1
|
Trends in Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing and prostate cancer incidence and mortality in Australia: A critical analysis. Cancer Epidemiol 2022; 77:102093. [PMID: 35026706 DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2021.102093] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2021] [Revised: 12/20/2021] [Accepted: 12/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Population trends in PSA testing and prostate cancer incidence do not perfectly correspond. We aimed to better understand relationships between trends in PSA testing, prostate cancer incidence and mortality in Australia and factors that influence them. METHODS We calculated and described standardised time trends in PSA tests, prostate biopsies, treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) and prostate cancer incidence and mortality in Australia in men aged 45-74, 75-84, and 85 + years. RESULTS PSA testing increased from its introduction in 1989 to a peak in 2008 before declining in men aged 45-84 years. Prostate biopsies and cancer incidence fell from 1995 to 2000 in parallel with decrease in trans-urethral resections of the prostate (TURP) and, latterly, changes in pharmaceutical management of BPH. After 2000, changes in biopsies and incidence paralleled changes in PSA screening in men 45-84 years, while in men ≥85 years biopsy rates stabilised, and incidence fell. Prostate cancer mortality in men aged 45-74 years remained low throughout. Mortality in men 75-84 years gradually increased until mid 1990s, then gradually decreased. Mortality in men ≥ 85 years increased until mid 1990s, then stabilised. CONCLUSION Age specific prostate cancer incidence largely mirrors PSA testing rates. Most deviation from this pattern may be explained by less use of TURP in management of BPH and consequent less incidental cancer detection in TURP tissue specimens. Mortality from prostate cancer initially rose and then fell below what it was when PSA testing began. Its initial rise and fall may be explained by a possible initial tendency to over-attribute deaths of uncertain cause in older men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer to prostate cancer. Decreases in mortality rates were many fold smaller than the increases in incidence, suggesting substantial overdiagnosis of prostate cancer after introduction of PSA testing.
Collapse
|
2
|
Remmers S, Nieboer D, Rijstenberg LL, Hansum T, van Leenders GJ, Roobol MJ. Updating the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator with Invasive Cribriform and/or Intraductal Carcinoma for Men with a Prior Negative Biopsy. EUR UROL SUPPL 2022; 36:19-22. [PMID: 34977692 PMCID: PMC8693011 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.11.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) is a well-validated tool for upfront risk stratification to reduce the number of prostate biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging scans among both biopsy-naïve and previously biopsied men. The presence of invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma (CR/IDC) identifies men with aggressive grade group (GG) 2 tumors. This finding was recently incorporated in the RPCRC for biopsy-naïve men to predict the probability of no PCa, indolent PCa (GG 1 disease and GG 2 disease without CR/IDC), and clinically significant PCa (csPCa: GG 2 disease with CR/IDC and higher). The aim of the current study was to update the RPCRC for men with a previous negative biopsy with the presence of CR/IDC. A total of 2215 men were eligible for analyses, of whom 1776 (80%) were not diagnosed with PCa, 358 (16%) were diagnosed with indolent PCa, and 81 (4%) were diagnosed with csPCa according to the original 2014 Gleason grading. The optimism-corrected area under the curve was 0.69 for any PCa and 0.77 for csPCa. With a threshold of 10% for indolent PCa or 1% for csPCa, 20% of all prostate biopsies could be avoided and 2% of all csPCa cases would be missed. Our results support upfront risk stratification with the updated RPCRC. Patient summary Risk stratification for men without a prior diagnosis of prostate cancer can reduce the number of prostate biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging scans carried out in this patient population. Our study shows that it is possible to update the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for men with a previous negative biopsy with the presence of invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastiaan Remmers
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Corresponding author. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Tel. +31 10 7032239; Fax: +31 10 7035315.
| | - Daan Nieboer
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - L. Lucia Rijstenberg
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Tim Hansum
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Geert J.L.H. van Leenders
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Monique J. Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Keeney E, Thom H, Turner E, Martin RM, Morley J, Sanghera S. Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Models in Prostate Cancer: Exploring New Developments in Testing and Diagnosis. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2022; 25:133-146. [PMID: 35031092 PMCID: PMC8752463 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.07.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2021] [Revised: 07/08/2021] [Accepted: 07/09/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Recent innovations in prostate cancer diagnosis include new biomarkers and more accurate biopsy methods. This study assesses the evidence base on cost-effectiveness of these developments (eg, Prostate Health Index and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]-guided biopsy) and identifies areas of improvement for future cost-effectiveness models. METHODS A systematic review using the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Health Technology Assessment databases, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and United Kingdom National Screening Committee guidance was performed, between 2009 and 2021. Relevant data were extracted on study type, model inputs, modeling methods and cost-effectiveness conclusions, and results narratively synthesized. RESULTS A total of 22 model-based economic evaluations were included. A total of 11 compared the cost-effectiveness of new biomarkers to prostate-specific antigen testing alone and all found biomarkers to be cost saving. A total of 8 compared MRI-guided biopsy methods to transrectal ultrasound-guided methods and found MRI-guided methods to be most cost-effective. Newer detection methods showed a reduction in unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment. The most cost-effective follow-up strategy in men with a negative initial biopsy was uncertain. Many studies did not model for stage or grade of cancer, cancer progression, or the entire testing and treatment pathway. Few fully accounted for uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS This review brings together the cost-effectiveness literature for novel diagnostic methods in prostate cancer, showing that most studies have found new methods to be more cost-effective than standard of care. Several limitations of the models were identified, however, limiting the reliability of the results. Areas for further development include accurately modeling the impact of early diagnostic tests on long-term outcomes of prostate cancer and fully accounting for uncertainty.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edna Keeney
- Health Economics Bristol, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK.
| | - Howard Thom
- Health Economics Bristol, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
| | - Emma Turner
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
| | - Richard M Martin
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK; MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
| | - Josie Morley
- Health Economics Bristol, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
| | - Sabina Sanghera
- Health Economics Bristol, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Park SG, Shim KH, Choo SH, Kim SJ, Kim SI. The presence of prostate-specific antigen checked more than 1 year before diagnostic biopsy is an independent prognostic factor in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Investig Clin Urol 2021; 62:438-446. [PMID: 34085793 PMCID: PMC8246017 DOI: 10.4111/icu.20200545] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2020] [Revised: 12/23/2020] [Accepted: 02/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE In large scale prospective studies, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-screening not only decreased prostate cancer mortality, but also reduced biochemical recurrence (BCR) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). We investigated the independent effect of the presence of PSA checked more than 1 year before diagnostic biopsy on the prognosis of patients undergoing RP in a real world setting without PSA-screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS We reviewed the database of patients undergoing RP at Ajou University Hospital from March 1999 to May 2018. Clinicopathological features assessed were age, presence of lower urinary tract symptoms at presentation, presence of PSA checked over 1 year before biopsy, presence of PSA checked within 4 to 1 years of biopsy, last pre-biopsy PSA (pPSA), biopsy grade group (bGG), cT, cN, percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC), pathological GG (pGG), pT, pN, surgical margin, and index tumor diameter. The primary endpoint was BCR-free survival (BCRFS). RESULTS Of 598 patients enrolled, 211 experienced BCR at the mean follow-up of 64±37 months. The 5-year and 10-year BCRFS were 62.8% and 53.9%, respectively. In multivariate analyses including clinical variables only, pPSA, bGG, cT, PPBC, and PSA within 4 to 1 years of biopsy independently affected BCRFS. In multivariate analyses including pathological variables only, pPSA, pGG, pT, pN, PSA checked over 1 year before biopsy and PSA checked within 4 to 1 years of biopsy independently affected BCRFS. CONCLUSIONS Patients who has checked PSA at least once beyond 1 year before diagnosis of prostate cancer show better BCRFS regardless of other factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sung Gon Park
- Department of Urology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea
| | - Kang Hee Shim
- Department of Urology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea
| | - Seol Ho Choo
- Department of Urology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea
| | - Se Joong Kim
- Department of Urology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea
| | - Sun Il Kim
- Department of Urology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Getaneh AM, Heijnsdijk EA, de Koning HJ. Cost-effectiveness of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and MRI-guided biopsy in a population-based prostate cancer screening setting using a micro-simulation model. Cancer Med 2021; 10:4046-4053. [PMID: 33991077 PMCID: PMC8209626 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3932] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2021] [Revised: 03/29/2021] [Accepted: 04/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The introduction of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MRI-guided biopsy has improved the diagnosis of prostate cancer. However, it remains uncertain whether it is cost-effective, especially in a population-based screening strategy. METHODS We used a micro-simulation model to assess the cost-effectiveness of an MRI-based prostate cancer screening in comparison to the classical prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, at a population level. The test sensitivity parameters for the mpMRI and MRI-guided biopsy, grade misclassification rates, utility estimates, and the unit costs of different interventions were obtained from literature. We assumed the same screening attendance rate and biopsy compliance rate for both strategies. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis, consisting of 1000 model runs, was performed to estimate a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and assess uncertainty. A €20,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and a discounting rate of 3.5% was considered in the analysis. RESULTS The MRI-based screening improved the life-years (LY) and QALYs gained by 3.5 and 3, respectively, in comparison to the classical screening pathway. Based on the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the MRI screening pathway leads to total discounted mean incremental costs of €15,413 (95% confidence interval (CI) of €14,556-€16,272) compared to the classical screening pathway. The corresponding discounted mean incremental QALYs gained was 1.36 (95% CI of 1.31-1.40), resulting in a mean ICER of €11,355 per QALY gained. At a WTP threshold of €20,000, the MRI screening pathway has about 84% chance to be more cost-effective than the classical screening pathway. CONCLUSIONS For triennial screening from age 55-64, incorporation of mpMRI as a reflex test after a positive PSA test result with a subsequent MRI-guided biopsy has a high probability to be more cost-effective as compared with the classical prostate cancer screening pathway.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abraham M Getaneh
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Eveline Am Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
[Intelligent early prostate cancer detection in 2021: more benefit than harm]. Urologe A 2021; 60:602-609. [PMID: 33881554 DOI: 10.1007/s00120-021-01519-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/22/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is used for early detection of prostate cancer which represents the most frequent cancer diagnosed in men in Germany and Europe. Results of the largest screening trials revealed that PSA testing reduces the incidence of locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer and shows an effect on cancer-specific mortality. However, since early diagnosis also results in overdiagnosis and overtreatment of insignificant cancers with associated morbidities, there is a need for a more individualized and risk-tailored modern strategy. The PSA at baseline is an important part of this strategy although the German Federal Joint Committee declined its financial coverage by health insurances. Available validated instruments should accompany the baseline PSA to optimize detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.
Collapse
|
7
|
Getaneh AM, Heijnsdijk EAM, de Koning HJ. The comparative effectiveness of mpMRI and MRI-guided biopsy vs regular biopsy in a population-based PSA testing: a modeling study. Sci Rep 2021; 11:1801. [PMID: 33469144 PMCID: PMC7815791 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-81459-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2020] [Accepted: 01/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
The benefit of prostate cancer screening is counterbalanced by the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The use of a multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) test after a positive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test followed by magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy (MRIGB) may reduce these harms. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of mpMRI and MRIGB vs the regular screening pathway in a population-based prostate cancer screening setting. A micro-simulation model was used to predict the effects of regular PSA screening (men with elevated PSA followed by TRUSGB) and MRI based screening (men with elevated PSA followed by mpMRI and MRIGB). We predicted reduction of overdiagnosis, harm-benefit ratio (overdiagnosis per cancer death averted), reduction in number of biopsies, detection of clinically significant cancer, prostate cancer death averted, life-years gained (LYG), and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for both strategies. A univariate sensitivity analysis and threshold analysis were performed to assess uncertainty around the test sensitivity parameters used in the MRI strategy.In the MRI pathway, we predicted a 43% reduction in the risk of overdiagnosis, compared to the regular pathway. Similarly a lower harm-benefit ratio (overdiagnosis per cancer death averted) was predicted for this strategy compared to the regular screening pathway (1.0 vs 1.8 respectively). Prostate cancer mortality reduction, LY and QALYs gained were also slightly increased in the MRI pathway than the regular screening pathway. Furthermore, 30% of men with a positive PSA test could avoid a biopsy as compared to the regular screening pathway. Compared to regular PSA screening, the use of mpMRI as a triage test followed by MRIGB can substantially reduce the risk of overdiagnosis and improve the harm-benefit balance, while maximizing prostate cancer mortality reduction and QALYs gained.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abraham M Getaneh
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Rajwa P, Syed J, Leapman MS. How should radiologists incorporate non-imaging prostate cancer biomarkers into daily practice? Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020; 45:4031-4039. [PMID: 32232525 PMCID: PMC7529677 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02496-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To review the current body of evidence surrounding non-imaging biomarkers in patients with known or suspected prostate cancer. RESULTS Several non-imaging biomarkers have been developed and are available that aim to improve risk estimates at several clinical junctures. For patients with suspicion of prostate cancer who are considering first-time or repeat biopsy, blood- and urine-based assays can improve the prediction of harboring clinically significant disease and may reduce unnecessary biopsy. Blood- and urine-based biomarkers have been evaluated in association with prostate MRI, offering insights that might augment decision-making in the pre and post-MRI setting. Tissue-based genomic and proteomic assays have also been developed that provide independent assessments of prostate cancer aggressiveness that can complement imaging. CONCLUSION A growing number of non-imaging biomarkers are available to assist in clinical decision-making for men with known or suspected prostate cancer. An appreciation for the intersection of imaging and biomarkers may improve clinical care and resource utilization for men with prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pawel Rajwa
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, 41-800, Zabrze, Poland
| | - Jamil Syed
- Department of Urology, Yale University School of Medicine, 310 Cedar Street BML 238c, PO Box 208058, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA
| | - Michael S Leapman
- Department of Urology, Yale University School of Medicine, 310 Cedar Street BML 238c, PO Box 208058, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Getaneh AM, Heijnsdijk EAM, Roobol MJ, de Koning HJ. Assessment of harms, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: A micro-simulation study of 230 scenarios. Cancer Med 2020; 9:7742-7750. [PMID: 32813910 PMCID: PMC7571827 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2020] [Revised: 07/30/2020] [Accepted: 07/31/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Prostate cancer screening incurs a high risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. An organized and age‐targeted screening strategy may reduce the associated harms while retaining or enhancing the benefits. Methods Using a micro‐simulation analysis (MISCAN) model, we assessed the harms, benefits, and cost‐effectiveness of 230 prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) screening strategies in a Dutch population. Screening strategies were varied by screening start age (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55), stop age (51‐69), and intervals (1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and single test). Costs and effects of each screening strategy were compared with a no‐screening scenario. Results The most optimum strategy would be screening with 3‐year intervals at ages 55–64 resulting in an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €19 733 per QALY. This strategy predicted a 27% prostate cancer mortality reduction and 28 life years gained (LYG) per 1000 men; 36% of screen‐detected men were overdiagnosed. Sensitivity analyses did not substantially alter the optimal screening strategy. Conclusions PSA screening beyond age 64 is not cost‐effective and associated with a higher risk of overdiagnosis. Similarly, starting screening before age 55 is not a favored strategy based on our cost‐effectiveness analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abraham M Getaneh
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Monique J Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Liu Y, Xiao G, Zhou JW, Yang JK, Lu L, Bian J, Zhong L, Wei QZ, Zhou QZ, Xue KY, Guo WB, Xia M, Zhou JH, Bao JM, Yang C, Liu CD, Chen MK. Optimal Starting Age and Baseline Level for Repeat Tests: Economic Concerns of PSA Screening for Chinese Men - 10-Year Experience of a Single Center. Urol Int 2019; 104:230-238. [PMID: 31770767 DOI: 10.1159/000503733] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2019] [Accepted: 09/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the optimal age for the baseline serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test and for repeat screening and its economic burden in a single center in China. MATERIALS AND METHODS 35,533 men with PSA screening were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Follow-ups were conducted in 1,586 men with PSA >4 ng/mL, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were employed to investigate the optimal cutoffs. RESULTS ROC analysis indicated that the optimal age for initial PSA screening was 57.5 years (AUC = 0.84), 62.5 years (AUC = 0.902), 60.5 years (AUC = 0.909), and 61.5 years (AUC = 0.890) for individuals with PSA >4 and >10 ng/mL, a diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa), and clinically significant PCa defined as the focus events, respectively. For Chinese men aged 50-59, 60-69, and >70 years, the initial PSA levels of 1.305 ng/mL (AUC = 0.699), 1.975 ng/mL (AUC = 0.711), and 2.740 ng/mL (AUC = 0.720) might have a PSA velocity >0.75 ng/mL per year during the follow-up. In addition, the total cost amounts to CNY 13,609,260 in these cases, but only 60 of the 35,533 (0.17%) men gained benefit from PSA screening. CONCLUSION In our opinion, the optimal starting age for initial PSA testing was 57.5 years. The necessity for repeat screening should be based on the first PSA level depending on age. A cost--benefit analysis should be included in population-based screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yang Liu
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Gang Xiao
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jia-Wei Zhou
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jian-Kun Yang
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Li Lu
- Department of Urology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jun Bian
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Lin Zhong
- Department of Pathology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Qing-Zhu Wei
- Department of Pathology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Qi-Zhao Zhou
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Kang-Yi Xue
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Wen-Bing Guo
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ming Xia
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jun-Hao Zhou
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ji-Ming Bao
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Cheng Yang
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Cun-Dong Liu
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ming-Kun Chen
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China,
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Do Carmo Silva J, Vesely S, Novak V, Luksanova H, Prusa R, Babjuk M. Is Engrailed-2 (EN2) a truly promising biomarker in prostate cancer detection? Biomarkers 2019; 25:34-39. [PMID: 31692391 DOI: 10.1080/1354750x.2019.1690047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
Purpose: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a sensitive but unspecific marker for prostate cancer (PC) detection, which may result in harms including overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Therefore, the development of new markers is of absolute value. The urinary level of engrailed-2 (EN2) protein has been recently suggested as a promising PC biomarker, correlating with tumour volume and stage. This study evaluated EN2 and its potential use in clinical practice.Materials and methods: Urinary EN2 was assessed by different commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits. The study sample included 90 patients with clinically localized PC compared to 30 healthy controls, and a group of 40 patients indicated for prostate biopsy due to an elevated PSA level where both pre- and post-digital rectal examination urine samples were collected.Results: No statistical difference between the patient group and the control group was obtained in all measured variables. There was no significant correlation between urinary EN2 and serum PSA, tumour staging and grading. Attentive DRE did not lead to significant changes of urinary EN2 or impact on its predictive power.Conclusions: Our results show that EN2 as a PC biomarker brings no additional value to the current use of PSA in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joana Do Carmo Silva
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Stepan Vesely
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Vojtech Novak
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Hana Luksanova
- Department of Medical Chemistry and Clinical Biochemistry, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Richard Prusa
- Department of Medical Chemistry and Clinical Biochemistry, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Marko Babjuk
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Miller EA, Pinsky PF, Black A, Andriole GL, Pierre-Victor D. Secondary prostate cancer screening outcomes by race in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Screening Trial. Prostate 2018; 78:830-838. [PMID: 29667217 DOI: 10.1002/pros.23540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2018] [Accepted: 04/02/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite disparities in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates between black and white men, there is still insufficient data available to assess potential differences in the benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening by race. Although the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Screening Trial is underpowered to detect a difference by race in prostate-cancer specific mortality, because of the large study size, there are still sufficient numbers to examine secondary screening outcomes. The objective of this analysis is to examine whether differences exist between black and white participants with respect to screening false-positive rates, biopsy follow-up of men with positive screens, tumor characteristics, and overdiagnosis of prostate cancer. METHODS Participants from the PLCO included men aged 55-74 years at baseline. Cancer diagnoses and deaths were identified through study update questionnaires, records of biopsy procedures, and linkage with the National Death Index. Cancer characteristics were obtained by medical abstractors. We used chi-squared tests to assess differences in false-positive rates, biopsy follow-up, and tumor characteristics. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare incidence and mortality rates adjusting for age and survival rates adjusting for Gleason scores. RESULTS Black men were slightly more likely (14.5%) to have a false-positive PSA test compared to white men (12.4%; P = 0.02) but less likely to have a false-positive digital rectal exam (DRE) (10.9% vs 14.2%, respectively; P < 0.001). Among all men who were screened, black men were significantly more likely to undergo a biopsy than white men (16.5% vs 13.8%, respectively [P = 0.003]) but there was no difference when limited to those with a positive PSA test. Prostate cancer tumors were more likely to be aggressive and to have metastasized in black men compared to white men. Disparities in incidence, mortality, and survival rates were comparable to those seen in population-based data. CONCLUSIONS There was evidence that false-positive test results differed by race and screening test. Consistent with previous studies, cancer outcomes, and tumor characteristics were all more unfavorable in black men.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric A Miller
- Division of Cancer Prevention, NCI, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Paul F Pinsky
- Division of Cancer Prevention, NCI, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Amanda Black
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, NCI, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Gerald L Andriole
- Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Martin RM, Donovan JL, Turner EL, Metcalfe C, Young GJ, Walsh EI, Lane JA, Noble S, Oliver SE, Evans S, Sterne JAC, Holding P, Ben-Shlomo Y, Brindle P, Williams NJ, Hill EM, Ng SY, Toole J, Tazewell MK, Hughes LJ, Davies CF, Thorn JC, Down E, Davey Smith G, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. Effect of a Low-Intensity PSA-Based Screening Intervention on Prostate Cancer Mortality: The CAP Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2018; 319:883-895. [PMID: 29509864 PMCID: PMC5885905 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.0154] [Citation(s) in RCA: 249] [Impact Index Per Article: 41.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2017] [Accepted: 01/17/2018] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
Importance Prostate cancer screening remains controversial because potential mortality or quality-of-life benefits may be outweighed by harms from overdetection and overtreatment. Objective To evaluate the effect of a single prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening intervention and standardized diagnostic pathway on prostate cancer-specific mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) included 419 582 men aged 50 to 69 years and was conducted at 573 primary care practices across the United Kingdom. Randomization and recruitment of the practices occurred between 2001 and 2009; patient follow-up ended on March 31, 2016. Intervention An invitation to attend a PSA testing clinic and receive a single PSA test vs standard (unscreened) practice. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome: prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median follow-up of 10 years. Prespecified secondary outcomes: diagnostic cancer stage and Gleason grade (range, 2-10; higher scores indicate a poorer prognosis) of prostate cancers identified, all-cause mortality, and an instrumental variable analysis estimating the causal effect of attending the PSA screening clinic. Results Among 415 357 randomized men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 189 386 in the intervention group and 219 439 in the control group were included in the analysis (n = 408 825; 98%). In the intervention group, 75 707 (40%) attended the PSA testing clinic and 67 313 (36%) underwent PSA testing. Of 64 436 with a valid PSA test result, 6857 (11%) had a PSA level between 3 ng/mL and 19.9 ng/mL, of whom 5850 (85%) had a prostate biopsy. After a median follow-up of 10 years, 549 (0.30 per 1000 person-years) died of prostate cancer in the intervention group vs 647 (0.31 per 1000 person-years) in the control group (rate difference, -0.013 per 1000 person-years [95% CI, -0.047 to 0.022]; rate ratio [RR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.85 to 1.08]; P = .50). The number diagnosed with prostate cancer was higher in the intervention group (n = 8054; 4.3%) than in the control group (n = 7853; 3.6%) (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.14 to 1.25]; P < .001). More prostate cancer tumors with a Gleason grade of 6 or lower were identified in the intervention group (n = 3263/189 386 [1.7%]) than in the control group (n = 2440/219 439 [1.1%]) (difference per 1000 men, 6.11 [95% CI, 5.38 to 6.84]; P < .001). In the analysis of all-cause mortality, there were 25 459 deaths in the intervention group vs 28 306 deaths in the control group (RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.03]; P = .49). In the instrumental variable analysis for prostate cancer mortality, the adherence-adjusted causal RR was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.29; P = .66). Conclusions and Relevance Among practices randomized to a single PSA screening intervention vs standard practice without screening, there was no significant difference in prostate cancer mortality after a median follow-up of 10 years but the detection of low-risk prostate cancer cases increased. Although longer-term follow-up is under way, the findings do not support single PSA testing for population-based screening. Trial Registration ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN92187251.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard M. Martin
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Jenny L. Donovan
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, England
| | - Emma L. Turner
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Chris Metcalfe
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Grace J. Young
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Eleanor I. Walsh
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - J. Athene Lane
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Sian Noble
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Steven E. Oliver
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York and Hull York Medical School, York, England
| | - Simon Evans
- Urology Department, Royal United Hospital, Bath, England
| | - Jonathan A. C. Sterne
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Peter Holding
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England
| | - Yoav Ben-Shlomo
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, England
| | - Peter Brindle
- Bristol, North Somerset, and South Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group, Bristol, England
| | - Naomi J. Williams
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Elizabeth M. Hill
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Siaw Yein Ng
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Jessica Toole
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Marta K. Tazewell
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Laura J. Hughes
- Department of Oncology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England
| | - Charlotte F. Davies
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Joanna C. Thorn
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Elizabeth Down
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - George Davey Smith
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - David E. Neal
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England
- Department of Oncology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England
| | - Freddie C. Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Neupane S, Steyerberg E, Raitanen J, Talala K, Pylväläinen J, Taari K, Tammela TL, Auvinen A. Prognostic factors of prostate cancer mortality in a Finnish randomized screening trial. Int J Urol 2017; 25:270-276. [PMID: 29224236 DOI: 10.1111/iju.13508] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2017] [Accepted: 11/07/2017] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To identify the prognostic factors of prostate cancer death among patients enrolled in a Finnish prostate cancer screening trial. METHODS Data on TNM stage, Gleason score, serum prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis, comorbidity and primary treatment were collected from medical records, as well as date and cause of death from Statistics Finland. Four prognostic risk groups were defined based on TNM stage, Gleason score and prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis. Hazard ratios and their 95% confidence intervals for prostate cancer death were calculated using Cox regression and competing-risk analysis with follow up from randomization. The differences in the effects of prognostic factors were assessed using interaction terms. RESULTS The 15-year survival was significantly lower among cases in the control arm compared with the screening arm (0.90 vs 0.92). However, the survival advantage was limited to screen-detected cases (0.94 vs 0.91 in cases detected outside screening). The prognostic risk group was the strongest factor predicting survival in the control arm, but weaker in screen-detected cases. Advanced disease was associated with substantially poorer outcome in cases detected outside screening than in screen-detected disease. Primary treatment had a similar effect in all groups. Comorbidity had a small prognostic effect in the control arm only. CONCLUSIONS Prognostic factors had a different effect on the outcome of cases detected through screening as those diagnosed otherwise. A high diagnostic prostate-specific antigen and advanced disease carried a poor prognosis, especially among the cases detected outside screening, even when lead-time was eliminated. This shows that the screening resulted in earlier treatment among the cases in the screening arm.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Subas Neupane
- Faculty of Social Science, Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
| | - Ewout Steyerberg
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jani Raitanen
- Faculty of Social Science, Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.,UKK Institute for Health Promotion Research, Tampere, Finland
| | | | - Juho Pylväläinen
- Faculty of Social Science, Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
| | - Kimmo Taari
- Department of Urology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Teuvo Lj Tammela
- Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.,School of Medicine, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
| | - Anssi Auvinen
- Faculty of Social Science, Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Heijnsdijk EAM, Denham D, de Koning HJ. The Cost-Effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Detection with the Use of Prostate Health Index. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2016; 19:153-157. [PMID: 27021748 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2015] [Revised: 11/23/2015] [Accepted: 12/01/2015] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical trial results suggested that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening can reduce prostate cancer mortality. Nevertheless, because the specificity of the PSA test for cancer detection is low, it leads to many negative biopsies. The Beckman Coulter Prostate Health Index (PHI) testing demonstrates improved specificity compared with the PSA-only screening and therefore may improve the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer detection. OBJECTIVE To examine the cost-effectiveness of adding PHI testing to improve cancer detection for men with elevated serum PSA. METHODS A microsimulation model, based on the results of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer trial, was used to evaluate the effects of PSA screening and PHI reflex testing. We predicted the numbers of prostate cancers, negative biopsies, deaths, quality-adjusted life-years gained, and cost-effectiveness of both PSA (cutoff 3 ng/mL) and PHI (cutoff 25) testing methods for a European population, screened from age 50 to 75 years at 4-year intervals. RESULTS When the PHI test was added to the PSA screening, for men with a PSA between 3 and 10 ng/mL, the model predicted a 23% reduction in negative biopsies. This would lead to a 17% reduction in costs for diagnostics and 1% reduction in total costs for prostate cancer. The cost-effectiveness (3.5% discounted) was 11% better. Limitations found were the modeling assumptions on the sensitivity and specificity of PHI by tumor stage and cutoff values. CONCLUSIONS Compared with PSA-only screening, the use of a PHI test can substantially reduce the number of negative biopsies and improve the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer detection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Dwight Denham
- Global Health Economics and Reimbursement, Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA, USA
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Kitagawa Y, Namiki M. Prostate-specific antigen-based population screening for prostate cancer: current status in Japan and future perspective in Asia. Asian J Androl 2016; 17:475-80. [PMID: 25578935 PMCID: PMC4430954 DOI: 10.4103/1008-682x.143756] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
In Western countries, clinical trials on prostate cancer screening demonstrated a limited benefit for patient survival. In the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan, the rate of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains very low compared with Western countries, and the benefits of population-based screening remain unclear. This review describes the current status of population screening and diagnosis for prostate cancer in Japan and discusses the efficacy of population screening for the Asian population. Since the 1990s, screening systems have been administered by each municipal government in Japan, and decreases in the prostate cancer mortality rate are expected in some regions where the exposure rate to PSA screening has increased markedly. A population-based screening cohort revealed that the proportion of metastatic disease in cancer detected by screening gradually decreased according to the increased exposure rate, and a decreasing trend in the proportion of cancer with high serum PSA levels after population screening was started. The prognosis of the prostate cancer detected by population screening was demonstrated to be more favorable than those diagnosed outside of the population screening. Recent results in screening cohorts demonstrated the efficacy of PSA. These recent evidences regarding population-based screening in Japan may contribute to establishing the optimal prostate cancer screening system in Asian individuals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasuhide Kitagawa
- Department of Integrative Cancer Therapy and Urology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa 920-8640, Japan
| | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Kitagawa Y, Machioka K, Yaegashi H, Nakashima K, Ofude M, Izumi K, Ueno S, Kadono Y, Konaka H, Mizokami A, Namiki M. Decreasing trend in prostate cancer with high serum prostate-specific antigen levels detected at first prostate-specific antigen-based population screening in Japan. Asian J Androl 2015; 16:833-7. [PMID: 25219906 PMCID: PMC4236325 DOI: 10.4103/1008-682x.135122] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
To clarify the recent trends in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) distribution in men in Japan, we analyzed the PSA distributions of men undergoing PSA-based population screening. We summarized the annual individual data of PSA-based population screening in Kanazawa, Japan, from 2000 to 2011, and analyzed baseline serum PSA values of the participants at the first population screening. Serum PSA distributions were estimated in all participants and those excluding prostate cancer patients according to age. From 2000 to 2011, 19 620 men participated aged 54–69 years old in this screening program. Mean baseline serum PSA level of all participants at the first screening was 2.64 ng ml−1 in 2000, and gradually decreased to approximately 1.30 ng ml−1 in 2006. That of participants excluding prostate cancer patients was 1.46 ng ml−1 in 2000, and there was no remarkable change during the study period. The 95th percentiles in the participants excluding prostate cancer patients detected at the first population screening of men aged 54–59, 60–64, and 65–69 years old were 2.90, 3.60, and 4.50 ng ml−1, respectively. After the commencement of population screening, the proportion of prostate cancer patients with high serum PSA levels decreased. However, there were no changes in serum PSA levels in men without prostate cancer. Age-specific PSA reference level of men without prostate cancer in Japan was similar to that in China and Korea.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasuhide Kitagawa
- Department of Integrative Cancer Therapy and Urology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa 920-8640, Japan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Heijnsdijk EAM, de Carvalho TM, Auvinen A, Zappa M, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Villers A, Páez A, Moss SM, Tammela TLJ, Recker F, Denis L, Carlsson SV, Wever EM, Bangma CH, Schröder FH, Roobol MJ, Hugosson J, de Koning HJ. Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a simulation study based on ERSPC data. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 107:366. [PMID: 25505238 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju366] [Citation(s) in RCA: 105] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The results of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial showed a statistically significant 29% prostate cancer mortality reduction for the men screened in the intervention arm and a 23% negative impact on the life-years gained because of quality of life. However, alternative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening strategies for the population may exist, optimizing the effects on mortality reduction, quality of life, overdiagnosis, and costs. METHODS Based on data of the ERSPC trial, we predicted the numbers of prostate cancers diagnosed, prostate cancer deaths averted, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, and cost-effectiveness of 68 screening strategies starting at age 55 years, with a PSA threshold of 3, using microsimulation modeling. The screening strategies varied by age to stop screening and screening interval (one to 14 years or once in a lifetime screens), and therefore number of tests. RESULTS Screening at short intervals of three years or less was more cost-effective than using longer intervals. Screening at ages 55 to 59 years with two-year intervals had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $73000 per QALY gained and was considered optimal. With this strategy, lifetime prostate cancer mortality reduction was predicted as 13%, and 33% of the screen-detected cancers were overdiagnosed. When better quality of life for the post-treatment period could be achieved, an older age of 65 to 72 years for ending screening was obtained. CONCLUSION Prostate cancer screening can be cost-effective when it is limited to two or three screens between ages 55 to 59 years. Screening above age 63 years is less cost-effective because of loss of QALYs because of overdiagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC).
| | - T M de Carvalho
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - A Auvinen
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - M Zappa
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - V Nelen
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - M Kwiatkowski
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - A Villers
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - A Páez
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - S M Moss
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - T L J Tammela
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - F Recker
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - L Denis
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - S V Carlsson
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - E M Wever
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - C H Bangma
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - F H Schröder
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - M J Roobol
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - J Hugosson
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - H J de Koning
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Friedersdorff F, Manus P, Miller K, Lein M, Jung K, Stephan C. Serum testosterone improves the accuracy of Prostate Health Index for the detection of prostate cancer. Clin Biochem 2014; 47:916-20. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2013] [Revised: 01/31/2014] [Accepted: 02/03/2014] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
|
20
|
Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014; 65:1046-55. [PMID: 24439788 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 651] [Impact Index Per Article: 65.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2013] [Accepted: 12/27/2013] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Although prostate cancer (PCa) screening reduces the incidence of advanced disease and mortality, trade-offs include overdiagnosis and resultant overtreatment. OBJECTIVE To review primary data on PCa overdiagnosis and overtreatment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Electronic searches were conducted in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Embase from inception to July 2013 for original articles on PCa overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Supplemental articles were identified through hand searches. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS The lead-time and excess-incidence approaches are the main ways used to estimate overdiagnosis in epidemiological studies, with estimates varying widely. The estimated number of PCa cases needed to be diagnosed to save a life has ranged from 48 down to 5 with increasing follow-up. In clinical studies, generally lower rates of overdiagnosis have been reported based on the frequency of low-grade minimal tumors at radical prostatectomy (1.7-46.8%). Autopsy studies have reported PCa in 18.5-38.5%, although not all are low grade or low volume. Factors influencing overdiagnosis include the study population, screening protocol, and background incidence, limiting generalizability between settings. Reported rates of overtreatment vary widely in the literature, although contemporary international studies suggest increasing use of conservative management. CONCLUSIONS Epidemiological, clinical, and autopsy studies have been used to examine PCa overdiagnosis, with estimates ranging widely from 1.7% to 67%. Correspondingly, estimates of overtreatment vary widely based on patient features and may be declining internationally. Careful patient selection for screening and reducing overtreatment are important to preserve the benefits and reduce the downstream harms of prostate-specific antigen testing. Because all of these estimates are extremely population and context specific, this must be considered when using these data to inform policy. PATIENT SUMMARY Screening reduces spread and death from prostate cancer (PCa) but overdiagnoses some low-risk tumors that may not have caused harm. Because treatment has potential side effects, it is critical that not all patients with PCa receive aggressive treatment.
Collapse
|
21
|
Kitagawa Y, Sawada K, Mizokami A, Nakashima K, Koshida K, Nakashima T, Miyazaki K, Takeda Y, Namiki M. Clinical characteristics and prostate-specific antigen kinetics of prostate cancer detected in repeat annual population screening in Japan. Int J Urol 2013; 21:461-5. [PMID: 24134337 DOI: 10.1111/iju.12304] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2013] [Accepted: 09/16/2013] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To clarify the present status regarding repeat examination in the annual population screening system in Japan, and to analyze the clinical characteristics and prostate-specific antigen kinetics of prostate cancer detected in this setting. METHODS We summarized the annual individual data of prostate-specific antigen-based population screening in Kanazawa, Japan, and analyzed the prostate cancer detection rates at first and repeat screening. The clinical characteristics were compared between patients detected at first and repeat screening. The patients were classified according to favorable or unfavorable clinical characteristics of cancer, and prostate-specific antigen kinetics were compared between the two groups. RESULTS From 2000 to 2011, 19 620 men participated in this screening program, and a total of 59 019 screenings were carried out. The total annual numbers of examinees increased, and the annual rates of first examinees gradually decreased. The annual detection rates of cancer at total screening decreased in the second year. The annual detection rate at first screening was not different from that in the first year. The rate of patients with favorable cancer features was significantly higher among patients detected at repeat screening than at first screening. The rates of patients with high prostate-specific antigen velocity and low prostate-specific antigen doubling time were significantly higher in unfavorable than favorable cancer patients in repeat screening. CONCLUSIONS Repeat population screening could contribute to early detection of prostate cancer, and it seems that prostate-specific antigen kinetics might predict the cancer characteristics in repeat screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasuhide Kitagawa
- Department of Integrative Cancer Therapy and Urology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Ridout AJ, Kasivisvanathan V, Emberton M, Moore CM. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in defining a biopsy strategy for detection of prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2013; 21:5-11. [DOI: 10.1111/iju.12259] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2013] [Accepted: 07/17/2013] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ashley J Ridout
- Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences; University College London; London UK
- Department of Urology; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; London UK
| | - Veeru Kasivisvanathan
- Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences; University College London; London UK
- Department of Urology; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; London UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences; University College London; London UK
- Department of Urology; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; London UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences; University College London; London UK
- Department of Urology; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; London UK
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
|
24
|
Evaluation of Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging at Inclusion in an Active Surveillance Protocol for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer. Invest Radiol 2013; 48:152-7. [DOI: 10.1097/rli.0b013e31827b711e] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
25
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Any form of screening aims to reduce disease-specific and overall mortality, and to improve a person's future quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical and broader community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. To better inform individual patient decision-making and health policy decisions, we need to consider the entire body of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on prostate cancer screening summarised in a systematic review. In 2006, our Cochrane review identified insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of routine mass, selective, or opportunistic screening for prostate cancer. An update of the review in 2010 included three additional trials. Meta-analysis of the five studies included in the 2010 review concluded that screening did not significantly reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality. In the past two years, several updates to studies included in the 2010 review have been published thereby providing the rationale for this update of the 2010 systematic review. OBJECTIVES To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality or all-cause mortality and to assess its impact on quality of life and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS An updated search of electronic databases (PROSTATE register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, and the NHS EED) was performed, in addition to handsearching of specific journals and bibliographies, in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA All RCTs of screening versus no screening for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The original search (2006) identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full-text review. From these citations, two RCTs were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The search for the 2010 version of the review identified a further 106 potentially relevant articles, from which three new RCTs were included in the review. A total of 31 articles were retrieved for full-text examination based on the updated search in 2012. Updated data on three studies were included in this review. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors. MAIN RESULTS Five RCTs with a total of 341,342 participants were included in this review. All involved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, with or without digital rectal examination (DRE), though the interval and threshold for further evaluation varied across trials. The age of participants ranged from 45 to 80 years and duration of follow-up from 7 to 20 years. Our meta-analysis of the five included studies indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between men randomised to the screening and control groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.17). The methodological quality of three of the studies was assessed as posing a high risk of bias. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial were assessed as posing a low risk of bias, but provided contradicting results. The ERSPC study reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95), whilst the PLCO study concluded no significant benefit (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.54). The ERSPC was the only study of the five included in this review that reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality, in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years of age. Sensitivity analysis for overall risk of bias indicated no significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality when referring to the meta analysis of only the ERSPC and PLCO trial data (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30). Subgroup analyses indicated that prostate cancer-specific mortality was not affected by the age at which participants were screened. Meta-analysis of four studies investigating all-cause mortality did not determine any significant differences between men randomised to screening or control (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03). A diagnosis of prostate cancer was significantly greater in men randomised to screening compared to those randomised to control (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.65). Localised prostate cancer was more commonly diagnosed in men randomised to screening (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.70), whilst the proportion of men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer was significantly lower in the screening group compared to the men serving as controls (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87). Screening resulted in a range of harms that can be considered minor to major in severity and duration. Common minor harms from screening include bleeding, bruising and short-term anxiety. Common major harms include overdiagnosis and overtreatment, including infection, blood loss requiring transfusion, pneumonia, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence. Harms of screening included false-positive results for the PSA test and overdiagnosis (up to 50% in the ERSPC study). Adverse events associated with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies included infection, bleeding and pain. No deaths were attributed to any biopsy procedure. None of the studies provided detailed assessment of the effect of screening on quality of life or provided a comprehensive assessment of resource utilization associated with screening (although preliminary analyses were reported). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Prostate cancer screening did not significantly decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality in a combined meta-analysis of five RCTs. Only one study (ERSPC) reported a 21% significant reduction of prostate cancer-specific mortality in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years. Pooled data currently demonstrates no significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific and overall mortality. Harms associated with PSA-based screening and subsequent diagnostic evaluations are frequent, and moderate in severity. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common and are associated with treatment-related harms. Men should be informed of this and the demonstrated adverse effects when they are deciding whether or not to undertake screening for prostate cancer. Any reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality may take up to 10 years to accrue; therefore, men who have a life expectancy less than 10 to 15 years should be informed that screening for prostate cancer is unlikely to be beneficial. No studies examined the independent role of screening by DRE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dragan Ilic
- Department of Epidemiology&PreventiveMedicine, School of PublicHealth&PreventiveMedicine,MonashUniversity,Melbourne,Australia.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Abstract
Screening for prostate cancer is a controversial topic within the field of urology. The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial did not demonstrate any difference in prostate-cancer-related mortality rates between men screened annually rather than on an 'opportunistic' basis. However, in the world's largest trial to date--the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer--screening every 2-4 years was associated with a 21% reduction in prostate-cancer-related mortality rate after 11 years. Citing the uncertain ratio between potential harm and potential benefit, the US Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended against serum PSA screening. Although this ratio has yet to be elucidated, PSA testing--and early tumour detection--is undoubtedly beneficial for some individuals. Instead of adopting a 'one size fits all' approach, physicians are likely to perform personalized risk assessment to minimize the risk of negative consequences, such as anxiety, unnecessary testing and biopsies, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment. The PSA test needs to be combined with other predictive factors or be used in a more thoughtful way to identify men at risk of symptomatic or life-threatening cancer, without overdiagnosing indolent disease. A risk-adapted approach is needed, whereby PSA testing is tailored to individual risk.
Collapse
|
27
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Deanna S Cross
- Center for Human Genetics; Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, 1000 North Oak Avenue; Marshfield, WI 54449, USA.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Lazzeri M, Lughezzani G, Larcher A, Lista G, Gadda GM, Scattoni V, Cestari A, Buffi N, Rigatti P, Montorsi F, Guazzoni G. Reply to Sergey Tadtayev, Thomas A. McNicholas, and Gregory B. Boustead’s Letter to the Editor re: Giorgio Guazzoni, Massimo Lazzeri, Luciano Nava, et al. Preoperative Prostate-Specific Antigen Isoform p2PSA and Its Derivatives, %p2PSA and Prostate Health Index, Predict Pathologic Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2012;61:455–66. Eur Urol 2012. [DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
29
|
Initial Experience With Identifying High-Grade Prostate Cancer Using Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging (DWI) in Patients With a Gleason Score ≤3 + 3 = 6 Upon Schematic TRUS-Guided Biopsy. Invest Radiol 2012; 47:153-8. [DOI: 10.1097/rli.0b013e31823ea1f0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
30
|
Kwiatkowski M, Klotz L, Hugosson J, Recker F. Comment on the US Preventive Services Task Force's draft recommendation on screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2012; 61:851-4. [PMID: 22285762 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2011] [Accepted: 01/16/2012] [Indexed: 10/14/2022]
|
31
|
Wolters T, Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Scarpelli M, Roobol MJ, van den Bergh RCN, van Leeuwen PJ, Hoedemaeker RF, van Leenders GJLH, Schröder FH, van der Kwast TH. Comparison of incidentally detected prostate cancer with screen-detected prostate cancer treated by prostatectomy. Prostate 2012; 72:108-15. [PMID: 21538424 DOI: 10.1002/pros.21415] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2011] [Accepted: 04/06/2011] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tineke Wolters
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Faria EF, Carvalhal GF, Vieira RA, Silva TB, Mauad EC, Tobias-Machado M, Carvalho AL. Comparison of clinical and pathologic findings of prostate cancers detected through screening versus conventional referral in Brazil. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2011; 9:104-8. [PMID: 21843976 DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2011.06.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2011] [Revised: 05/11/2011] [Accepted: 06/02/2011] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Data regarding prostate cancer screening in Brazil are limited. We compared features of prostate cancers detected through screening versus those referred for treatment in Brazil. PATIENTS AND METHODS Group I included 500 of 13,754 men whose cancers were detected through screening, and Group II included 2731 men referred for treatment through the habitual public health system. We used Mann-Whitney and χ(2) tests to compare clinical and pathologic findings, considering significant any P < 0.05. RESULTS Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was lower among screened patients (5.5 ng/mL versus 10.0 ng/mL; P < 0.001). Of the screened patients, 170 (34%) had biopsy Gleason score ≥ 7, compared with 1265 (46.3%) in the referred group (P < 0.001). Lymph node metastases were suspected in 8.6% of the referred versus 3.2% of the screened men (P = 0.002). Distant metastases were more common in the referred men (9.3% vs. 3.0%; P < 0.001). Only 6.0% of the screened cancers were locally advanced at diagnosis (T3 or T4) versus 26.5% of the referred (P < 0.001). Screened patients had a higher proportion of localized tumors after surgery (67.7% vs. 54.2%; P = 0.002). Pathology Gleason scores were also lower among screened men (P < 0.01). Lymphadenectomies were performed in 166/636 men (26.1%). No nodal metastases were found in screened cancers (0/28; 0.0%), while 6/138 referred cancers (4.3%) presented nodal involvement (P = 0.3). CONCLUSION Clinical and pathologic characteristics of screen-detected cancers are more favorable than those of tumors diagnosed through the Brazilian health system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eliney F Faria
- Division of Urology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Antenor Duarte Villela 1331, Barretos, SP, Brazil.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Katz AE, Capodice JL. Re: Acceptance and Durability of Surveillance as a Management Choice in Men with Screen-Detected, Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: Improved Outcomes with Stringent Enrollment Criteria. Eur Urol 2011; 59:1066. [DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
34
|
Stephan C, Siemssen K, Cammann H, Friedersdorff F, Deger S, Schrader M, Miller K, Lein M, Jung K, Meyer HA. Between-method differences in prostate-specific antigen assays affect prostate cancer risk prediction by nomograms. Clin Chem 2011; 57:995-1004. [PMID: 21610217 DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2010.151472] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To date, no published nomogram for prostate cancer (PCa) risk prediction has considered the between-method differences associated with estimating concentrations of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). METHODS Total PSA (tPSA) and free PSA were measured in 780 biopsy-referred men with 5 different assays. These data, together with other clinical parameters, were applied to 5 published nomograms that are used for PCa detection. Discrimination and calibration criteria were used to characterize the accuracy of the nomogram models under these conditions. RESULTS PCa was found in 455 men (58.3%), and 325 men had no evidence of malignancy. Median tPSA concentrations ranged from 5.5 μg/L to 7.04 μg/L, whereas the median percentage of free PSA ranged from 10.6% to 16.4%. Both the calibration and discrimination of the nomograms varied significantly across different types of PSA assays. Median PCa probabilities, which indicate PCa risk, ranged from 0.59 to 0.76 when different PSA assays were used within the same nomogram. On the other hand, various nomograms produced different PCa probabilities when the same PSA assay was used. Although the ROC curves had comparable areas under the ROC curve, considerable differences were observed among the 5 assays when the sensitivities and specificities at various PCa probability cutoffs were analyzed. CONCLUSIONS The accuracy of the PCa probabilities predicted according to different nomograms is limited by the lack of agreement between the different PSA assays. This difference between methods may lead to unacceptable variation in PCa risk prediction. A more cautious application of nomograms is recommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carsten Stephan
- Department of Urology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011; 60:291-303. [PMID: 21601982 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.05.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 243] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2011] [Accepted: 05/02/2011] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT The notion of insignificant prostate cancer (Ins-PCa) has progressively emerged in the past two decades. The clinical relevance of such a definition was based on the fact that low-grade, small-volume, and organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa) may be indolent and unlikely to progress to biologic significance in the absence of treatment. OBJECTIVE To review the definition of Ins-PCa, its incidence, and the clinical impact of Ins-PCa on the contemporary management of PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A review of the literature was performed using the Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases with no restriction on language up to September 2010. The literature search used the following terms: insignificant, indolent, minute, microfocal, minimal, low volume, low risk, and prostate cancer. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS The most commonly used criteria to define Ins-PCa are based on the pathologic assessment of the radical prostatectomy specimen: (1) Gleason score ≤ 6 without Gleason pattern 4 or 5, (2) organ-confined disease, and (3) tumour volume<0.5 cm(3). Several preoperative criteria and prognostication tools for predicting Ins-PCa have been suggested. Nomograms are best placed to estimate the risk of progression on an individualised basis, but a substantial proportion of men with a high probability of harbouring Ins-PCa are at risk for pathologic understaging and/or undergrading. Thus, there is an ongoing need for identifying novel and more accurate predictors of Ins-PCa to improve the distinction between insignificant versus significant disease and thus to promote the adequate management of PCa patients at low risk for progression. CONCLUSIONS The exciting challenge of obtaining the pretreatment diagnostic tools that can really distinguish insignificant from significant PCa should be one of the main objectives of urologists in the following years to decrease the risk of overtreatment of Ins-PCa.
Collapse
|
36
|
Abstract
UNLABELLED Study Type - Prognosis (systematic review). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 2b. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Overtreatment of prostate cancer is a major problem in contemporary urological practice. The Epstein Criteria reduces overtreatment by identifying insignificant prostate cancers that may be amenable to surveillance therapy. This systematic review of the Epstein Criteria validation studies provides a collective insight into the application and accuracy of the Epstein Criteria to predict for insignificant prostate cancer across different institutions and geographies. OBJECTIVE • To review the accuracy of the Epstein Criteria for insignificant prostate cancer and to explore the effect of the modified Gleason classification system on this system. METHODS • We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database using search terms 'Epstein Criteria', 'Prostate Cancer', 'Validation' and 'Insignificant Cancer' between 1994 to 2010 for validation articles. • These were divided into pre-2005 and post-2005 and concordances for organ-confined status, Gleason score ≤ 6 and insignificant cancer were analysed. RESULTS • A pre-2005 study showed concordance for insignificant prostate cancer, Gleason score ≤ 6 and organ-confined status at 84%, 90.3% and 91.6%, respectively. • Five post-2005 validation studies were concordant for insignificant cancer, Gleason score ≤ 6 and organ-confined status at 37-76%, 54.3-75.9% and 80.0-96.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS • The Epstein Criteria has a suboptimal accuracy for predicting for insignificant prostate cancer. • The modification to Gleason scoring may be responsible for a reduced accuracy over time. • However, significant heterogeneity in the validation studies means better quality validation studies are required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sheng F Oon
- Conway Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Turker P, Bas E, Bozkurt S, Günlüsoy B, Sezgin A, Postacı H, Turkeri L. Presence of high grade tertiary Gleason pattern upgrades the Gleason sum score and is inversely associated with biochemical recurrence-free survival. Urol Oncol 2011; 31:93-8. [PMID: 21316989 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.10.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2010] [Revised: 10/26/2010] [Accepted: 10/29/2010] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Tumor heterogeneity is a common finding and led to realization of a tertiary Gleason component (TGC) in prostate cancer. In an attempt to further investigate its prognostic value, we analyzed the association of tertiary Gleason pattern in Gleason score ≤ 7 tumors with pathologic stage and biochemical disease-free survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 331 radical prostatectomy specimens were analyzed retrospectively. The primary, secondary, and the tertiary patterns were evaluated by reviewing all of the pathologic slides. TGC was defined as Gleason grade pattern 4 or 5 for Gleason score < 7 tumors and Gleason grade pattern 5 for Gleason score 7 tumors. The pathologic prognostic factors, (extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle and lymph node invasion, surgical margin status) of Gleason score < 7, 3+4, and 4+3 tumors with or without TGC were compared. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) was calculated using Kaplan-Meier method with log rank test, and the influence of TGC was assessed in a Cox regression model. RESULTS TGC observed more frequently with higher Gleason scores (21% of the GS < 7 cases, 23% of the GS 3+4 cases, and 58% of the GS 4+3 cases). In terms of adverse pathologic prognostic factors and BRFS, GS < 7 tumors with TGC behaved significantly worse than GS < 7 tumors without TGC (P = 0.01 and P = 0.001, respectively) with properties similar to GS 3+4 tumors without TGC. Gleason score 3+4 and 4+3 tumors without TGC were statistically similar and had better features than corresponding tumors of same Gleason score with TGC. Furthermore, Gleason score 7 tumors with TGC had similar features with GS 8-10 tumors. During follow-up, 73 (22%) subjects had PSA recurrence. In the Cox regression model TGC was an independent variable for BRFS (HR = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.39-4.98, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION According to the present study, 3 different prognostic groups were observed; good prognostic group: GS < 7, intermediate prognostic group: GS < 7+TGC, GS 3+4, and GS 4+3, and finally bad prognostic group: GS (3+4)+TGC, GS (4+3)+TGC, GS > 7. Presence of a TGC appears to upgrade the total score and adjuvant treatment decisions may further be refined by considering the tertiary pattern.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Polat Turker
- Department of Urology, Namik Kemal University Faculty of Medicine, Tekirdag, Turkey.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Miocinovic R, Jones JS, Pujara AC, Klein EA, Stephenson AJ. Acceptance and durability of surveillance as a management choice in men with screen-detected, low-risk prostate cancer: improved outcomes with stringent enrollment criteria. Urology 2011; 77:980-4. [PMID: 21256549 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.09.063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2010] [Revised: 09/10/2010] [Accepted: 09/15/2010] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To analyze the acceptance rate and durability of surveillance among contemporary men with low-risk prostate cancer managed at a large, US academic institution. METHODS Patients with low-risk parameters on initial and repeat biopsy were offered surveillance regardless of age. Regular clinical evaluation and repeat prostate biopsy were recommended every 1-2 years, and intervention was recommended based on adverse clinical and pathologic parameters on follow-up. Acceptance rate of active surveillance, freedom from intervention, and freedom from recommended intervention were measured. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 202 low-risk patients, 86 (43%) chose immediate treatment and 116 (57%) underwent repeat biopsy for consideration of surveillance. Intervention was recommended after initial repeat biopsy in 27 (23%) men because of higher-risk features, leaving a total of 89 men on surveillance. Over a median follow-up of 33 months, 16 men were ultimately treated and 8 were recommended to undergo treatment because of adverse clinical features on subsequent evaluations. Of the men on surveillance, the 3-year freedom from intervention and freedom from recommended intervention was 87% (95% CI, 78-93) and 93% (95% CI, 85-97), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Acceptance of surveillance (57%) in low-risk patients in this series is substantially higher than previous reports, and approximately one-third of these patients are ultimately managed by surveillance using stringent criteria. The risk of reclassification to a more aggressive cancer over short-term follow-up in appropriately selected patients is low.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ranko Miocinovic
- Glickman Urololgical and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Mitra AV, Bancroft EK, Barbachano Y, Page EC, Foster CS, Jameson C, Mitchell G, Lindeman GJ, Stapleton A, Suthers G, Evans DG, Cruger D, Blanco I, Mercer C, Kirk J, Maehle L, Hodgson S, Walker L, Izatt L, Douglas F, Tucker K, Dorkins H, Clowes V, Male A, Donaldson A, Brewer C, Doherty R, Bulman B, Osther PJ, Salinas M, Eccles D, Axcrona K, Jobson I, Newcombe B, Cybulski C, Rubinstein WS, Buys S, Townshend S, Friedman E, Domchek S, Ramon y Cajal T, Spigelman A, Teo SH, Nicolai N, Aaronson N, Ardern-Jones A, Bangma C, Dearnaley D, Eyfjord J, Falconer A, Grönberg H, Hamdy F, Johannsson O, Khoo V, Kote-Jarai Z, Lilja H, Lubinski J, Melia J, Moynihan C, Peock S, Rennert G, Schröder F, Sibley P, Suri M, Wilson P, Bignon YJ, Strom S, Tischkowitz M, Liljegren A, Ilencikova D, Abele A, Kyriacou K, van Asperen C, Kiemeney L, Easton DF, Eeles RA. Targeted prostate cancer screening in men with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 detects aggressive prostate cancer: preliminary analysis of the results of the IMPACT study. BJU Int 2011; 107:28-39. [PMID: 20840664 PMCID: PMC6057750 DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.09648.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the role of targeted prostate cancer screening in men with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, an international study, IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls), was established. This is the first multicentre screening study targeted at men with a known genetic predisposition to prostate cancer. A preliminary analysis of the data is reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men aged 40-69 years from families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were offered annual prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, and those with PSA > 3 ng/mL, were offered a prostate biopsy. Controls were men age-matched (± 5 years) who were negative for the familial mutation. RESULTS In total, 300 men were recruited (205 mutation carriers; 89 BRCA1, 116 BRCA2 and 95 controls) over 33 months. At the baseline screen (year 1), 7.0% (21/300) underwent a prostate biopsy. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in ten individuals, a prevalence of 3.3%. The positive predictive value of PSA screening in this cohort was 47·6% (10/21). One prostate cancer was diagnosed at year 2. Of the 11 prostate cancers diagnosed, nine were in mutation carriers, two in controls, and eight were clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS The present study shows that the positive predictive value of PSA screening in BRCA mutation carriers is high and that screening detects clinically significant prostate cancer. These results support the rationale for continued screening in such men.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Elizabeth K. Bancroft
- The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK
- Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, UK
| | - Yolanda Barbachano
- The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK
- Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, UK
| | | | - C. S. Foster
- Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - C. Jameson
- Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, UK
| | - G. Mitchell
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Victoria, Australia
| | - G. J. Lindeman
- Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - A. Stapleton
- Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - G. Suthers
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | | | - D. Cruger
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Vejle Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
| | - I. Blanco
- Catalonian Institute of Oncology, L’Hospitalet, Barcelona, Spain
| | - C. Mercer
- Wessex Clinical Genetics Service, The Princess Anne Hospital, Southampton, UK
| | - J. Kirk
- Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - L. Maehle
- Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - S. Hodgson
- St George’s Hospital, Tooting, London, UK
| | - L. Walker
- Churchill Hospital, Headington, Oxford, UK
| | | | - F. Douglas
- Institute of Human Genetics, Newcastle, UK
| | - K. Tucker
- Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - H. Dorkins
- North West Thames Regional Genetics Service, Kennedy Galton Centre, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, Harrow, UK
| | - V. Clowes
- Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| | - A. Male
- NE Thames Regional Genetics Service, Institute of Child Health, London, UK
| | | | - C. Brewer
- Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK
| | - R. Doherty
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Victoria, Australia
| | - B. Bulman
- St Mary’s Hospital, CMFT, Manchester, UK
| | - P. J. Osther
- Department of Urology, Fredericia and Kolding Hospital, Fredericia, Denmark
| | - M. Salinas
- Catalonian Institute of Oncology, L’Hospitalet, Barcelona, Spain
| | - D. Eccles
- Wessex Clinical Genetics Service, The Princess Anne Hospital, Southampton, UK
| | | | - I. Jobson
- Institute of Human Genetics, Newcastle, UK
| | | | - C. Cybulski
- Department of Urology, Fredericia and Kolding Hospital, Fredericia, Denmark
| | - W. S. Rubinstein
- Center for Medical Genetics, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA
| | - S. Buys
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - S. Townshend
- King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - E. Friedman
- Chaim Shema Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Israel
| | - S. Domchek
- Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | | | - A. Spigelman
- Hunter Genetics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
- University of New South Wales, St Vincent’s Clinical School, Sydney, Australia
| | - S. H. Teo
- Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation, Subang Jaya Medical Centre, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
- University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - N. Nicolai
- Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - N. Aaronson
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A. Ardern-Jones
- Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, UK
| | - C. Bangma
- Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D. Dearnaley
- The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK
- Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, UK
| | - J. Eyfjord
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
| | - A. Falconer
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, London, UK
| | | | - F. Hamdy
- University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | | | - V. Khoo
- The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK
| | - Z. Kote-Jarai
- The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK
| | - H. Lilja
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - J. Lubinski
- International Hereditary Cancer Center, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - J. Melia
- The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK
| | - C. Moynihan
- The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK
| | - S. Peock
- Cancer Research UK Genetic Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratories, Cambridge, UK
| | - G. Rennert
- CHS National Cancer Control Center, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel
| | - F. Schröder
- Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - P. Sibley
- Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Caernarfon, Gwynedd, UK
| | - M. Suri
- Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Y. J. Bignon
- Center Jean Perrin, Laboratoire D’Oncologie Moléculaire, Clermont-Ferrand, France
| | - S. Strom
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - M. Tischkowitz
- McGill Program in Cancer Genetics, Departments of Oncology and Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - A. Liljegren
- Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - D. Ilencikova
- National Cancer Institute, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
| | - A. Abele
- Hereditary Cancer Institute, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia
| | - K. Kyriacou
- The Cyprus Institute of Neurology & Genetics, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | - C. van Asperen
- Leiden University Medical Center K5-R, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - L. Kiemeney
- Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - D. F. Easton
- Cancer Research UK Genetic Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratories, Cambridge, UK
| | - Rosalind A. Eeles
- The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK
- Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, UK
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
van Vugt HA, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Should prostate-specific antigen screening be offered to asymptomatic men? Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2010; 10:1043-53. [PMID: 20645694 DOI: 10.1586/era.10.64] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
The benefits of population-based prostate cancer screening are the detection of clinically important prostate cancers at an early, still curable, stage and the subsequent reduction of prostate cancer-specific mortality. However, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening program is currently insufficient to warrant its introduction as a public health policy. The main reasons are insufficient knowledge regarding the optimal screening strategy and overdiagnosis and overtreatment of indolent prostate cancers that are unlikely to lead to complaints or death. In some countries, guidelines have been developed on screening for prostate cancer, but the diversity of recommendations illustrates the limited knowledge on the optimal strategy. Therefore, men should be well informed about the benefits and potential harms of PSA screening in order to enable them to make an informed decision. Although a mortality reduction can be achieved by early detection of prostate cancer, patients and physicians must be aware of the current side effects of screening. Algorithms that advise screening at a young age (<55 years), with screening intervals of less than 4 years and low PSA thresholds (<3 ng/ml) for prostate biopsy seem premature and are not supported by evidence.
Collapse
|
41
|
Program for Prostate Cancer Screening Using a Mobile Unit: Results From Brazil. Urology 2010; 76:1052-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.02.044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2009] [Revised: 02/15/2010] [Accepted: 02/15/2010] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
42
|
Boevee S, Venderbos L, Tammela T, Nelen V, Ciatto S, Kwiatkowski M, Páez A, Malavaud B, Hugosson J, Roobol M. Change of tumour characteristics and treatment over time in both arms of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46:3082-9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.09.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2010] [Revised: 09/19/2010] [Accepted: 09/20/2010] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
43
|
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine whether screening for prostate cancer (PC) reduces PC mortality and, if so, whether the required criteria to be introduced as a population-based screening program are satisfied. A literature review was conducted through electronic scientific databases. The screening tests, that is, PSA and digital rectal examination, have limited sensitivity and specificity for detecting PC; screening produces a beneficial stage shift and reduces PC mortality. Nevertheless, PC screening causes a large increase in the cumulative incidence, and the understanding of the economic cost and quality-of-life parameters are limited. PC screening cannot be justified yet in the context of a public health policy.
Collapse
|
44
|
Regional trends in prostate cancer incidence, treatment with curative intent and mortality in Norway 1980–2007. Cancer Epidemiol 2010; 34:359-67. [DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2010.04.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 125] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2010] [Revised: 04/26/2010] [Accepted: 04/28/2010] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
|
45
|
Kilpeläinen TP, Auvinen A, Määttänen L, Kujala P, Ruutu M, Stenman UH, Tammela TL. Results of the three rounds of the Finnish Prostate Cancer Screening Trial-The incidence of advanced cancer is decreased by screening. Int J Cancer 2010; 127:1699-705. [DOI: 10.1002/ijc.25368] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
|
46
|
Abstract
We reviewed the status of prostate cancer diagnosis in Western Australia (WA) with the aim of improving decision-making about PSA testing and prostate biopsy. Our patient cohort was 5145 men undergoing an initial biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis in WA between 1998 and 2004. Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies were performed by one of 18 clinicians whereas all pathology was assessed by one urological pathologist. Cancer detection rates were 59% for initial biopsies and 32% for repeat biopsies. High-grade cancer (Gleason sum > or =7) accounted for 69 and 38% of tumours diagnosed on initial and repeat biopsy, respectively. The rates of cancer diagnosis and detection of high-grade tumours were both 1.6-fold higher in WA patients compared with those obtained at baseline screening of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial of US men (P<0.001). These higher than expected rates of cancer detection and high histological grade indicate that urological practice in WA between 1998 and 2004 was significantly more conservative than US practice over this time period, probably leading to underdiagnosis of prostate cancer. Our findings may be relevant to other countries where urological practice differs from that in the United States.
Collapse
|
47
|
Abstract
Two groundbreaking trials have this year reported conflicting results as to the benefit of screening for prostate cancer. Careful interpretation in the light of contemporary data is needed to reveal the value of this intervention.
Collapse
|
48
|
Variability in diagnostic opinion among pathologists for single small atypical foci in prostate biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34:169-77. [PMID: 20061936 DOI: 10.1097/pas.0b013e3181c7997b] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Pathologists are increasingly exposed to prostate biopsies with small atypical foci, requiring differentiation between adenocarcinoma, atypical small acinar proliferation suspicious for malignancy, and a benign diagnosis. We studied the level of agreement for such atypical foci among experts in urologic pathology and all-round reference pathologists of the European Randomized Screening study of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). For this purpose, we retrieved 20 prostate biopsies with small (most <1 mm) atypical foci. Hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides, including 10 immunostained slides were digitalized for virtual microscopy. The lesional area was not marked. Five experts and 7 ERSPC pathologists examined the cases. Multirater kappa statistics was applied to determine agreement and significant differences between experts and ERSPC pathologists. The kappa value of experts (0.39; confidence interval, 0.29-0.49) was significantly higher than that of ERSPC pathologists (0.21; confidence interval, 0.14-0.27). Full (100%) agreement was reached by the 5 experts for 7 of 20 biopsies. Experts and ERSPC pathologists rendered diagnoses ranging from benign to adenocarcinoma on the same biopsy in 5 and 9 biopsies, respectively. Most of these lesions comprised between 2 and 5 atypical glands. The experts diagnosed adenocarcinoma (49%) more often than the ERSPC pathologists (32%) (P<0.001). As agreement was particularly poor for foci comprising <6 glands, we would encourage pathologists to obtain intercollegial consultation of a specialized pathologist for these lesions before a carcinoma diagnosis, whereas clinicians may consider to perform staging biopsies before engaging on deferred or definite therapy.
Collapse
|
49
|
Jansen FH, van Schaik RHN, Kurstjens J, Horninger W, Klocker H, Bektic J, Wildhagen MF, Roobol MJ, Bangma CH, Bartsch G. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA in combination with total PSA and free PSA improves diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer detection. Eur Urol 2010; 57:921-7. [PMID: 20189711 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.02.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 182] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2009] [Accepted: 02/03/2010] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Novel markers for prostate cancer (PCa) detection are needed. Total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) and percent free prostate-specific antigen (%fPSA=tPSA/fPSA) lack diagnostic specificity. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoforms p2PSA and benign prostatic hyperplasia-associated PSA (BPHA). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Our study included 405 serum samples from the Rotterdam arm of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer and 351 samples from the Urology Department of Innsbruck Medical University. MEASUREMENTS BPHA, tPSA, fPSA, and p2PSA levels were measured by Beckman-Coulter Access Immunoassay. In addition, the Beckman Coulter Prostate Health Index was calculated: phi=(p2PSA/fPSA)×√(tPSA). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The p2PSA and phi levels differed significantly between men with and without PCa. No difference in BPHA levels was observed. The highest PCa predictive value in both cohorts was achieved by phi with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.750 and 0.709, a significant increase compared to tPSA (AUC: 0.585 and 0.534) and %fPSA (AUC: 0.675 and 0.576). Also, %p2PSA (p2PSA/fPSA) showed significantly higher AUCs compared to tPSA and %fPSA (AUC: 0.716 and 0.695, respectively). At 95% and 90% sensitivity, the specificities of phi were 23% and 31% compared to 10% and 8% for tPSA, respectively. In both cohorts, multivariate analysis showed a significant increase in PCa predictive value after addition of p2PSA to a model consisting of tPSA and fPSA (increase in AUC from 0.675 to 0.755 and from 0.581 to 0.697, respectively). Additionally, the specificity at 95% sensitivity increased from 8% to 24% and 7% to 23%, respectively. Furthermore, %p2PSA, phi, and the model consisting of tPSA and fPSA with or without the addition of p2PSA missed the least of the tumours with a biopsy or pathologic Gleason score ≥7 at 95% and 90% sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS This study shows significant increases in PCa predictive value and specificity of phi and %p2PSA compared to tPSA and %fPSA. p2PSA has limited additional value in identifying aggressive PCa (Gleason score ≥7).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Flip H Jansen
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Hessels D, van Gils MPMQ, van Hooij O, Jannink SA, Witjes JA, Verhaegh GW, Schalken JA. Predictive value of PCA3 in urinary sediments in determining clinico-pathological characteristics of prostate cancer. Prostate 2010; 70:10-6. [PMID: 19708043 DOI: 10.1002/pros.21032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 132] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE PCA3 urine tests have shown to improve the specificity in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis, and have thus the potential to reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies and to predict repeat biopsy outcomes. In this study, PCA3 was correlated with clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score (GS), radical prostatectomy GS, tumor volume, and pathological stage to assess its potential as predictor of PCa aggressiveness. METHODS In this study, 351 men admitted for prostate biopsies based on serum PSA levels >3 ng/ml, an abnormal DRE, and/or a family history of PCa were included. Post-DRE urinary sediments from 336 men were tested using a transcription-mediated amplification-based PCA3 test, and assay results were correlated with clinical stage and biopsy GS. In a sub-cohort of 70 men who underwent radical prostatectomy, the PCA3 values were correlated to their radical prostatectomy GS, tumor volume, and pathological stage. RESULTS In this patient cohort we could not find a correlation between clinical stage, biopsy GS, radical prostatectomy GS, tumor volume, and pathological stage. CONCLUSIONS The predictive value of PCA3 for PCa aggressiveness features as reported in earlier studies cannot be confirmed in our study. Experimental differences (urine sediments vs. whole urine) and cohort may explain this. The exact place of PCA3 as prognostic test for PCa remains the subject of investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daphne Hessels
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|