Risk-stratified multi-round PSA screening for prostate cancer integrating the screening reference level and subgroup-specific progression indicators

Preliminary effects of risk-adapted PSA screening for prostate cancer after integrating PRS-specific and age-specific variation

Background

Although the risk of prostate cancer (PCa) varies across different ages and genetic risks, it's unclear about the effects of genetic-specific and age-specific prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for PCa.

Methods

Weighed and unweighted polygenic risk scores (PRS) were constructed to classify the participants from the PLCO trial into low- or high-PRS groups. The age-specific and PRS-specific cut-off values of PSA for PCa screening were determined with time-dependent receiver-operating-characteristic curves and area-under-curves (tdAUCs). Improved screening strategies integrating PRS-specific and age-specific cut-off values of PSA were compared to traditional PSA screening on accuracy, detection rates of high-grade PCa (Gleason score ≥7), and false positive rate.

Results

Weighted PRS with 80 SNPs significantly associated with PCa was determined as the optimal PRS, with an AUC of 0.631. After stratifying by PRS, the tdAUCs of PSA with a 10-year risk of PCa were 0.818 and 0.816 for low- and high-PRS groups, whereas the cut-off values were 1.42 and 1.62 ng/mL, respectively. After further stratifying by age, the age-specific cut-off values of PSA were relatively lower for low PRS (1.42, 1.65, 1.60, and 2.24 ng/mL for aged <60, 60-64, 65-69, and ≥70 years) than high PRS (1.48, 1.47, 1.89, and 2.72 ng/mL). Further analyses showed an obvious interaction of positive PSA and high PRS on PCa incidence and mortality. Very small difference in PCa risk were observed among subgroups with PSA (-) across different age and PRS, and PCa incidence and mortality with PSA (+) significantly increased as age and PRS, with highest risk for high-PRS/PSA (+) in participants aged ≥70 years [HRs (95%CI): 16.00 (12.62-20.29) and 19.48 (9.26-40.96)]. The recommended screening strategy reduced 12.8% of missed PCa, ensured high specificity, but not caused excessive false positives than traditional PSA screening.

Conclusion

Risk-adapted screening integrating PRS-specific and age-specific cut-off values of PSA would be more effective than traditional PSA screening.

Effects of joint screening for prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer - results from a controlled trial

Background

Although screening is widely used to reduce cancer burden, untargeted cancers are frequently missed after single cancer screening. Joint cancer screening is presumed as a more effective strategy to reduce overall cancer burden.

Methods

Gender-specific screening effects on PLCO cancer incidence, PLCO cancer mortality, all-neoplasms mortality and all-cause mortality were evaluated, and meta-analyses based on gender-specific screening effects were conducted to achieve the pooled effects. The cut-off value of time-dependent receiver-operating-characteristic curve of 10-year combined PLCO cancer risk was used to reclassify participants into low- and high-risk subgroups. Further analyses were conducted to investigate screening effects stratified by risk groups and screening compliance.

Results

After a median follow-up of 10.48 years for incidence and 16.85 years for mortality, a total of 5,506 PLCO cancer cases, 1,845 PLCO cancer deaths, 3,970 all-neoplasms deaths, and 14,221 all-cause deaths were documented in the screening arm, while 6,261, 2,417, 5,091, and 18,516 outcome-specific events in the control arm. Joint cancer screening did not significantly reduce PLCO cancer incidence, but significantly reduced male-specific PLCO cancer mortality (hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals [HR(95%CIs)]: 0.88(0.82, 0.95)) and pooled mortality [0.89(0.84, 0.95)]. More importantly, joint cancer screening significantly reduced both gender-specific all-neoplasm mortality [0.91(0.86, 0.96) for males, 0.91(0.85, 0.98) for females, and 0.91(0.87, 0.95) for meta-analyses] and all-cause mortality [0.90(0.88, 0.93) for male, 0.88(0.85, 0.92) for female, and 0.89(0.87, 0.91) for meta-analyses]. Further analyses showed decreased risks of all-neoplasm mortality was observed with good compliance [0.72(0.67, 0.77) for male and 0.72(0.65, 0.80) for female] and increased risks with poor compliance [1.61(1.40, 1.85) for male and 1.30(1.13, 1.40) for female].

Conclusion

Joint cancer screening could be recommended as a potentially strategy to reduce the overall cancer burden. More compliance, more benefits. However, organizing a joint cancer screening not only requires more ingenious design, but also needs more attentions to the potential harms.

Trial registration

NCT00002540 (Prostate), NCT01696968 (Lung), NCT01696981 (Colorectal), NCT01696994 (Ovarian).

Navigating through the Controversies and Emerging Paradigms in Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Bridging the Gap from Classic RCTs to Modern Population-Based Pilot Programs

Over the last three decades, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US-based Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening have steered the conversation around the early detection of prostate cancer. These two randomized trials assessed the effect of screening on prostate cancer disease-specific mortality. Elevated PSA levels were followed by a systematic sextant prostate biopsy. Standard repeat testing intervals were applied. After controversies from 2009 to 2016 due to contradicting results of the two trials, the results aligned in 2016 and showed that early PSA detection reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality. However, overdiagnosis rates of up to 50% were reported, and this sparked an intense debate on harms and benefits for almost 20 years. The balance between harms and benefits is highly debated and has initiated further research to investigate new ways of early detection. In the meantime, the knowledge and tools for the diagnostic algorithm improved. This is a continuously ongoing effort which focuses on individual risk-based screening algorithms that preserve the benefits of the purely PSA-based screening algorithms, while reducing the side effects. An important push towards investigating new techniques for early detection came from the European Commission on the 20th of September 2022. The European Commission published its updated recommendation to investigate prostate, lung, and gastric cancer early detection programs. This opened a new window of opportunity to move away from the trial setting to population-based early detection settings. With this review, we aim to review 30 years of historical evidence of prostate cancer screening, which led to the initiation of the 'The Prostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union' (PRAISE-U) project, which aims to encourage the early detection and diagnosis of PCa through customized and risk-based screening programs.