PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN TESTING AND DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION BEFORE AND DURING A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF SCREENING FOR PROSTATE CANCER: EUROPEAN RANDOMIZED STUDY OF SCREENING FOR PROSTATE CANCER, ROTTERDAM

Does a screening digital rectal exam provide actionable clinical utility in patients with an elevated PSA and positive MRI?

Objective

To define the value of a digital rectal exam (DRE) in the prostate‐magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) era. Prostate MRI is increasingly used in men with elevated prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) prior to biopsy.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed in men with elevated PSA undergoing MRI followed by MRI fusion with systematic biopsy and men with elevated PSA/active surveillance with negative MRI followed by biopsy. Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics and DRE findings were collected. We examined performance of a positive DRE on sensitivity and specificity of diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC).

Results

A total of 339 patients had elevated PSA and positive MRI followed by MRI fusion guided with systematic biopsy. Pre‐biopsy DRE was documented in 286/339 patients, who were included in further analysis. About 81.6% positive, 78.7% questionable, and 55.8% negative DRE patients had CSPC. Positive DRE had 21.8% sensitivity and 91.3% specificity for CSPC. Positive or questionable DRE had 42.1% sensitivity and 81.5% specificity. Among 148 men with non‐CSPC (GG1)‐targeted biopsy, 28 had systematic biopsy with CSPC. About 5/28 had positive DRE and 8/28 had positive or questionable DRE. Twenty‐seven patients were included who had elevated PSA/on active surveillance with negative MRI and biopsy done within 2 years. About 77.8% had negative, 7.4% had questionable, and 14.8% men had positive DRE. About 7.4% had CSPC and all had a negative DRE.

Conclusions

Our study provides limited evidence for the value of a DRE. However, it does show occasional benefit in detecting GG2 or higher disease and given the lack of cost and side effects, should still be considered.

Estimate of Opportunistic Prostate Specific Antigen Testing in the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Screening for prostate cancer remains controversial, although ERSPC (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer) showed a 21% relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality. The Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, which is the largest component of ERSPC, demonstrated a statistically nonsignificant 16% mortality benefit in a separate analysis. The purpose of this study was to estimate the degree of contamination in the control arm of the Finnish trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Altogether 48,295 and 31,872 men were randomized to the control and screening arms, respectively. The screening period was 1996 to 2007. The extent of prostate specific antigen testing was analyzed retrospectively using laboratory databases. The incidence of T1c prostate cancer (impalpable prostate cancer detected by elevated prostate specific antigen) was determined from the national Finnish Cancer Registry.

RESULTS

Approximately 1.4% of men had undergone prostate specific antigen testing 1 to 3 years before randomization. By the first 4, 8 and 12 years of followup 18.1%, 47.7% and 62.7% of men in the control arm had undergone prostate specific antigen testing at least once and in the screening arm the proportions were 69.8%, 81.1% and 85.2%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of T1c prostate cancer was 6.1% in the screening arm and 4.5% in the control arm (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion of men in the control arm had undergone a prostate specific antigen test during the 15-year followup. Contamination is likely to dilute differences in prostate cancer mortality between the arms in the Finnish screening trial.

Correlation and diagnostic performance of the prostate-specific antigen level with the diagnosis, aggressiveness, and bone metastasis of prostate cancer in clinical practice

Purpose

The common tool for diagnosing prostate cancer is serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination, but the disadvantage of the high sensitivity and low specificity of PSA testing in the diagnosis of prostate cancer is a problem in clinical practice. We studied the correlation and diagnostic performance of the PSA level with cancer diagnosis, aggressiveness of prostate cancer (Gleason score>7), and bone metastasis.

Methods

A total 1,116 patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound and prostate biopsy were retrospectively studied. The patients were divided into subgroups by baseline PSA level as follows: ≤4, 4.1–10, 10.1–20, 20.1–50, 50.1–100, and >100 ng/mL. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of each PSA level were evaluated for correlation and diagnostic performance with positive biopsy, Gleason score for aggressiveness, and bone metastasis.

Results

A positive biopsy result was found in 395 patients (35.39%). The PSA level corresponded well with the diagnosis of prostate cancer and a positive bone scan but moderately well with Gleason score as shown by AuROC for diagnosis of prostate cancer (0.82), positive bone scan (0.88), and Gleason score>7 (0.78). The specificity of a PSA level of 4.1–10, 10.1–20, 21.1–50, 50.1–100, and >100 ng/mL in the diagnosis prostate cancer was 9.3, 55.5, 87.5, 98.2, and 99.7, respectively.

Conclusions

The data showed a strong correlation of PSA level with tumor diagnosis, tumor aggressiveness, and bone metastasis. The prevalence of prostate cancer in this cohort was 35.39%. The chance of diagnosis of prostate cancer was greater than that for benign prostatic hyperplasia when the PSA level was higher than 20 ng/mL.

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.

[Study of prostate cancer screening in a population of employees of a Kinshasa company in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Detection rate and nutritional and geographical risk factors]

OBJECTIVE

To detect prostate cancer in the employees of a Kinshasa company and to identify sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of men with prostate cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From September 2004 to December 2005, a cross-sectional, prospective prostate cancer screening study by PSA, digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound was conducted in 162 men aged 40 to 70 years. The upper limit of normal for PSA was 2.5ng/ml. Finger-guided prostatic biopsy was only performed in subjects with suspicious findings (n=38). Histological examination was performed in the Department of Defense of Armed Forces, Institute of Pathology, at Brugmann teaching hospital and the Kinshasa University Clinics.

RESULTS

Four adenocarcinomas, two PIN II and two PIN III were detected, that is a prostate cancer detection rate of 2.5%. Prostate cancer was only detected among men from three of the eight provinces. Two of the men with prostate cancer had a diet rich in animal fats and two had a family history of prostate cancer. The mean PSA in men with prostate cancer was high (17.37+/-8.56ng/ml) compared to men without prostate cancer (2.7+/-4.2ng/ml).

DISCUSSION

The underestimated prostate cancer detection rate of 2.5% is close to that of 2.6 to 3.2% for Caucasians in Europe and America but less than that of 5.1% for the black American population. This study provides a database on prostate cancer in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Interval cancers in prostate cancer screening: comparing 2- and 4-year screening intervals in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Gothenburg and Rotterdam

BACKGROUND

The incidence of prostate cancer has increased substantially since it became common practice to screen asymptomatic men for the disease. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) was initiated in 1993 to determine how prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening affects prostate cancer mortality. Variations in the screening algorithm, such as the interval between screening rounds, likely influence the morbidity, mortality, and quality of life of the screened population.

METHODS

We compared the number and characteristics of interval cancers, defined as those diagnosed during the screening interval but not detected by screening, in men in the screening arm of the ERSPC who were aged 55-65 years at the time of the first screening and were participating through two centers of the ERSPC: Gothenburg (2-year screening interval, n = 4202) and Rotterdam (4-year screening interval, n = 13301). All participants who were diagnosed with prostate cancer through December 31, 2005, but at most 10 years after the initial screening were ascertained by linkage with the national cancer registries. A potentially life-threatening (aggressive) interval cancer was defined as one with at least one of the following characteristics at diagnosis: stage M1 or N1, plasma PSA concentration greater than 20.0 ng/mL, or Gleason score greater than 7. We used Mantel Cox regression to assess differences between rates of interval cancers and aggressive interval cancers at the two centers. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

The 10-year cumulative incidence of all prostate cancers in Rotterdam versus Gothenburg was 1118 (8.41%) versus 552 (13.14%) (P<.001), the cumulative incidence of interval cancer was 57 (0.43%) versus 31 (0.74%) (P = .51), and the cumulative incidence of aggressive interval cancer was 15 (0.11%) versus 5 (0.12%) (P = .72).

CONCLUSION

The rate of interval cancer, especially aggressive interval cancer, was low in this study. The 2-year screening interval had higher detection rates than the 4-year interval but did not lead to lower rates of interval and aggressive interval prostate cancers.

Feasibility study of adjustment for contamination and non-compliance in a prostate cancer screening trial

BACKGROUND

The use of PSA as a screening test has become increasingly prevalent in the general population and therefore also in the control arm of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). We present a feasibility study and impact simulation of a secondary analysis, which imitates a situation where all participants in the study are managed according to their random assignment.

METHODS

The results of the Rotterdam section of the ERSPC were adjusted for contamination and non-compliance according to Cuzick et al. [Stat Med 1997; 16:1017-1029]. Endpoints of this analysis were simulated reductions in prostate cancer mortality.

RESULTS

Of the men allocated to the screen arm, 27.1% were non-compliant. In the control arm 30.7% had their PSA-level measured by a general practitioner (GP) (i.e., contamination). For a scenario in which the intention-to-screen analysis was assumed to give a decrease in the mortality in the men randomized to screening of 6.7%, the secondary analysis resulted in a decrease of 16.1% for those actually screened.

CONCLUSION

Although the definition of contamination as "PSA ever tested" gives an indication of the proportion of contamination, it will be important to differentiate the screening use of PSA from its diagnostic use. For the rest, adjustment for non-compliance and contamination was shown to be feasible in this prostate cancer screening trial. It can therefore be used to carry out a secondary analysis on the definitive outcome of the ERSPC and will provide accurate information for those men who are in fact screened.

Screening for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Any form of screening aims to reduce mortality and increase a person's quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. Much of this debate is due to the limited availability of high quality research and the influence of false-positive or false-negative results generated by use of the diagnostic techniques such as the digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer mortality and has an impact on quality of life.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases (PROSTATE register, CENTRAL the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT and the NHS EED) were searched electronically in addition to hand searching of specific journals and bibliographies in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of screening versus no screening or routine care for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The search identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full text review. From these 99 citations, two randomised controlled trials were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials with a total of 55,512 participants were included; however, both trials had methodological weaknesses. Re-analysis using intention-to-screen and meta-analysis of results from the two randomised controlled trials indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer mortality between men randomised for prostate cancer screening and controls (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.80-1.29). Neither study assessed the effect of prostate cancer screening on quality of life, all-cause mortality or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given that only two randomised controlled trials were included, and the high risk of bias of both trials, there is insufficient evidence to either support or refute the routine use of mass, selective or opportunistic screening compared to no screening for reducing prostate cancer mortality. Currently, no robust evidence from randomised controlled trials is available regarding the impact of screening on quality of life, harms of screening, or its economic value. Results from two ongoing large scale multicentre randomised controlled trials that will be available in the next several years are required to make evidence-based decisions regarding prostate cancer screening.

Comparison of screen detected and clinically diagnosed prostate cancer in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, section rotterdam

PURPOSE

This report provides a comparison of characteristics detected in the screening and control arms of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, section Rotterdam.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between December 1993 and January 1999, 35,148 men 55 to 74 years old were randomized to European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam, including 17,635 in the screening arm and 17,513 in the control arm. Prostate specific antigen testing, digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound and sextant biopsies were offered to all participants in the screening arm according to 2 algorithms. All screening detected cancers and cancers found in the control arm were evaluated at the same cutoff point, that is January 1, 2003. To identify prostate cancer cases in the control arm yearly linkage was performed with the Rotterdam Cancer Registry database. Followup information was collected by chart review.

RESULTS

By January 1, 2003, 1,269 cancers were detected in the screening arm and 336 were detected in the control arm. A shift to more favorable clinical stages and histological grades on biopsy was seen in the screening arm of the trial. T1C and T2 cancers were 5.8 and 6.2 times more often diagnosed, respectively, in the screening arm than in the control arm of the trial. Only 4.6% of control arm cancers were found through opportunistic screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a favorable shift in prognostic factors was seen for the screening arm of the trial, these results do not provide evidence that prostate cancer screening has an effect on prostate cancer mortality.

Has there been a change in practice of screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen in Ontario?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there has been a change in the rate of screening in Ontario in 2002 compared to 1995.

METHODS

A questionnaire was mailed to 520 physicians, associated with PSA records selected randomly from the database of a large community laboratory. Physicians were asked to consult their records as to the reasons for PSA testing.

RESULTS

There were 285 usable responses from 520 mailings (response rate 55%), mostly (91%) from family or general practice. Reasons for testing, expressed as proportions of responses, were as follows (this study, 1995 study and P value for the differences): screening for prostate cancer (74%, 63%; P = 0.059), diagnosis of urinary symptoms (30%, 40%; P = 0.027), follow-up of a medical procedure or drug therapy (14%, 32%; P = 0.001), confirmation of a previous PSA result (14%, 6%; P = 0.015) and other reasons (7%, 8%; P = 0.73). Of those records with screening as one reason for testing, 80% vs. 66% (P = 0.003) indicated it was the only reason; 86% vs. 73% (P = 0.003) indicated that it was part of a routine examination, and 54% vs. 64% (P = 0.052) indicated that the test was requested by the patient.

CONCLUSION

These findings are consistent with increased screening for prostate cancer with PSA.

Epidemiology of prostate cancer in the Umbria region of Italy: evidence of opportunistic screening effects

OBJECTIVES

To examine the impact of prostate-specific antigen-based screening on prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival in the Umbria region of Italy for the period 1978 to 1999.

METHODS

Incidence rates were derived from an ad hoc survey and from cancer registry records for the period 1978 to 1982 and 1994 to 1999, respectively. The mortality trend was assessed by joinpoint analysis using data from the official publications. The observed, relative, and age-adjusted relative survival rates were also calculated.

RESULTS

The number of newly diagnosed cases in 1997 to 1999 was almost four times greater than in 1978 to 1982, the crude incidence rate was more than three times, and the age-adjusted incidence rate increased by about 125%. No trend was apparent for mortality. The survival rates also showed a large increase. The 5-year relative survival rate was 37% and 74% for 1978 to 1982 and 1994 to 1998 incident cases, respectively. People older than 75 years showed the same striking increase in incidence and survival rates as the younger age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

As in many other developed countries, prostate cancer screening activities are the likely cause of the increase in incidence and survival rates observed in the study area, but a decreasing mortality trend is not yet evident. Opportunistic screening is likely to be performed among all age groups, including the elderly, although the latter are unlikely to benefit from intervention. The evaluation of opportunistic screening is difficult and a lack of evaluation implies a high risk of ineffective interventions and inequality of care.

Effective PSA contamination in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

The extent of effective prostate-specific antigen (PSA) contamination in the Rotterdam section of the ongoing European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial was evaluated and defined as when opportunistic PSA testing of >/= 3.0 ng/ml was followed by biopsy, similar to the regular procedure within the trial. Records of participants aged 55-74 years at entry were linked to the regional database of the general practitioner (GP) laboratory to obtain PSA tests requested by GPs in the period 1 July 1997 to 31 May 2000 (2.9 years), and to the national pathology database to quantify the number of biopsies. All men randomized were included, only those with prostate cancer screen-detected or clinically diagnosed before July 1997 were omitted from the analyses. 2,895 out of the 14,349 men (20.2%) in the control arm and 1,981 out of the 14,052 men (14.1%) in the screening arm were PSA-tested, at an average annual rate of 73 and 52 per 1,000 person-years, respectively. These rates were higher than those recorded at the national and regional levels, 33 and 38 per 1,000 person-years, respectively. Opportunistic PSA testing in the control arm reached a peak within the first months of randomization, after which it decreased to around 70 per 1,000 person-years. An opposite pattern was observed in the screening arm, where participants already had received the scheduled screening within the trial. The proportion of men in the control arm with PSA >/= 3.0 ng/ml followed by biopsy and prostate cancer was 7-8% and 3%, respectively (3% and 0.4-0.6% in the screening arm), over the whole study period. Over a 4-year rescreening interval, the average PSA and effective contamination amount were approximately 28% and 10%, respectively. PSA testing in the control arm in the Rotterdam ERSPC section is high, but was not followed by a substantial increase in prostate biopsies. Although the reasons for ordering PSA test or indicating biopsy are unknown, effective PSA contamination in the Rotterdam ERSPC section is low and not likely to jeopardize the power of the trial.

Practice of opportunistic PSA screening in the Florence District

The widespread use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test had a great impact on the rise of incidence of prostate cancer. The magnitude of opportunistic screening by PSA varies across countries, being highest in the US, and considerably lower in Europe. To estimate the opportunistic use of PSA over the period of one year (2000) in the District of Florence, we analysed the Regional Database of diagnostic exams. According to the Regional Database, subjects having at least one PSA test during the year 2000 ranged from 5.8 to 6.7%, 8.8-10.8%, 11.7-15.0%, 16.5-22.3%, 18.0-24.3%, 17.0-23.8% and 14.1-18.3% in the 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, 75-79 and >79 years age groups, respectively. Minimum and maximum values are reported according to exclusion or inclusion of PSA determinations with incomplete subject identification data. Such a high use of PSA should deserve special attention from both the medical and health care provider community. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the frequency of opportunistic screening by PSA in the District of Florence in the general population.

The case for early detection

Early detection represents one of the most promising approaches to reducing the growing cancer burden. It already has a key role in the management of cervical and breast cancer, and is likely to become more important in the control of colorectal, prostate and lung cancer. Early-detection research has recently been revitalized by the advent of novel molecular technologies that can identify cellular changes at the level of the genome or proteome, but how can we harness these new technologies to develop effective and practical screening tests?

Prostate cancer mortality reduction by screening: power and time frame with complete enrollment in the European Randomised Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial

From 1992-2001, 7 countries in Europe gradually recruited men for the European Randomised Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial. Centres recruit different age groups and have different designs for recruiting and countries have different underlying risks for prostate cancer. Recruitment has reached 163,126 men aged 55-69 at entry now. Our purpose was to calculate the power of the trial and at what point in time can statistically significant differences in prostate cancer mortality be expected. Recruitment data were collected from the screening centres. We calculated the expected number of prostate cancer deaths in each follow-up year, based on national statistics and expected rate in trial entrants. The power was calculated using different assumptions on intervention effect and contamination rate and also if the ERSPC trial would cooperate with other trials. With an assumed 25% intervention effect in men actually screened and a 20% contamination rate, the trial will reach a power of 0.86 in 2008. With an assumed intervention effect of 40%, the power reaches 0.90 in 2003-2004. Pooling data with those of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovary (PLCO) trial early is expected to improve the power to 79% (20% intervention effect) to 92% (40% intervention effect PLCO). Adding more centres with compliance rates lower than 45% decreases the power of the trial. The ERSPC trial has sufficient power to detect a significant difference in prostate cancer mortality between the 2 arms if the true reduction in mortality by screening is 25% or more or if contamination remains limited to 10% if the true effect is 20% or more. If early detection and treatment turns out to have a stronger effect as may be suggested by observational data, the ERSPC trial is likely to conclusively show that within the next 5 years.

Prostate-specific antigen testing in black and white men: an analysis of medicare claims from 1991-1998

OBJECTIVES

To describe the trends in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) use and associated cancer detection among black and white Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years during the calendar period from January 1991 through December 1998.

METHODS

Medicare claims data were linked with cancer registry data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program of the National Cancer Institute. Data from a 5% random sample of men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer were combined with data from prostate cancer cases diagnosed during the calendar period from 1991 to 1998. PSA tests conducted after a diagnosis of prostate cancer were excluded.

RESULTS

PSA use has stabilized among white men, reaching an annual rate of 38% by 1995 and remaining at this level through 1998. The annual rate of use among black men reached 31% by 1998, but was still increasing at that time. By 1996, at least 80% of tests in both blacks and whites were second or later tests. By the end of 1996, 35% of white men and 25% of black men were undergoing testing at least biannually or more frequently. In 1996, 83% of diagnoses in whites and 77% in blacks were preceded by a PSA test.

CONCLUSIONS

Older black men lag slightly behind older white men in their use of the PSA test; however, annual testing rates in blacks have yet to stabilize. In both race groups, an overwhelming majority of diagnoses are associated with a PSA test, whether for screening or diagnostic purposes. Regular screening rates in blacks are substantially lower than in whites, but the regular screening rates are relatively low in both race groups. Should PSA screening prove efficacious, efforts to promote regular use among both black and white men will likely be needed.

Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen: beware the biases

BACKGROUND

The evidence relating to the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a screening test is a highly controversial, as demonstrated by the lack of agreement among experts. There may be biases associated with various studies.

ISSUES

The main controversy is the relatively high prevalence of prostate cancer (PC) found at autopsy compared with the relatively low death rate from the disease. The lack of modifiable risk factors has led to early detection as a strategy to reduce mortality, as there is evidence for a significant burden of disease. Important issues are the accuracy of current screening tests, some attempts to improve on them, and whether there are good prognostic markers. The consequences of PSA testing (usually further testing including biopsy) and outcomes of treatment are presented in terms of mortality and morbidity; quality of life (QOL) must also be considered. Also important are the benefits from, and the difficulties associated with the "informed choice" approach to PSA screening.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence to suggest that biases can have a significant impact on the utility of PSA as a screening test for PC.

Prostate-specific antigen-based early detection of prostate cancer--validation of screening without rectal examination

OBJECTIVES

The evaluation of the screening procedures for prostate cancer (PCa) was a part of the protocol of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), section Rotterdam, The Netherlands. We sought to establish an improved strategy for the early detection of PCa using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) cutoff of 3.0 ng/mL or greater as the only indication for prostate biopsy with omission of the digital rectal examination (DRE).

METHODS

In June 1996, 8612 men, 55 to 74 years old, were randomized to screening and were screened within the ERSPC Rotterdam by a PSA level of 4.0 ng/mL or greater or positive DRE or transrectal ultrasound findings as the indication for biopsy. Four hundred thirty men had PCa. Those treated by radical prostatectomy provided the tumor characteristics considered essential for a change in the screening strategies. Various options were evaluated and predictions made by logistic regression analyses. The protocol change was implemented in February 1997. Another 7943 men were screened according to the new protocol (PSA 3.0 ng/mL or greater). The resulting data were used to compare the two protocols.

RESULTS

The detection rate (proportion of PCa in those screened) turned out to be very similar, with rates of 5.0 and 4.7 at a PSA cutoff of 4.0 ng/mL or greater and 3.0 ng/mL or greater, respectively. This was due to a much larger number of cases of PCa per biopsy in the PSA range of 3 to 3.9 ng/mL than expected. The positive predictive value of the PSA range 3.0 to 3.9 ng/mL in the two protocols was 18.0% and 6.4%, respectively. Tumor characteristics were studied on radical prostatectomy specimens from the original protocol. PCa detected with the new screening regimen had a similar distribution of Gleason scores but a larger proportion of confined disease. Tumor volumes were smaller in patients with PSA levels of less than 2.9 ng/mL; the proportion of "minimal disease" in that group was 50% compared with 28% in the group with a PSA level between 3.0 and 3.9 ng/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

Lowering the biopsy indication to a PSA cutoff of 3.0 ng/mL or greater without a DRE improved the positive predictive value from 18.2% to 24.3%. The number of biopsies necessary to detect 1 case of PCa accordingly changed from 5.2 to 3.4. The overall characteristics of the cases detected at that PSA cutoff differed very little from those detected with the regimen based on PSA, DRE, and transrectal ultrasound.