État des lieux et facteurs de participation à l’étude européenne ERSPC de dépistage randomisé du cancer de la prostate par dosage sérique de l’antigène prostatique spécifique : départements français du Tarn et de l’Hérault

[Urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction after treatment of localized prostate cancer: Results from a population aged less than 65years old]

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of patients with prostate cancer (PC) are diagnosed and treated. The aim of this study was to investigate urinary incontinence (UI) and sexual dysfunction (SD) two years after treatment for localized prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

This study followed all cases of localized PC diagnosed between 2008 and 2009 in men aged≤65years old and still alive two years after treatment. In total, 437 men were recruited. Data were collected using a standardized questionnaire and by cross-checking with data from the cancer registry. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed to evaluate persisting UI and SD at 2years.

RESULTS

At two years after treatment, UI was persistent in 48.8%; 41.2% had used urinary protections, and 39.2% had used at least 1 pad/day; 55.2% reported financial difficulties for purchasing protective pads. In total, 22.7% did not consult a specialist for UI. SD was persistent in 82.8%; 30.4% did not consult a specialist for SD. SD had a negative impact on the sex life of patients and their partners. After adjustment for cancer stage, prostatectomy was significantly associated with persisting UI and SD at two years.

CONCLUSION

Two years after treatment, rates of persisting UI and/or SD remain high. Treatment by prostatectomy was significantly associated with an increased risk of persisting adverse effects at two years. The different toxicities between treatments should be presented to patients before initiating therapy in order to encourage the patient to contributed to shared treatment decision-making.

Non-compliance with the initial screening exam visit in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial

OBJECTIVE

Identify predictors of non-compliance with first round screening exams in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

METHOD

The PLCO was conducted from 1993 to 2011 at 10 US institutions. A total of 154,897 healthy men and women ages 55-74 years were randomized. Intervention arm participants were invited to receive gender-appropriate screening exams for prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Using intervention-arm data (73,036 participants), non-compliance percentages for 13 covariates were calculated, as were unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals. Covariates included demographic factors as well as factors specific to PLCO (e.g., method of consent, distance from screening center).

RESULTS

The rate of non-compliance was 11% overall but varied by screening center. Significant associations were observed for most covariates but indicated modest increases or decreases in odds. An exception was the use of a two-step consent process (consented intervention arm participants for exams after randomization) relative to a one-step process (consented all participants prior to randomization) (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 2.0-2.5). Non-compliance percentages increased with further distance from screening centers, but ORs were not significantly different from 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Many factors modestly influenced compliance. Consent process was the strongest predictor of compliance.

Is prostate-specific antigen effective for population screening of prostate cancer? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for population screening has presented controversial results in large trials and prior reviews. We investigated the effectiveness of PSA population screening in a systematic review.

METHODS

The study was conducted using existing systematic reviews. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library, and the major Korean databases. The quality of the systematic reviews was assessed by two reviewers independently using AMSTAR. Randomized controlled trials were assessed using the risk of bias tool in the Cochrane group. Meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager. The level of evidence of each outcome was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

Prostate-cancer-specific mortality was not reduced based on similar prior reviews (relative risk [RR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.07, P=0.31). The detection rate of stage 1 prostate cancer was not greater, with a RR of 1.67 (95% CI, 0.95-2.94) and high heterogeneity. The detection rate of all cancer stages in the screening group was high, with a RR of 1.45 (95% CI, 1.13-1.85). No difference in all-cause mortality was observed between the screening and control groups (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.01, P=0.50). Prostate-cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and diagnosis of prostate cancer at stages 3-4 showed moderate levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Differently from prior studies, our review included updated Norrköping data and assessed the sole effect of PSA testing for prostate cancer screening. PSA screening alone did not increase early stage prostate cancer detection and did not lower mortality.

Screening for prostate cancer

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.

Furthering the prostate cancer screening debate (prostate cancer specific mortality and associated risks)

Screening for prostate cancer remains a contentious issue. As with other cancer screening programs, a key feature of the debate is verification of cancer-specific mortality reductions. Unfortunately the present evidence, two systematic reviews and six randomized controlled trials, have reported conflicting results. Furthermore, half of the studies are poor quality and the evidence is clouded by key weaknesses, including poor adherence to screening in the intervention arm or high rates of screening in the control arm. In high quality studies of prostate cancer screening (particularly prostate-specific antigen), in which actual compliance was anticipated in the study design, there is good evidence that prostate cancer mortality is reduced. The numbers needed to screen are at least as good as those of mammography for breast cancer and fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer. However, the risks associated with prostate cancer screening are considerable and must be weighed against the advantage of reduced cancer-specific mortality. Adverse events include 70% rate of false positives, important risks associated with prostate biopsy, and the serious consequences of prostate cancer treatment. The best evidence demonstrates prostate cancer screening will reduce prostate cancer mortality. It is time for the debate to move beyond this issue, and begin a well-informed discussion on the remaining complex issues associated with prostate cancer screening and appropriate management.

A panel of kallikrein markers can predict outcome of prostate biopsy following clinical work-up: an independent validation study from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer screening, France

Background

We have previously shown that a panel of kallikrein markers - total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, intact PSA and human kallikrein-related peptidase 2 (hK2) - can predict the outcome of prostate biopsy in men with elevated PSA. Here we investigate the properties of our panel in men subject to clinical work-up before biopsy.

Methods

We applied a previously published predictive model based on the kallikrein panel to 262 men undergoing prostate biopsy following an elevated PSA (≥ 3 ng/ml) and further clinical work-up during the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer screening, France. The predictive accuracy of the model was compared to a "base" model of PSA, age and digital rectal exam (DRE).

Results

83 (32%) men had prostate cancer on biopsy of whom 45 (54%) had high grade disease (Gleason score 7 or higher). Our model had significantly higher accuracy than the base model in predicting cancer (area-under-the-curve [AUC] improved from 0.63 to 0.78) or high-grade cancer (AUC increased from 0.77 to 0.87). Using a decision rule to biopsy those with a 20% or higher risk of cancer from the model would reduce the number of biopsies by nearly half. For every 1000 men with elevated PSA and clinical indication for biopsy, the model would recommend against biopsy in 61 men with cancer, the majority (≈80%) of whom would have low stage and low grade disease at diagnosis.

Conclusions

In this independent validation study, the model was highly predictive of prostate cancer in men for whom the decision to biopsy is based on both elevated PSA and clinical work-up. Use of this model would reduce a large number of biopsies while missing few cancers.

Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To examine the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases including Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, abstract proceedings, and reference lists up to July 2010. Review methods Included studies were randomised controlled trials comparing screening by prostate specific antigen with or without digital rectal examination versus no screening. Data abstraction and assessment of methodological quality with the GRADE approach was assessed by two independent reviewers and verified by the primary investigator. Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance estimates were calculated and pooled under a random effects model expressing data as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Six randomised controlled trials with a total of 387 286 participants that met inclusion criteria were analysed. Screening was associated with an increased probability of receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer (relative risk 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.77; P<0.001) and stage I prostate cancer (1.95, 1.22 to 3.13; P=0.005). There was no significant effect of screening on death from prostate cancer (0.88, 0.71 to 1.09; P=0.25) or overall mortality (0.99, 0.97 to 1.01; P=0.44). All trials had one or more substantial methodological limitations. None provided data on the effects of screening on participants' quality of life. Little information was provided about potential harms associated with screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support the routine use of screening for prostate cancer with prostate specific antigen with or without digital rectal examination.

[The screening of prostate cancer in 2009: overview of the oncology committee of the French Urological Association]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the impact of screening on prostate cancer (PCa) mortality, and to discuss the main points of controversy regarding this screening.

METHODS

A bibliographic analysis was made using Medline services (keywords: prostate cancer, screening). Only the randomized studies regarding the impact of PCa screening on specific mortality were taken into account.

RESULTS

Two randomized studies, comparing one group of screened men with another group of nonscreened men, were published this year with conflicting results. The American study PLCO included 76,693 men. After a follow-up of 7 years, it did not report a significant difference in terms of specific mortality between both arms: 2/10,000 deaths in the control group versus 1.7/10,000 in the screened arm (RR=1.13; IC 95%: 0.75-1.7). The European study ERSPC included 182,160 men. After 9 years of follow-up, it showed a significant 20% reduction of specific mortality rate in the screened group (RR=0.80; IC 90%: 0.65-0.98; p=0.04). Methodologically, the European study seems to be superior to the American study, in which the control group was biased by a high percentage of preinclusion screening.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first time that a large randomized study shows a benefit of PCa screening regarding specific mortality. However, this issue remains to be clarified, due to the lack of data regarding the risk of "overdiagnosis" and the economic impact of screening.