should either receive this information directly from their health care providers or be referred to reliable and culturally appropriate sources. Patient decision aids are helpful in preparing men to make a decision whether to be tested, and the use of such aids is encouraged.