Who and when should we screen for prostate cancer? Interviews with key opinion leaders

Clinical proteomics for prostate cancer: understanding prostate cancer pathology and protein biomarkers for improved disease management

Following the introduction of routine Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) screening in the early 1990′s, Prostate Cancer (PCa) is often detected at an early stage. There are also a growing number of treatment options available and so the associated mortality rate is generally low. However, PCa is an extremely complex and heterogenous disease and many patients suffer disease recurrence following initial therapy. Disease recurrence commonly results in metastasis and metastatic PCa has an average survival rate of just 3–5 years. A significant problem in the clinical management of PCa is being able to differentiate between patients who will respond to standard therapies and those who may benefit from more aggressive intervention at an earlier stage. It is also acknowledged that for many men the disease is not life threatenting. Hence, there is a growing desire to identify patients who can be spared the significant side effects associated with PCa treatment until such time (if ever) their disease progresses to the point where treatment is required. To these important clinical needs, current biomarkers and clinical methods for patient stratification and personlised treatment are insufficient. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the complexities of PCa pathology and disease management. In this context it is possible to review current biomarkers and proteomic technologies that will support development of biomarker-driven decision tools to meet current important clinical needs. With such an in-depth understanding of disease pathology, the development of novel clinical biomarkers can proceed in an efficient and effective manner, such that they have a better chance of improving patient outcomes.

Primary Care Providers' Intended Use of Decision Aids for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Prostate Cancer Screening

Decision aids are tools intended to help people weigh the benefits and harms of a health decision. We examined primary care providers' perspective on use of decision aids and explored whether providers' beliefs and interest in use of a decision aid was associated with offering the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for early detection of prostate cancer. Data were obtained from 2016 DocStyles, an annual, web-based survey of U.S. healthcare professionals including primary care physicians (n = 1003) and nurse practitioners (n = 253). We found that the majority of primary care providers reported not using (patient) decision aids for prostate cancer screening, but were interested in learning about and incorporating these tools in their practice. Given the potential of decision aids to guide in informed decision-making, there is an opportunity for evaluating existing decision aids for prostate cancer screening for clinical use.

Shared decision making for men facing prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Aims: To synthesize the empirical evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision making (SDM) compared to usual care for prostate cancer (PC) treatment. Methods and results: A systematic review of academic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, PsychINFO, and Scopus) and grey (clinicaltrials.gov, WHO trial search, meta-Register ISRCTN, Google Scholar, opengrey, and ohri.ca) literature, also identified from contacting authors and hand-searching bibliographies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs): 1) comparing SDM to usual care for decisions about PC treatment, 2) conducted in primary or specialized care, 3) fulfilling the key SDM features, and 4) reporting quantitative outcome data. Four RCTs from Canada (n=3) and the USA were included and comprised 1,065 randomized men, most (89.8%) of whom were in PC stage T1-T2. The studies reported 24 outcome measures. In 62.5% study estimates, SDM was similar to usual care at improving patient satisfaction and mood, and at reducing decisional conflict and decisional regret. In 37.5% study estimates, SDM significantly improved knowledge, perception of being informed and patient-perceived quality of life (QoL) at four weeks. There was a dearth of outcome data, particularly on the adherence to treatment and on patient-important and clinically relevant health outcomes such as symptoms and mortality. Conclusion: SDM may positively influence men's knowledge and may have a positive but short-term effect on patient-perceived QoL. The (long-term) effects of SDM on patient-related outcomes for decisions about PC treatment are unclear. Future research needs consensus about the interventions and outcomes needed to evaluate SDM and should address the absence of evidence on health outcomes.

The effects of shared decision-making compared to usual care for prostate cancer screening decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended for men facing prostate cancer (PC) screening decisions. We synthesize the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of SDM with usual care.

Methods

We searched academic and grey literature databases, and other sources for primary randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English comparing SDM to usual care and conducted in primary and specialised care. We assessed the individual study risk of bias, and calculated the study-specific and pooled relative risks (RR) or standardised mean differences (SMD) [with 95% confidence intervals (CI)] to perform random-effects meta-analyses for SDM-related and patient outcomes.

Results

Four RCTs comparing SDM to usual care, involving 1760 men, were included. SDM improved knowledge (SMD 0.23, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.43; 2 RCTs), but was not different to usual care in reducing either patient participation in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.90 to 1.19; 2 RCTs) or decisional conflict (SMD -0.04, 95%CI -0.23 to 0.15; SMD -0.05, 95%CI -0.24 to 0.14; 2 RCTs). Individual trial estimates (46.7%) also suggest that SDM may reduce or neutralise physicians’ tendency for PSA screening, and may improve the accuracy of patients’ perception of lifetime-risks and men’s views towards screening. There was no evidence on the effects of SDM on health outcomes. The studies represent various interventions and outcomes and are prone to risk of bias.

Conclusions

There is currently insufficient evidence to support a clear association of SDM on patient- and SDM-related outcomes for decisions about PSA testing. Further research needs to assess the clinical effectiveness of SDM using well-defined SDM interventions and outcomes. It should address the absence of evidence, particularly on health outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4794-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prostate cancer risk assessment in men with an initial P.S.A. below 3 ng/mL: results from the Göteborg randomized population-based prostate cancer screening trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term outcome of men with an initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level below 3 ng/mL and whether the free-to-total (F/T PSA) ratio is a useful prognostic marker in this range.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study is based on 5,174 men aged 50-66 years, who in 1995-1996 participated in the first round of the Göteborg randomized screening trial (initial T-PSA level <3 ng/mL). These men were subsequently invited biennially for PSA and F/T PSA screening until they reached the upper age limit (on average 69 years). Biopsy was recommended if PSA ≥ 3 ng/mL.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 18.9 years, 754 men (14.6%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer (PC). The overall cumulative PC incidence was 17.2%. It increased from 7.9% among men with T-PSA of ≤0.99 ng/mL to 26.0% in men with T-PSA levels of 1-1.99 ng/mL and 40.3% in men between 2-2.99 ng/mL (p < 0.001). The initial PSA was also related to the incidence of Gleason ≥7 PC (3.7% vs 9.7% vs 10.9%) and PC death (0.3% vs 1.1% vs 1.5%). Adding F/T PSA did not improve PC prediction in terms of Harrell concordance index (base model 0.76 vs 0.76) nor improvement of the likelihood of the model (p = 0.371).

CONCLUSIONS

Some men with initial PSA < 3 ng/mL will be diagnosed too late, despite participating in an organized screening program, indicating that prompt diagnosis is justified in these men. PC incidence and risk of PC death was associated with PSA., but F/T PSA had no predictive value.

Prostate cancer screening-when to start and how to screen?

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening reduces prostate cancer (PCa) mortality; however such screening may lead to harm in terms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Therefore, upfront shared decision making involving a discussion about pros and cons between a physician and a patient is crucial. Total PSA remains the most commonly used screening tool and is a strong predictor of future life-threatening PCa. Currently there is no strong consensus on the age at which to start PSA screening. Most guidelines recommend PSA screening to start no later than at age 55 and involve well-informed men in good health and a life expectancy of at least 10–15 years. Some suggest to start screening in early midlife for men with familial predisposition and men of African-American descent. Others suggest starting conversations at age 45 for all men. Re-screening intervals can be risk-stratified as guided by the man’s age, general health and PSA-value; longer intervals for those at lower risk and shorter intervals for those at higher risk. Overdiagnosis and unnecessary biopsies can be reduced using reflex tests. Magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-diagnostic setting holds promise in pilot studies and large-scale prospective studies are ongoing.

What's new in screening in 2015?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review was to highlight important articles in the field of prostate cancer screening published during 2015 and early 2016. Four major areas were identified for the purpose: screening strategies, post-United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2011-2012, screening trends/patterns, and shared decision making.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies furthered the evidence that screening reduces the risk of metastasis and death from prostate cancer. Multiplex screening strategies are of proven benefit; genetics and MRI need further evaluation. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening rates declined in men above age of 50 years, as did the overall prostate cancer incidence following the USPSTF 2011-2012 recommendation against PSA. The consequences of declining screening rates will become apparent in the next few years. More research is needed to identify the most optimal approach to engage in, and implement, an effective shared decision-making in clinical practice.

SUMMARY

Data emerging in 2015 provided evidence on the question of how best to screen and brought more steps in the right direction of 'next-generation prostate cancer screening'. Screening is an ongoing process in all men regardless of whether or not they might benefit from early detection and treatment. After the USPSTF 2011-2012 recommendation, the rates of PSA testing are declining; however, this decline is observed in all men and not solely in those who will not benefit from the screening. The long-term effect of this recommendation might not be as anticipated. More studies are needed on how to implement the best available evidence on who, and when, to screen in clinical practice.

The Role of Proteomics in Biomarker Development for Improved Patient Diagnosis and Clinical Decision Making in Prostate Cancer

Prostate Cancer (PCa) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in men worldwide. Although increased expression of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is an effective indicator for the recurrence of PCa, its intended use as a screening marker for PCa is of considerable controversy. Recent research efforts in the field of PCa biomarkers have focused on the identification of tissue and fluid-based biomarkers that would be better able to stratify those individuals diagnosed with PCa who (i) might best receive no treatment (active surveillance of the disease); (ii) would benefit from existing treatments; or (iii) those who are likely to succumb to disease recurrence and/or have aggressive disease. The growing demand for better prostate cancer biomarkers has coincided with the development of improved discovery and evaluation technologies for multiplexed measurement of proteins in bio-fluids and tissues. This review aims to (i) provide an overview of these technologies as well as describe some of the candidate PCa protein biomarkers that have been discovered using them; (ii) address some of the general limitations in the clinical evaluation and validation of protein biomarkers; and (iii) make recommendations for strategies that could be adopted to improve the successful development of protein biomarkers to deliver improvements in personalized PCa patient decision making.