A Detailed Evaluation of the Effect of Prostate-specific Antigen-based Screening on Morbidity and Mortality of Prostate Cancer: 21-year Follow-up Results of the Rotterdam Section of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

Prostate Cancer Awareness in the Middle East: A Cross-Sectional International Study

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer has emerged as a significant public health challenge in the Middle East, characterized by rising incidence rates and a concerning mortality-to-incidence ratio. Yet, despite these alarming trends, data regarding prostate cancer awareness in the region remain limited. To address this critical knowledge gap, this study investigates prostate cancer awareness within the Middle East.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was performed among 5,913 men age 40 years and older across 14 Middle Eastern countries between January 1, 2022, and July 31, 2023. Excluding those with a history of prostate cancer, a validated questionnaire assessed prostate cancer awareness. Data were analyzed using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables, medians and ranges for continuous variables, and Pearson chi-square analysis for relationships between education levels and awareness of prostate cancer.

RESULTS

The survey achieved a 74.9% response rate, with 4,431 male participants. Regarding prostate cancer awareness, 83.8% of participants had heard of the disease. However, only 31.0% correctly identified it as the most common malignancy in men, and 21.8% believed it affects both sex. Awareness of screening was limited, with just 19.1% recognizing the prostate-specific antigen test's role. Additionally, participants had a pessimistic view, with a mean perception that 75% of patients with prostate cancer die from the disease, rather than from other causes. Higher education levels were associated with significantly increased awareness of prostate cancer (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This study reveals that while general awareness of the disease exists, crucial knowledge deficits regarding risk factors, screening, and prognosis are evident. Addressing these knowledge gaps through culturally tailored education may improve early detection rates, treatment outcomes, and ultimately reduce the burden of prostate cancer in the Middle East.

Evolution of European prostate cancer screening protocols and summary of ongoing trials

Population-based organised repeated screening for prostate cancer has been found to reduce disease-specific mortality, but with substantial overdiagnosis leading to overtreatment. Although only very few countries have implemented a screening programme on a national level, individual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is common. This opportunistic testing may have little favourable impact, while stressing the side-effects. The classic early detection protocols as were state-of-the-art in the 1990s applied a PSA and digital rectal examination threshold for sextant systematic prostate biopsy, with a fixed interval for re-testing, and limited indication for expectant management. In the three decades since these trials were started, different important improvements have become available in the cascade of screening, indication for biopsy, and treatment. The main developed aspects include: better identification of individuals at risk (using early/baseline PSA, family history, and/or genetic profile), individualised re-testing interval, optimised and individualised starting and stopping age, with gradual invitation at a fixed age rather than invitation of a wider range of age groups, risk stratification for biopsy (using PSA density, risk calculator, magnetic resonance imaging, serum and urine biomarkers, or combinations/sequences), targeted biopsy, transperineal biopsy approach, active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, and improved staging of disease. All these developments are suggested to decrease the side-effects of screening, while at least maintaining the advantages, but Level 1 evidence is lacking. The knowledge gained and new developments on early detection are being tested in different prospective screening trials throughout Europe. In addition, the European Union-funded PRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (PRAISE-U) project will compare and evaluate different screening pilots throughout Europe. Implementation and sustainability will also be addressed. Modern screening approaches may reduce the burden of the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death in European males, while minimising side-effects. Also, less efficacious opportunistic early detection may be indirectly reduced.

Evaluating whether Prostate Cancer UK's risk checker is a help or hindrance to prostate-specific antigen testing policy: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

The UK has an informed choice testing policy for prostate cancer. The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test is available for free to any man aged ≥50 years who requests it and has been informed of the harms and benefits. This policy leads to differences in PSA testing rates, which can exacerbate health inequalities.

AIM

To assess whether Prostate Cancer UK's risk checker helps men at risk of prostate cancer make an informed choice about the PSA test.

DESIGN & SETTING

Mixed-methods study in the UK.

METHOD

In total, 1181 men at risk, their partners, and clinical experts participated in surveys, focus groups, and one-to-one interviews. Data on risk checker completions by sociodemographic factors were analysed over time. Data from general practices that sent the risk checker to their patients were collected and analysed for service monitoring purposes.

RESULTS

There was a strong assumption that testing must be good, and therefore a need to emphasise the pros and cons of the test and that having it was the patient's decision. Men believed their GP would invite them for PSA testing. On the impact of the risk checker, 79.6% of men who completed it had at least one prostate cancer risk factor; the average time they interacted with the information in the tool was 9 minutes 28 seconds; and 75.7% felt the tool had equipped them to make an informed choice.

CONCLUSION

Online decision-making tools, such as the risk checker, can help reach men at high risk of prostate cancer and support them in making an informed choice about the PSA test.

Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) (early) detection poses significant challenges, including unnecessary testing and the risk of potential overdiagnosis. The European Association of Urology therefore suggests an individual risk-adapted approach, incorporating risk calculators (RCs) into the PCa detection pathway. In the context of 'The PRostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union' (PRAISE-U) project ( https://uroweb.org/praise-u ), we aim to provide an overview of the currently available clinical RCs applicable in an early PCa detection algorithm.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify RCs predicting detection of clinically significant PCa at biopsy. A search was performed in the databases Medline ALL, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar for publications between January 2010 and July 2023. We retrieved relevant literature by using the terms "prostate cancer", "screening/diagnosis" and "predictive model". Inclusion criteria included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials. Exclusion criteria applied to studies involving pre-targeted high-risk populations, diagnosed PCa patients, or a sample sizes under 50 men.

RESULTS

We identified 6474 articles, of which 140 were included after screening abstracts and full texts. In total, we identified 96 unique RCs. Among these, 45 underwent external validation, with 28 validated in multiple cohorts. Of the externally validated RCs, 17 are based on clinical factors, 19 incorporate clinical factors along with MRI details, 4 were based on blood biomarkers alone or in combination with clinical factors, and 5 included urinary biomarkers. The median AUC of externally validated RCs ranged from 0.63 to 0.93.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review offers an extensive analysis of currently available RCs, their variable utilization, and performance within validation cohorts. RCs have consistently demonstrated their capacity to mitigate the limitations associated with early detection and have been integrated into modern practice and screening trials. Nevertheless, the lack of external validation data raises concerns about numerous RCs, and it is crucial to factor in this omission when evaluating whether a specific RC is applicable to one's target population.

[Prostate cancer screening-current overview]

BACKGROUND

The harm-to-benefit ratio of prostate cancer (PCa) screening remains controversial mainly due to the unfavorable test characteristics of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a screening test.

METHODS

In this nonsystematic review, we present a current overview of the body of evidence on prostate cancer screening with a focus on the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate.

RESULTS

Evidence generated in large randomized controlled trials showed that PSA-based screening significantly decreases cancer-specific mortality. The main obstacle in developing and implementing PCa screening strategies is the resulting overdiagnosis and as a consequence overtreatment of indolent cancers. Opportunistic screening is characterized by an adverse benefit-to-harm ratio and should, therefore, not be recommended. The German Statutory Early Detection Program for prostate cancer, which consists of a digital rectal examination (DRE) as a stand-alone screening test, is not evidence-based, neither specific nor sensitive enough and results in unnecessary diagnostics. The European Commission recently urged member states to develop population-based and organized risk-adapted PSA-based screening programs, which are currently tested in the ongoing German PROBASE trial. Finetuning of the diagnostic pathway following PSA-testing seems key to improve its positive and negative predictive value and thereby making PCa screening more accurate. Incorporation of prostatic MRI into screening strategies leads to more accurate diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer, while diagnosis of indolent cancers is reduced. In the future, molecular liquid-based biomarkers have the potential to complement or even replace PSA in PCa screening and further personalize screening strategies. Active surveillance as an alternative to immediate radical therapy of demographically increasing PCa diagnoses can potentially further improve the benefit-to-harm ratio of organized screening.

CONCLUSION

Early detection of PCa should be organized on a population level into personalized and evidence-based screening strategies. Multiparametric MRI of the prostate may play a key role in this setting.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly integrated within the prostate cancer (PCa) early detection pathway.

Objective

To systematically evaluate the existing evidence regarding screening pathways incorporating MRI with targeted biopsy and assess their diagnostic value compared with prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening with systematic biopsy strategies.

Data Sources

PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane/Central, Scopus, and Web of Science (through May 2023).

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies were eligible if they reported data on the diagnostic utility of prostate MRI in the setting of PCa screening.

Data Extraction

Number of screened individuals, biopsy indications, biopsies performed, clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 or higher, and insignificant (ISUP1) PCas detected were extracted.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was csPCa detection rate. Secondary outcomes included clinical insignificant PCa detection rate, biopsy indication rates, and the positive predictive value for the detection of csPCa.

Data Synthesis

The generalized mixed-effect approach with pooled odds ratios (ORs) and random-effect models was used to compare the MRI-based and PSA-only screening strategies. Separate analyses were performed based on the timing of MRI (primary/sequential after a PSA test) and cutoff (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score ≥3 or ≥4) for biopsy indication.

Results

Data were synthesized from 80 114 men from 12 studies. Compared with standard PSA-based screening, the MRI pathway (sequential screening, PI-RADS score ≥3 cutoff for biopsy) was associated with higher odds of csPCa when tests results were positive (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 2.93-5.88; P ≤ .001), decreased odds of biopsies (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.22-0.36; P ≤ .001), and insignificant cancers detected (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23-0.49; P = .002) without significant differences in the detection of csPCa (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.75-1.37; P = .86). Implementing a PI-RADS score of 4 or greater threshold for biopsy selection was associated with a further reduction in the odds of detecting insignificant PCa (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.97; P = .048) and biopsies performed (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.38; P = .01) without differences in csPCa detection (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .22).

Conclusion and relevance

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that integrating MRI in PCa screening pathways is associated with a reduced number of unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of insignificant PCa while maintaining csPCa detection as compared with PSA-only screening.

Variation in harms and benefits of prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer by socio-clinical risk factors: A rapid review

Objective

To analyse the latest evidence on the relative harms and benefits of screening and diagnostic pathways with close examination of (i) men aged 50 years or older, (ii) men whose ethnicity places them at higher risk and (iii) men with a family history.

Methods

We conducted a literature search using PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases and other sources, from January 1990 to 25 January 2023. Two independent reviewers selected for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies which met our inclusion criteria.

Results

Twenty-eight articles were selected, from six trials, including the Göteborg trial-reported separately from European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening led to the increased detection of low-grade cancer and reduction of advanced/metastatic disease but had contradictory effects on prostate cancer (PCa)-specific mortality (no difference or reduced), possibly due to issues of contamination or compliance. Screening men from a relatively young age (50-55) reduced risk of PCa-specific mortality in a subanalysis of an 18-year follow-up study and in a 17-year cohort study from the main Göteborg trial. Moreover, one Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial analysis reported a trend of reduced risk of PCa-specific mortality for men with a family history who were screened. [Correction added on 05 March 2024, after first online publication: "Cancer Screening Trial" has been added to the preceding sentence.] However, we did not find relevant studies for ethnicity.

Conclusion

Under current UK practice, the choice to conduct a PSA test relies on a shared decision-making approach guided by known risk factors. However, we found there was a lack of strong evidence on the harms and benefits of PSA screening by socio-clinical risk factors and suggest further research is required to understand the long-term impact of screening on high-risk populations in the current diagnostic setting.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines provide recommendations for the management of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). This paper aims to present a summary of the 2024 version of the EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised PCa.

METHODS

The panel performed a literature review of all new data published in English, covering the time frame between May 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated, and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is considered, a combination of targeted and regional biopsies should be performed. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography imaging is the most sensitive technique for identifying metastatic spread. Active surveillance is the appropriate management for men with low-risk PCa, as well as for selected favourable intermediate-risk patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A recommendation to consider hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term intensified hormonal treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This article is the summary of the guidelines for "curable" prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is "found" through a multistep risk-based screening process. The objective is to find as many men as possible with a curable cancer. Prostate cancer is curable if it resides in the prostate; it is then classified into low-, intermediary-, and high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. These risk classes are the basis of the treatments. Low-risk prostate cancer is treated with "active surveillance", a treatment with excellent prognosis. For low-intermediary-risk active surveillance should also be discussed as an option. In other cases, active treatments, surgery, or radiation treatment should be discussed along with the potential side effects to allow shared decision-making.

Prostate cancer presentation and management in the Middle East

BACKGROUND

Although prostate cancer is a prevalent malignancy worldwide, its clinical presentation and management in the Middle East are not well-documented. This study aims to provide insights into the initial clinical presentation and management of prostate cancer in this region.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on seven institutional databases from six Middle Eastern countries, including Türkiye, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, and Jordan, to identify patients diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2021. Descriptive analysis was performed on the collected data to provide an overview of the demographic, clinical, and treatment variables.

RESULTS

A total of 1,136 patients were identified with a median age of 70 (range, 50-84). Most patients (78%) received their prostate cancer diagnosis after presenting with symptoms, as opposed to routine PSA screening. At the time of diagnosis, 35% of men had clinical T3 or T4 disease, 54% with Stage IV disease and 50% with Gleason score ≥ 8. Regarding treatment, 20% of non-metastatic and 22% of metastatic patients received no treatment.

CONCLUSION

Most men in this study sought prostate cancer evaluation due to symptoms and were subsequently diagnosed with advanced-stage disease, providing a foundation for future research aimed at understanding the underlying factors behind the observed trends and enabling informed interventions.

Comparing the Performance of Digital Rectal Examination and Prostate-specific Antigen as a Screening Test for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Although digital rectal examination (DRE) is recommended in combination with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited data to support its use as a screening/early detection test. Our objective was to assess the diagnostic value of DRE in screening for early detection of PCa.

METHODS

In August 2023, we queried the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify prospective studies simultaneously investigating the diagnostic performance of DRE and PSA for PCa screening. The primary endpoints were the positive predictive value (PPV) and cancer detection rate (CDR) of DRE. Secondary endpoints included the PPV and CDR of both PSA alone and in combination with DRE. We conducted meta-regression analysis to compare the CDR and PPV of different screening strategies. This meta-analysis is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023446940).

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

We identified eight studies involving 85 738 participants, of which three were randomized controlled trials and five were prospective diagnostic studies, that reported the PPV and CDR of both DRE and PSA for the same cohort. Our analysis revealed a pooled PPV of 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.33) for DRE, which is similar to the PPV of PSA (0.22, 95% CI 0.15-0.30; p = 0.9), with no benefit from combining DRE and PSA (PPV 0.19, 95% CI 0.13-0.26; p = 0.5). However, the CDR of DRE (0.01, 95% CI: 0.01-0.02) was significantly lower than that of PSA (0.03, 95% CI 0.02-0.03; p < 0.05) and the combination of DRE and PSA (0.03, 95% CI 0.02-0.04; p < 0.05). The screening strategy combining DRE and PSA was not different to that of PSA alone in terms of CDR (p = 0.5) and PPV (p = 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Our comprehensive review and meta-analysis indicates that both as an independent test and as a supplementary measure to PSA for PCa detection, DRE exhibits a notably low diagnostic value. The collective findings from the included studies suggest that, in the absence of clinical symptoms and signs, DRE could be potentially omitted from PCa screening and early detection strategies.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Our review shows that the screening performance of digital rectal examination for detection of prostate cancer is not particularly impressive, suggesting that it might not be necessary to conduct this examination routinely.

Prostate Cancer Mortality Among Elderly Men After Discontinuing Organised Screening: Long-term Results from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing for discontinuing screening of prostate cancer (PCa) in elderly men is currently not known and remains debated.

OBJECTIVE

To assess prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in elderly men who previously underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening and to identify those who may benefit from continued screening.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 7052 men, who participated in the screening arm of the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer and were aged 70-74 yr at their last screening visit after undergoing a maximum of three screening rounds without being diagnosed with PCa, were included.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The cumulative incidence of PCSM by the age of 85 yr was assessed. Additionally, a competing risk regression was performed to assess the potential predictors of PCSM.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The median follow-up was 16 yr. The cumulative incidence of PCSM by the age of 85 yr was 0.54% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-0.70) in all men, 0.11% (95% CI: 0.05-0.27) in men with PSA <2 ng/ml, 0.85% (95% CI: 0.47-1.5) in men with PSA 2-3 ng/ml, and 6.8% (95% CI: 3.1-15) in men with PSA ≥6.5 ng/ml and no previous benign biopsy. PSA (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.7-2.3), previous benign prostate biopsy (sHR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23-0.72), and hypertension (sHR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.25-0.91) were significantly associated with PCSM.

CONCLUSIONS

Men aged 70-74 yr who have previously undergone PSA-based screening without receiving a PCa diagnosis have a very low risk of dying from PCa by the age of 85 yr. These data suggest that screening may be discontinued in men with PSA <3.0 ng/ml or previous benign prostate biopsies. Those with higher PSA levels and no prior biopsies may consider continued screening if life expectancy exceeds 10 yr.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This study shows that men who participated in a prostate cancer screening trial have a very low risk of dying from prostate cancer if they have not been diagnosed with prostate cancer by the age of 74 yr.

From Screening to Mortality Reduction: An Overview of Empirical Data on the Patient Journey in European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam After 21 Years of Follow-up and a Reflection on Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Previous research quantified the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer (PCa) screening on quality-adjusted life years using 11-yr follow-up data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) extrapolated by the Microsimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN). ERSPC data now matured to 21 yr of follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of the effect of PSA-based screening on tumour characteristics and PCa treatment using long-term, detailed, empirical ERSPC data.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Men were included from the ERSPC Rotterdam who were randomised to a PSA-based screening (S) or control (C) arm.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We assessed the effects of PSA-based screening on the number of PCa diagnoses, tumour characteristics, treatments, and cumulative incidence of disease progression. We also evaluated the changes in tumour characteristics and treatments over time for both study arms.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among PCa patients in the S-arm, fewer patients were diagnosed with advanced tumour stages (T3/T4: 12% vs 23%; relative risk [RR] = 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.57), less disease progression was observed, and less secondary treatment (30% vs 48%; RR = 0.61; 95% CI 0.57-0.66; p < 0.001) and less palliative treatment were needed (21% vs 55%; RR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.35-0.42) than among those in the C-arm. This was at the cost of overdiagnosis and increased local treatments (eg, radical prostatectomy: 32% vs 14%; RR = 2.18; 95% CI 1.92-2.48). Over time, the number of local treatments decreased, whereas expectant management strategies increased. The RRs of treatments were slightly different from those of the MISCAN.

CONCLUSIONS

After 21 yr of follow-up, empirical data of the ERSPC showed that PSA-based screening reduces advanced PCa stages, disease progression, and extensive treatments at the cost of more overdiagnosis and probably more overtreatment. Our data showed reduced local treatments and increased expectant management strategies over time.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Prostate-specific antigen-based screening reduces the number of invasive prostate cancer treatments needed, however, at the cost of more overdiagnosis and probably more overtreatment. Limiting these costs remains crucial to benefit optimally from prostate cancer screening.