The Impact of Interscreening Interval and Age on Prostate Cancer Screening With Prostate-Specific Antigen

N-Heterocycle based Degraders (PROTACs) Manifesting Anticancer Efficacy: Recent Advances

Proteolysis Targeting Chimeras (PROTACs) technology has emerged as a promising strategy for the treatment of undruggable therapeutic targets. Researchers have invested a great effort in developing druggable PROTACs; however, the problems associated with PROTACs, including poor solubility, metabolic stability, cell permeability, and pharmacokinetic profile, restrict their clinical utility. Thus, there is a pressing need to expand the size of the armory of PROTACs which will escalate the chances of pinpointing new PROTACs with optimum pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics properties. N- heterocycle is a class of organic frameworks that have been widely explored to construct new and novel PROTACs. This review provides an overview of recent efforts of medicinal chemists to develop N-heterocycle-based PROTACs as effective cancer therapeutics. Specifically, the recent endeavors centred on the discovery of PROTACs have been delved into various classes based on the E3 ligase they target (MDM2, IAP, CRBN, and other E3 ligases). Mechanistic insights revealed during the biological assessment of recently furnished Nheterocyclic- based PROTACs constructed via the utilization of ligands for various E3 ligases have been discussed.

Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test?

In the past decade rigorous debate has taken place about population-based screening for prostate cancer. Although screening by serum PSA levels can reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality, it is unclear whether the benefits outweigh the risks of false-positive results and overdiagnosis of insignificant prostate cancer, and it is not recommended for population-based screening. MRI screening for prostate cancer has the potential to be analogous to mammography for breast cancer or low-dose CT for lung cancer. A number of potential barriers and technical challenges need to be overcome in order to implement such a programme. We discuss different approaches to MRI screening that could address these challenges, including abbreviated MRI protocols, targeted MRI screening, longer rescreening intervals and a multi-modal screening pathway. These approaches need further investigation, and we propose a phased stepwise research framework to ensure proper evaluation of the use of a fast MRI examination as a screening test for prostate cancer.

Gene‒Prostate-Specific-Antigen-Guided Personalized Screening for Prostate Cancer

(1) Background: A simulation approach for prostate cancer (PrCa) with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test incorporating genetic information provides a new avenue for the development of personalized screening for PrCa. Going by the evidence-based principle, we use the simulation method to evaluate the effectiveness of mortality reduction resulting from PSA screening and its utilization using a personalized screening regime as opposed to a universal screening program. (2) Methods: A six-state (normal, over-detected, low-grade, and high-grade PrCa in pre-clinical phase, and low-grade and high-grade PrCa in clinical phase) Markov model with genetic and PSA information was developed after a systematic review of genetic variant studies and dose-dependent PSA studies. This gene‒PSA-guided model was used for personalized risk assessment and risk stratification. A computer-based simulated randomized controlled trial was designed to estimate the reduction of mortality achieved by three different screening methods, personalized screening, universal screening, and a non-screening group. (3) Results: The effectiveness of PrCa mortality reduction for a personalized screening program compared to a non-screening group (22% (9%‒33%)) was similar to that noted in the universal screening group (20% (7%‒21%). However, a personalized screening program could dispense with 26% of unnecessary PSA testing, and avoid over-detection by 2%. (4) Conclusions: Gene‒PSA-guided personalized screening for PrCa leads to fewer unnecessary PSA tests without compromising the benefits of mortality reduction (as happens with the universal screening program).

Insights from the PLCO trial about prostate cancer screening

The potential for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to reduce prostate cancer mortality has been uncertain despite its common use in the United States starting in the early 1990s. Updated results from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial after a median of 15 years of follow-up continue to show no reduction in prostate cancer mortality due to annual PSA testing for 4–6 years relative to usual care, which included less frequent PSA testing. In contrast with trials in Europe, which showed that certain PSA testing protocols can reduce prostate cancer mortality relative to not screening, the PLCO trial provides durable evidence of no benefit to screening more frequently than historical practice. Whether a limited population-based screening program can achieve an acceptable balance of benefit and harm remains to be determined.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Conditions for Valid Empirical Estimates of Cancer Overdiagnosis in Randomized Trials and Population Studies

Cancer overdiagnosis is frequently estimated using the excess incidence in a screened group relative to that in an unscreened group. However, conditions for unbiased estimation are poorly understood. We developed a mathematical framework to project the effects of screening on the incidence of relevant cancers-that is, cancers that would present clinically without screening. Screening advances the date of diagnosis for a fraction of preclinical relevant cancers. Which diagnoses are advanced and by how much depends on the preclinical detectable period, test sensitivity, and screening patterns. Using the model, we projected incidence in common trial designs and population settings and compared excess incidence with true overdiagnosis. In trials with no control arm screening, unbiased estimates are available using cumulative incidence if the screen arm stops screening and using annual incidence if the screen arm continues screening. In both designs, unbiased estimation requires waiting until screening stabilizes plus the maximum preclinical period. In continued-screen trials and population settings, excess cumulative incidence is persistently biased. We investigated this bias in published estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer after 9-13 years. In conclusion, no trial or population setting automatically permits unbiased estimation of overdiagnosis; sufficient follow-up and appropriate analysis remain crucial.

A System Dynamics Model of Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening for Prostate Cancer

Since 2012, US guidelines have recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer. However, evidence of screening benefit from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer has been inconsistent, due partly to differences in noncompliance and contamination. Using system dynamics modeling, we replicated the PLCO trial and extrapolated follow-up to 20 years. We then simulated 3 scenarios correcting for contamination in the PLCO control arm using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) incidence and survival data collected prior to the PSA screening era (scenario 1), SEER data collected during the PLCO trial period (1993-2001) (scenario 2), and data from the European trial's control arm (1991-2005) (scenario 3). In all scenarios, noncompliance was corrected using incidence and survival rates for men with screen-detected cancer in the PLCO screening arm. Scenarios 1 and 3 showed a benefit of PSA screening, with relative risks of 0.62 (95% confidence interval: 0.53, 0.72) and 0.70 (95% confidence interval: 0.59, 0.83) for cancer-specific mortality after 20 years, respectively. In scenario 2, however, there was no benefit of screening. This simulation showed that after correcting for noncompliance and contamination, there is potential benefit of PSA screening in reducing prostate cancer mortality. It also demonstrates the utility of system dynamics modeling for synthesizing epidemiologic evidence to inform public policy.

Screening Coverage Needed to Reduce Mortality from Prostate Cancer: A Living Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Screening for prostate cancer remains controversial because of conflicting results from the two major trials: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) screening trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).

OBJECTIVE

Meta-analyze and meta-regress the available PSA screening trials.

METHODS

We performed a living systematic review and meta-regression of the reduction in prostate cancer mortality as a function of the duration of screening provided in each trial. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Registry, and references lists from previous meta-analyses to identify randomized trials of PSA screening. We followed PRISMA guidelines and qualified strength of evidence with a GRADE Profile.

RESULTS

We found 6 trials, but excluded one that also screened with trans-rectal ultrasound. We considered each ERSPC center as a separate trial. When pooling together all 11 trials we found no significant benefit from screening; however, the heterogeneity was 28.2% (95% CI: 0% to 65%). Heterogeneity was explained by variations in the duration of serial screening (I2 0%; 95% CI: 0% to 52%). When we analyzed the subgroup of trials that added more than 3 years of screening (range 3.2 to 3.8) we found a significant benefit for screening with risk ratio 0.78 (95% CI 0.65-0.94; I2 = 0%; 95% CI: 0% to 69%) and a number needed to invite for screening of 1000. We downgraded the quality of evidence to moderate due to our retrospective identification of subgroups and limited data on control group screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate duration of screening reduces mortality from prostate cancer. The benefit, while small, compares favorably with screening for other cancers. Our projections are limited by the moderate quality of evidence.

Prostate cancer screening using risk stratification based on a multi-state model of genetic variants

BACKGROUND

Risk-stratified screening for prostate cancer (PCa) with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing incorporating genetic variants has received some attention but has been scarcely investigated. We developed a model to stratify the Finnish population by different risk profiles related to genetic variants to optimize the screening policy.

METHODS

Data from the Finnish randomized controlled trial on screening for PCa with PSA testing were used to estimate a six-state Markov model of disease progression. Blood samples from Finnish men were used to assess the risk of PCa related to three genetic variants (rs4242382, rs138213197, and rs200331695). A risk score-based approach combined with a series of computer simulation models was applied to optimize individual screening policies.

RESULTS

The 10-year risk of having progressive prostate cancer detected ranged from 43% in the top 5% risk group to approximately 11% in the bottom half of the population. Using the median group, with screening every four years beginning at 55 years-old, as the reference group, the recommended age beginning screening was approximately 47 years-old for the top 5% risk group and 55 years-old for those in the lower 60% risk group. The recommended interscreening interval has been shortened for individuals in the high risk group. The increased availability of genomic information allows the proposed multistate model to be more discriminating with respect to risk stratification and the suggested screening policy, particularly for the lowest risk groups-. --

CONCLUSIONS

A multi-state genetic variant-based model was developed for further application to population risk stratification to optimize the interscreening interval and the age at which to begin screening for PSA. A small sub-group of the population is likely to benefit from more intensive screening with early start and short interval, while half of the population is unlikely to benefit from such protocol (compared with four-year interval after age 55 years).

The Finnish prostate cancer screening trial: analyses on the screening failures

Prostate cancer (PC) screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been shown to decrease PC mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). However, in the Finnish trial, which is the largest component of the ERSPC, no statistically significant mortality reduction was observed. We investigated which had the largest impact on PC deaths in the screening arm: non-participation, interval cancers or PSA threshold. The screening (SA) and control (CA) arms comprised altogether 80,144 men. Men in the SA were screened at four-year intervals and referred to biopsy if the PSA concentration was ≥ 4.0 ng/ml, or 3.0-3.99 ng/ml with a free/total PSA ratio ≤ 16%. The median follow-up was 15.0 years. A counterfactual exclusion method was applied to estimate the effect of three subgroups in the SA: the non-participants, the screen-negative men with PSA ≥ 3.0 ng/ml and a subsequent PC diagnosis, and the men with interval PCs. The absolute risk of PC death was 0.76% in the SA and 0.85% in the CA; the observed hazard ratio (HR) was 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.04). After correcting for non-attendance, the HR was 0.78 (0.64-0.96); predicted effect for a hypothetical PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml the HR was 0.88 (0.74-1.04) and after eliminating the effect of interval cancers the HR was 0.88 (0.74-1.04). Non-participating men in the SA had a high risk of PC death and a large impact on PC mortality. A hypothetical lower PSA threshold and elimination of interval cancers would have had a less pronounced effect on the screening impact.

Fuzzy set regression method to evaluate the heterogeneity of misclassifications in disease screening with interval-scaled variables: application to osteoporosis (KCIS No. 26)

Although the trade-off between the two misclassifications (false-positive fraction and false-negative fraction), corresponding to type I and type II error in statistical hypothesis testing based on Neyman-Pearson lemma, to determine the optimal cutoff in the province of evaluating the accuracy of medical diagnosis and disease screening using interval-scaled biomarkers has been attempted by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the heterogeneity of the two misclassifications in relation to the utility or individual preference for relative weights between the two errors has been barely addressed and has increasingly gained attention in disease screening when the optimal subject-specific or subgroup-specific cutoff (the heterogeneity of ROC curve) is underscored. We proposed a fuzzy set regression method to achieve such a purpose. The proposed method was illustrated with data on screening for osteoporosis with bone mineral density.

Comparative effectiveness of alternative prostate-specific antigen--based prostate cancer screening strategies: model estimates of potential benefits and harms

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently concluded that the harms of existing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening strategies outweigh the benefits.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate comparative effectiveness of alternative PSA screening strategies.

DESIGN

Microsimulation model of prostate cancer incidence and mortality quantifying harms and lives saved for alternative PSA screening strategies.

DATA SOURCES

National and trial data on PSA growth, screening and biopsy patterns, incidence, treatment distributions, treatment efficacy, and mortality.

TARGET POPULATION

A contemporary cohort of U.S. men.

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Societal.

INTERVENTION

35 screening strategies that vary by start and stop ages, screening intervals, and thresholds for biopsy referral.

OUTCOME MEASURES

PSA tests, false-positive test results, cancer detected, overdiagnoses, prostate cancer deaths, lives saved, and months of life saved.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Without screening, the risk for prostate cancer death is 2.86%. A reference strategy that screens men aged 50 to 74 years annually with a PSA threshold for biopsy referral of 4 µg/L reduces the risk for prostate cancer death to 2.15%, with risk for overdiagnosis of 3.3%. A strategy that uses higher PSA thresholds for biopsy referral in older men achieves a similar risk for prostate cancer death (2.23%) but reduces the risk for overdiagnosis to 2.3%. A strategy that screens biennially with longer screening intervals for men with low PSA levels achieves similar risks for prostate cancer death (2.27%) and overdiagnosis (2.4%), but reduces total tests by 59% and false-positive results by 50%.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Varying incidence inputs or reducing the survival improvement due to screening did not change conclusions.

LIMITATION

The model is a simplification of the natural history of prostate cancer, and improvement in survival due to screening is uncertain.

CONCLUSION

Compared with standard screening, PSA screening strategies that use higher thresholds for biopsy referral for older men and that screen men with low PSA levels less frequently can reduce harms while preserving lives.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening

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.

Current trends in the management of post-prostatectomy incontinence

One of the annoying complications of radical prostatectomy is urinary incontinence. Post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) causes a significant impact on the patient's health-related quality of life. Although PPI is stress urinary incontinence caused by intrinsic sphincter deficiency in most cases, bladder dysfunction and vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis can induce urine leakage also. Exact clinical assessments, such as a voiding diary, incontinence questionnaire, pad test, urodynamic study, and urethrocystoscopy, are necessary to determine adequate treatment. The initial management of PPI is conservative treatment including lifestyle interventions, pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback, and bladder training. An early start of conservative treatment is recommended during the first year. If the conservative treatment fails, surgical treatment is recommended. Surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy can be divided into minimally invasive and invasive treatments. Minimally invasive treatment includes injection of urethral bulking agents, male suburethral sling, and adjustable continence balloons. Invasive treatment includes artificial urinary sphincter implantation, which is still the gold standard and the most effective treatment of PPI. However, the demand for minimally invasive treatment is increasing, and many urologists consider male suburethral slings to be an acceptable treatment for PPI. The male sling is usually recommended for patients with persistent mild or moderate incontinence. It is necessary to improve our understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms of PPI and to compare different procedures for the development of new and potentially better treatment options.