The Impact of Design and Performance in Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening: Differences Between ERSPC Centers

Perceived patient burden and acceptability of MRI in comparison to PSA and ultrasound: results from the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study

BACKGROUND

The IP1-PROSTAGRAM study showed that a short, non-contrast MRI detected more significant cancers with similar rates of biopsy compared to PSA. Herein, we compare the expected and perceived burden of PSA, MRI and ultrasound as screening tests.

METHODS

IP1-PROSTAGRAM was a prospective, population-based, paired screening study of 408 men conducted at seven UK primary care practices and two imaging centres. The screening tests were serum PSA, non-contrast MRI and ultrasound. If any test was screen-positive, a prostate biopsy was performed. Participants completed an Expected Burden Questionnaire (EBQ) and Perceived Burden Questionnaire (PBQ) before and after each screening test.

RESULTS

The overall level of burden for MRI and PSA was minimal. Few men reported high levels of anxiety, burden, embarrassment or pain following either MRI or PSA. Participants indicated an overall preference for MRI after completing all screening tests. Of 408 participants, 194 (47.5%) had no preference, 106 (26.0%) preferred MRI and 79 (19.4%) preferred PSA. This indicates that prior to screening, participants preferred MRI compared to PSA (+6.6%, 95% CI 4.4-8.4, p = 0.02) and after completing screening, the preference for MRI was higher (+21.1%, 95% CI 14.9-27.1, p < 0.001). The proportion of participants who strongly agreed with repeating the test was 50.5% for ultrasound, 65% for MRI and 68% for PSA. A larger proportion of participants found ultrasound anxiety-inducing, burdensome, embarrassing and painful compared to both MRI and PSA.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostagram MRI and PSA are both acceptable as screening tests among men aged 50-69 years. Both tests were associated with minimal amounts of anxiety, burden, embarrassment and pain. The majority of participants preferred MRI over PSA and ultrasound.

REGISTRATION

This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03702439 .

Standardized prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates following initial non-malignant biopsy result

OBJECTIVES

To compare the incidence of subsequent prostate cancer diagnosis and death following an initial non-malignant systematic transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) biopsy with that in an age- and calendar-year matched population over a 20-year period.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This population-based analysis compared a cohort of all men with initial non-malignant TRUS biopsy in Denmark between 1995 and 2016 (N = 37 231) with the Danish population matched by age and calendar year, obtained from the NORDCAN 9.1 database. Age- and calendar year-corrected standardized prostate cancer incidence (SIR) and prostate cancer-specific mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated and heterogeneity among age groups was assessed with the Cochran's Q test.

RESULTS

The median time to censoring was 11 years, and 4434 men were followed for more than 15 years. The corrected SIR was 5.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.1-5.4) and the corrected SMR was 0.74 (95% CI 0.67-0.81). Estimates differed among age groups (P < 0.001 for both), with a higher SIR and SMR among younger men.

CONCLUSION

Men with non-malignant TRUS biopsy have a much higher incidence of prostate cancer but a risk of prostate cancer death below the population average. This underlines that the oncological risk of cancers missed in the initial TRUS biopsy is low. Accordingly, attempts to increase the sensitivity of initial biopsy are unjustified. Moreover, current follow-up after non-malignant biopsy is likely to be overaggressive, particularly in men over the age of 60 years.

Population-based estimates of age and comorbidity specific life expectancy: a first application in Swedish males

Introduction

For clinical decision-making, an estimate of remaining lifetime is needed to assess benefit against harm of a treatment during the remaining lifespan. Here, we describe how to predict life expectancy based on age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and a Drug Comorbidity Index (DCI), whilst also considering potential future changes in CCI and DCI using population-based data on Swedish men.

Methods

Simulations based on annual updates of vital status, CCI and DCI were used to estimate life expectancy at population level. The probabilities of these transitions were determined from generalised linear models using prostate cancer-free comparison men in PCBaSe Sweden. A simulation was performed for each combination of age, CCI, and DCI. Survival curves were created and compared to observed survival. Life expectancy was then calculated as the area under the simulated survival curve.

Results

There was good agreement between observed and simulated survival curves for most ages and comorbidities, except for younger men. With increasing age and comorbidity, there was a decrease in life expectancy. Cross-validation based on six regions in Sweden also showed that simulated and observed survival was similar.

Conclusion

Our proposed method provides an alternative statistical approach to estimate life expectancy at population level based on age and comorbidity assessed by routinely collected information on diagnoses and filled prescriptions available in nationwide health care registers.