Family history and prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen

The association between family history of prostate cancer and development of prostate cancer among Korean population: A prospective cohort study using KoGES data

This study aimed to assess the impact of family history (FH) on prostate cancer (PCa) development among a general Korean population. We conducted a prospective cohort study based on the registry records of 211,789 participants in the database of the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study from 2001 to 2013. A total of 69,693 men with appropriate records were evaluated by being categorizing into 2 groups; a PCa group (100) and control group (69,593). FH of PCa was also categorized as FH of total, father, or brother. Odds ratios (ORs) of PCa development were calculated by using stratified logistic regression models. The adjusted OR of PCa history of father was 27.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.7-79.2, P < .001) in PCa patients compared to control, and that of PCa history of brother was 15.8 (95% CI = 3.6-69.6, P < .001). Among the adjusted variables, age (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.14-1.21; P < .001), and hyperlipidemia (OR, 2.25; CI, 1.32-3.84; P = .003) were also identified as significant predictors of PCa development. There was no difference in the impact of FH on PCa development between different age groups at PCa diagnosis (<60 vs ≥60 years). To our knowledge, this study represents the first prospective cohort study based on the registry data of a Korean population showing the significance of FH on PCa development. Additionally, the effect of FH on the early onset of PCa has not been confirmed in our analysis.

Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test?

In the past decade rigorous debate has taken place about population-based screening for prostate cancer. Although screening by serum PSA levels can reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality, it is unclear whether the benefits outweigh the risks of false-positive results and overdiagnosis of insignificant prostate cancer, and it is not recommended for population-based screening. MRI screening for prostate cancer has the potential to be analogous to mammography for breast cancer or low-dose CT for lung cancer. A number of potential barriers and technical challenges need to be overcome in order to implement such a programme. We discuss different approaches to MRI screening that could address these challenges, including abbreviated MRI protocols, targeted MRI screening, longer rescreening intervals and a multi-modal screening pathway. These approaches need further investigation, and we propose a phased stepwise research framework to ensure proper evaluation of the use of a fast MRI examination as a screening test for prostate cancer.

Does a family history of prostate cancer affect screening behavior in Jamaican men?

Objective

To determine 1) the characteristics of males with a family history of prostate cancer who presented for screening and 2) the association between family history and diagnosis of prostate cancer in a cohort of screened Jamaican men.

Methods

The study consisted of a prospective cohort of black men who screened at the Jamaica Cancer Society in Kingston between 2006 and 2016. Data were collected on: 1) age at screening and age at diagnosis of prostate cancer, 2) family history of prostate cancer, and 3) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE) findings.

Results

Approximately 600 (21.4%) of screened men who reported data on family history (2 791 / 2 867) said they had a family history of prostate cancer. Men with a family history of prostate cancer 1) commenced screening at a younger age than men without a family history (P <0.001) and 2) tended to have a younger age at diagnosis of prostate cancer (P = 0.262). There was no significantly increased risk of prostate cancer in men with a reported family history of prostate cancer (odds ratio: 1.4; 95% confidence interval: 0.821–2.386; P = 0.217).

Conclusions

Men with a family history of prostate cancer presented frequently for screening and earlier than those without. There was a lack of association between family history of prostate cancer and diagnosis. Further studies are needed to investigate this association and validate family histories.

Psychosocial impact of undergoing prostate cancer screening for men with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations

OBJECTIVES

To report the baseline results of a longitudinal psychosocial study that forms part of the IMPACT study, a multi-national investigation of targeted prostate cancer (PCa) screening among men with a known pathogenic germline mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes.

PARTICPANTS AND METHODS

Men enrolled in the IMPACT study were invited to complete a questionnaire at collaborating sites prior to each annual screening visit. The questionnaire included sociodemographic characteristics and the following measures: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Impact of Event Scale (IES), 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer, Cancer Worry Scale-Revised, risk perception and knowledge. The results of the baseline questionnaire are presented.

RESULTS

A total of 432 men completed questionnaires: 98 and 160 had mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, respectively, and 174 were controls (familial mutation negative). Participants' perception of PCa risk was influenced by genetic status. Knowledge levels were high and unrelated to genetic status. Mean scores for the HADS and SF-36 were within reported general population norms and mean IES scores were within normal range. IES mean intrusion and avoidance scores were significantly higher in BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers than in controls and were higher in men with increased PCa risk perception. At the multivariate level, risk perception contributed more significantly to variance in IES scores than genetic status.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to report the psychosocial profile of men with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations undergoing PCa screening. No clinically concerning levels of general or cancer-specific distress or poor quality of life were detected in the cohort as a whole. A small subset of participants reported higher levels of distress, suggesting the need for healthcare professionals offering PCa screening to identify these risk factors and offer additional information and support to men seeking PCa screening.

Family history of breast cancer increases the risk of prostate cancer: results from the EPICAP study

Introduction

Familial aggregation is now well established with an increased risk of prostate cancer in patients with a family history of prostate cancer in first degree relatives. The aim of this paper was to investigate the role of family history of cancer in first degree relatives in prostate cancer risk.

Results

As expected, a family history of prostate cancer in first-degree relatives was more frequent in cases than in controls (OR 3.10, 95% CI 2.32-4.15). A family history of early BCa (before age 50) in first-degree relatives was more frequent in cases than in controls (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.09-2.94) with higher risk of aggressive PCa. The association was more pronounced for BCa in daughters (OR 15.26 95% CI 1.95-120).

Conclusions

In summary, a family history of BCa in first degree relatives before age 50 may increases the risk of PCa with higher Gleason score. This finding could suggest a specific prostate surveillance and/or genetic counselling for men who present such familial history.

Methods

EPIdemiological study of Prostate CAncer (EPICAP) is a population-based case-control study specifically designed to investigate the role of environmental and genetic factors in prostate cancer. Detailed information on family history of cancer in first degree relatives (parents, brothers and sisters, children) was collected as well as the age of occurrence and the localization of each cancer. Overall, 819 cases and 879 controls have been included.

"It's all very well reading the letters in the genome, but it's a long way to being able to write": Men's interpretations of undergoing genetic profiling to determine future risk of prostate cancer

A family history of prostate cancer (PC) is one of the main risk factors for the disease. A number of common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that confer small but cumulatively substantial risks of PC have been identified, opening the possibility for the use of SNPs in PC risk stratification for targeted screening and prevention in the future. The objective of this study was to explore the psychosocial impact of receiving information about genetic risk of PC. The participants were men who had a family history of PC and were enrolled in a screening study providing research genetic profiling alongside screening for PC. A combination of questionnaires and in-depth interviews were used. Questionnaires were completed by men at two time points: both before and after joining the study and going through the genetic profiling process. The interviews were completed after all study process were complete and were analysed using a framework analysis. In total 95 men completed both questionnaires and 26 men were interviewed. A number of issues facing men at risk of PC were identified. The results fell into two main categories: personal relevance and societal relevance. The strength of men's innate beliefs about their risk, shaped by genetic and environmental assumptions, outweigh the information provided by genetic testing. Men felt genetic profile results would have future use for accessing prostate screening, being aware of symptoms and in communicating with others. The findings reinforce the importance of providing contextual information alongside genetic profiling test results, and emphasises the importance of the counselling process in providing genetic risk information. This research raises some key issues to facilitate clinical practice and future research related to the use of genetic profiling to determine risk of PC and other diseases.

Targeted prostate cancer screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the initial screening round of the IMPACT study

BACKGROUND

Men with germline breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene mutations have a higher risk of developing prostate cancer (PCa) than noncarriers. IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls) is an international consortium of 62 centres in 20 countries evaluating the use of targeted PCa screening in men with BRCA1/2 mutations.

OBJECTIVE

To report the first year's screening results for all men at enrollment in the study.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We recruited men aged 40-69 yr with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and a control group of men who have tested negative for a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation known to be present in their families. All men underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing at enrollment, and those men with PSA >3 ng/ml were offered prostate biopsy.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

PSA levels, PCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the number of PCa cases among groups and the differences among disease types.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

We recruited 2481 men (791 BRCA1 carriers, 531 BRCA1 controls; 731 BRCA2 carriers, 428 BRCA2 controls). A total of 199 men (8%) presented with PSA >3.0 ng/ml, 162 biopsies were performed, and 59 PCas were diagnosed (18 BRCA1 carriers, 10 BRCA1 controls; 24 BRCA2 carriers, 7 BRCA2 controls); 66% of the tumours were classified as intermediate- or high-risk disease. The positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml in BRCA2 mutation carriers was 48%-double the PPV reported in population screening studies. A significant difference in detecting intermediate- or high-risk disease was observed in BRCA2 carriers. Ninety-five percent of the men were white, thus the results cannot be generalised to all ethnic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The IMPACT screening network will be useful for targeted PCa screening studies in men with germline genetic risk variants as they are discovered. These preliminary results support the use of targeted PSA screening based on BRCA genotype and show that this screening yields a high proportion of aggressive disease.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this report, we demonstrate that germline genetic markers can be used to identify men at higher risk of prostate cancer. Targeting screening at these men resulted in the identification of tumours that were more likely to require treatment.

Clinical performance of serum prostate-specific antigen isoform [-2]proPSA (p2PSA) and its derivatives, %p2PSA and the prostate health index (PHI), in men with a family history of prostate cancer: results from a multicentre European study, the PROMEtheuS project

OBJECTIVES

To test the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of serum prostate-specific antigen isoform [-2]proPSA (p2PSA), %p2PSA and the prostate health index (PHI), in men with a family history of prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing prostate biopsy for suspected PCa. To evaluate the potential reduction in unnecessary biopsies and the characteristics of potentially missed cases of PCa that would result from using serum p2PSA, %p2PSA and PHI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The analysis consisted of a nested case-control study from the PRO-PSA Multicentric European Study, the PROMEtheuS project. All patients had a first-degree relative (father, brother, son) with PCa. Multivariable logistic regression models were complemented by predictive accuracy analysis and decision-curve analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 1026 patients included in the PROMEtheuS cohort, 158 (15.4%) had a first-degree relative with PCa. p2PSA, %p2PSA and PHI values were significantly higher (P < 0.001), and free/total PSA (%fPSA) values significantly lower (P < 0.001) in the 71 patients with PCa (44.9%) than in patients without PCa. Univariable accuracy analysis showed %p2PSA (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 0.733) and PHI (AUC: 0.733) to be the most accurate predictors of PCa at biopsy, significantly outperforming total PSA ([tPSA] AUC: 0.549), free PSA ([fPSA] AUC: 0.489) and %fPSA (AUC: 0.600) (P ≤ 0.001). For %p2PSA a threshold of 1.66 was found to have the best balance between sensitivity and specificity (70.4 and 70.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 58.4-80.7 and 59.4-79.5 respectively). A PHI threshold of 40 was found to have the best balance between sensitivity and specificity (64.8 and 71.3%, respectively; 95% CI 52.5-75.8 and 60.6-80.5). At 90% sensitivity, the thresholds for %p2PSA and PHI were 1.20 and 25.5, with a specificity of 37.9 and 25.5%, respectively. At a %p2PSA threshold of 1.20, a total of 39 (24.8%) biopsies could have been avoided, but two cancers with a Gleason score (GS) of 7 would have been missed. At a PHI threshold of 25.5 a total of 27 (17.2%) biopsies could have been avoided and two (3.8%) cancers with a GS of 7 would have been missed. In multivariable logistic regression models, %p2PSA and PHI achieved independent predictor status and significantly increased the accuracy of multivariable models including PSA and prostate volume by 8.7 and 10%, respectively (P ≤ 0.001). p2PSA, %p2PSA and PHI were directly correlated with Gleason score (ρ: 0.247, P = 0.038; ρ: 0.366, P = 0.002; ρ: 0.464, P < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

%p2PSA and PHI are more accurate than tPSA, fPSA and %fPSA in predicting PCa in men with a family history of PCa. Consideration of %p2PSA and PHI results in the avoidance of several unnecessary biopsies. p2PSA, %p2PSA and PHI correlate with cancer aggressiveness.

A personalised approach to prostate cancer screening based on genotyping of risk founder alleles

Background:

To evaluate whether genotyping for 18 prostate cancer founder variants is helpful in identifying high-risk individuals and for determining optimal screening regimens.

Methods:

A serum PSA level was measured and a digital rectal examination (DRE) was performed on 2907 unaffected men aged 40–90. Three hundred and twenty-three men with an elevated PSA (⩾4 ng ml⁻¹) or an abnormal DRE underwent a prostate biopsy. All men were genotyped for three founder alleles in BRCA1 (5382insC, 4153delA and C61G), for four alleles in CHEK2 (1100delC, IVS2+1G>A, del5395 and I157T), for one allele in NBS1 (657del5), for one allele in HOXB13 (G84E), and for nine low-risk single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

Results:

On the basis of an elevated PSA or an abnormal DRE, prostate cancer was diagnosed in 135 of 2907 men (4.6%). In men with a CHEK2 missense mutation I157T, the cancer detection rate among men with an elevated PSA or an abnormal DRE was much higher (10.2%, P=0.0008). The cancer detection rate rose with the number of SNP risk genotypes observed from 1.2% for men with no variant to 8.6% for men who carried six or more variants (P=0.04). No single variant was helpful on its own in predicting the presence of prostate cancer, however, the combination of all rare mutations and SNPs improved predictive power (area under the curve=0.59; P=0.03).

Conclusion:

These results suggest that testing for germline CHEK2 mutations improves the ability to predict the presence of prostate cancer in screened men, however, the clinical utility of incorporating DNA variants in the screening process is marginal.

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.

Prostate cancer risk in men with prostate and breast cancer family history: results from the REDUCE study (R1)

BACKGROUND

To what degree the associations between PCa risk and family history of prostate cancer (PCa) and/or breast cancer (BCa) are attributable to screening biases is unclear. We examined these questions within the REDUCE study, where biopsies were largely independent of prostate specific antigen (PSA) minimizing screening biases.

METHODS

Data were from REDUCE, which tested dutasteride 0.5 mg daily for PCa risk reduction in men with PSA 2.5-10.0 ng mL(-1) and a negative prestudy biopsy. Among men undergoing at least one on-study biopsy with complete data (n = 6415; 78.1%), the association between family history and PCa risk was tested using multivariate logistic regression adjusting for clinicodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

A family history of PCa alone was associated with increased PCa diagnosis (OR: 1.47, 95%CI: 1.22-1.77). In North America, PCa family history was not related to PCa diagnosis (OR: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.73-1.44), whereas outside North America, PCa family history was significantly related to diagnosis (OR: 1.72, 95%CI: 1.38-2.15) (P-interaction = 0.01). A family history of both PCa and BCa (OR: 2.54, 95%CI: 1.72-3.75) but not BCa alone (OR: 1.04, 95%CI: 0.84-1.29) was associated with increased PCa risk versus no family history and irrespective of geographical region.

CONCLUSIONS

In REDUCE, PCa family history was significantly related to PCa diagnosis, although only for men outside North America. The presence of both PCa and BCa family history significantly increased risk versus PCa family history alone, irrespective of geographical region. Ultimately, our observations may support the need for changes in how we address family history in terms of both risk of PCa diagnosis and general risk stratification.

An epidemiological reappraisal of the familial aggregation of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis

Studies on familial aggregation of cancer may suggest an overall contribution of inherited genes or a shared environment in the development of malignant disease. We performed a meta-analysis on familial clustering of prostate cancer. Out of 74 studies reporting data on familial aggregation of prostate cancer in unselected populations retrieved by a Pubmed search and browsing references, 33 independent studies meeting the inclusion criteria were used in the analysis performed with the random effects model. The pooled rate ratio (RR) for first-degree family history, i.e. affected father or brother, is 2.48 (95% confidence interval: 2.25-2.74). The incidence rate for men who have a brother who got prostate cancer increases 3.14 times (CI:2.37-4.15), and for those with affected father 2.35 times (CI:2.02-2.72). The pooled estimate of RR for two or more affected first-degree family members relative to no history in father and in brother is 4.39 (CI:2.61-7.39). First-degree family history appears to increase the incidence rate of prostate cancer more in men under 65 (RR:2.87, CI:2.21-3.74), than in men aged 65 and older (RR:1.92, CI:1.49-2.47), p for interaction = 0.002. The attributable fraction among those having an affected first-degree relative equals to 59.7% (CI:55.6-63.5%) for men at all ages, 65.2% (CI:57.7-71.4%) for men younger than 65 and 47.9% (CI:37.1-56.8%) for men aged 65 or older. For those with a family history in 2 or more first-degree family members 77.2% (CI:65.4-85.0%) of prostate cancer incidence can be attributed to the familial clustering. Our combined estimates show strong familial clustering and a significant effect-modification by age meaning that familial aggregation was associated with earlier disease onset (before age 65).

Targeted prostate cancer screening in men with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 detects aggressive prostate cancer: preliminary analysis of the results of the IMPACT study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of targeted prostate cancer screening in men with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, an international study, IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls), was established. This is the first multicentre screening study targeted at men with a known genetic predisposition to prostate cancer. A preliminary analysis of the data is reported.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men aged 40-69 years from families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were offered annual prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, and those with PSA > 3 ng/mL, were offered a prostate biopsy. Controls were men age-matched (± 5 years) who were negative for the familial mutation.

RESULTS

In total, 300 men were recruited (205 mutation carriers; 89 BRCA1, 116 BRCA2 and 95 controls) over 33 months. At the baseline screen (year 1), 7.0% (21/300) underwent a prostate biopsy. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in ten individuals, a prevalence of 3.3%. The positive predictive value of PSA screening in this cohort was 47·6% (10/21). One prostate cancer was diagnosed at year 2. Of the 11 prostate cancers diagnosed, nine were in mutation carriers, two in controls, and eight were clinically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that the positive predictive value of PSA screening in BRCA mutation carriers is high and that screening detects clinically significant prostate cancer. These results support the rationale for continued screening in such men.

Family history of prostate and breast cancer and the risk of prostate cancer in the PSA era

BACKGROUND

A family history of prostate cancer (PCa) or breast cancer (BCa) has been associated with the risk of PCa, but the risks were inconsistent in terms of the affected family members, and data in the PSA era are limited.

METHODS

This study included a subcohort of the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study composed of a highly PSA screened population from 1986 to 2004 with 3,695 PCa cases identified. Questionnaires and a food frequency questionnaire were administered every other and every 4 years, respectively. Family history of PCa and BCa was ascertained in 1990, 1992, and 1996. All statistics were two-sided.

RESULTS

A family history of PCa in both a father and brother(s) was associated with a 2.3-fold increased risk of PCa [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.76-3.12]. Men with a father or brother(s) with a PCa diagnosis at age<60 and >or=60 had 2.16- and 1.95-fold increased risk of PCa, respectively. A family history of PCa was related to early-onset PCa (<65 years: RR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.95-2.60) and weakly to late-onset PCa (>or=65 years: RR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.52-1.85). History of BCa in a mother or a sister was associated with a 1.22-fold increased risk of PCa (95% CI = 1.08-1.38).

CONCLUSION

A family history of PCa or BCa significantly increases PCa risk. These associations are evident in a population with widespread PSA screening.

Segregation analysis of 1,546 prostate cancer families in Finland shows recessive inheritance

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in men worldwide and is likely to be caused by a number of genes with different modes of inheritance, population frequencies and penetrance. The objective of this study was to assess the familial aggregation of PCa in a sample of 1,546 nuclear families ascertained through an affected father and diagnosed during 1988-1993, from the unique, founder population-based resource of the Finnish Cancer Registry. Segregation analysis was performed for two cohorts of 557 early-onset and 989 late-onset families evaluating residual paternal effects and assuming that age at diagnosis followed a logistic distribution after log-transformation. The results did not support an autosomal dominant inheritance as has been reported in many of the hospital-based prostatectomy series. Instead, it confirmed the existence of hereditary PCa in the Finnish population under a complex model that included a major susceptibility locus with Mendelian recessive inheritance and a significant paternal regressive coefficient that is indicative of a polygenic/multifactorial component. The strengths of our study are the homogenous Finnish population, large epidemiological population-based data, histologically confirmed cancer diagnosis done before the PSA-era in Finland and registry based approach. Our results support the evidence that the inheritance of PCa is controlled by major genes and are in line with the previous linkage studies. Moreover, this is the first time a recessive inheritance is suggested to fit PCa in all data even when divided to early and late-onset cohorts.

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.

Prevalence, treatment modalities and prognosis of familial prostate cancer in a screened population

PURPOSE

A family history of prostate cancer is an important risk factor for this disease. The clinical presentation and prognosis of familial disease remain uncertain. In this study these entities are evaluated in the first and second rounds of a screening program in The Netherlands.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Of all men randomized in the Rotterdam section of the ERSPC, 19,970 men were eligible for screening. Information regarding the family history was obtained by a self-administered questionnaire at baseline.

RESULTS

In the prevalence screen the cancer detection rate in 1,364 men (7.1%) with a positive family history was 7.7% (106 cancers in 1,364 screened men with a positive family history) while the positive predictive value of the biopsies was 32.2% (154 cancers of 532 biopsies). In 12,803 sporadic cases the detection rate was 4.7% and the positive predictive value was 23.6% (p <0.0001 and 0.003, RR 1.63). No clinicopathological differences were found in the 1,559 men diagnosed in the first and second rounds. The overall biochemical-free survival rate after a mean followup of 56.8 months (range 0 to 129.9) was 76.8%, and was not significantly different in familial and sporadic cases (p = 0.840). These findings were consistent for the specific treatment modalities as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Although screened men 55 to 75 years old with a father or a brother having prostate cancer themselves are at a substantially greater risk for the disease, the clinical presentation, treatment modalities and prognosis by biochemical progression are not different compared to sporadic cases.

Prostate cancer screening in high-risk men: African American Hereditary Prostate Cancer Study Network

BACKGROUND

There are scant data available on prostate cancer screening among high-risk African American men with positive family histories. It is important to determine whether or not their screening rates differ from those in the general population.

METHODS

This study computed rates of previous digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer in cancer-free (unaffected) relatives age 40-69 years from African American families that had four or more men with prostate cancer. The rates for these 134 high-risk African American men from the African American Hereditary Prostate Cancer Study (AAHPC) were compared with nationwide estimates obtained from participants in the 1998 and 2000 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), for which the numbers of demographically comparable subjects were 5583 (4900 Caucasians, plus 683 African Americans) and 3359 (2948 Caucasians, 411 African Americans), respectively.

RESULTS

Men in the AAHPC cohort (with a strong positive family history) had significantly less screening than both African Americans and Caucasians in the NHIS cohorts. Only about one-third (35%) of the men in the AAHPC unaffected cohort had ever had a DRE, and only about 45% of them had ever received a PSA test. These rates were much lower than those obtained for African American men in the NHIS: 45% for DRE and 65% for PSA. These discrepancies increased with age.

CONCLUSIONS

Older African American men with positive family histories report surprisingly low rates of DRE and PSA screening compared with their counterparts in the NHIS surveys. At-risk men need to be informed of the benefits and limitations of prostate cancer screening and actively involved in decision-making for or against prostate cancer screening.

The feasibility and results of a population-based approach to evaluating prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer in men with a raised familial risk

The feasibility of a population-based evaluation of screening for prostate cancer in men with a raised familial risk was investigated by studying reasons for non-participation and uptake rates according to postal recruitment and clinic contact. The levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and the positive predictive values (PPV) for cancer in men referred with a raised PSA and in those biopsied were analysed. First-degree male relatives (FDRs) were identified through index cases (ICs): patients living in two regions of England and diagnosed with prostate cancer at age < or =65 years from 1998 to 2004. First-degree relatives were eligible if they were aged 45-69 years, living in the UK and had no prior diagnosis of prostate cancer. Postal recruitment was low (45 of 1687 ICs agreed to their FDR being contacted: 2.7%) but this was partly due to ICs not having eligible FDRs. A third of ICs in clinic had eligible FDRs and 49% (192 out of 389) agreed to their FDR(s) being contacted. Of 220 eligible FDRs who initially consented, 170 (77.3%) had a new PSA test taken and 32 (14.5%) provided a previous PSA result. Among the 170 PSA tests, 10% (17) were > or =4 ng ml(-1) and 13.5% (23) tests above the age-related cutoffs. In 21 men referred, five were diagnosed with prostate cancer (PPV 24%; 95% CI 8, 47). To study further the effects of screening, patients with a raised familial risk should be counselled in clinic about screening of relatives and data routinely recorded so that the effects of screening on high-risk groups can be studied.

Screening for prostate cancer: current recommendations

Recent studies have questioned the efficacy of PSA as a marker for the early detection of prostate cancer, but techniques are being investigated to improve the sensitivity and specificity of screening. It is hoped that new methods can differentiate between lethal and nonlethal cancers, thereby avoiding lead-time bias. Even with the current limitations of PSA, the combination of stage migration seen with screening, the recent Scandinavian study showing decrease of disease progression following surgical extirpation, and the known mortality in patients presenting with advanced disease help support PSA screening for prostate cancer. It is hoped that prospective, randomized, long-term screening studies, such as the PLCO and ERSCP trials, will show improved survival using the admittedly imperfect PSA marker in prostate cancer screening.

Second Round Results of the Finnish Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial

PURPOSE

Large randomized trials provide the only valid means of quantifying the benefits and drawbacks of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, but the follow-up of ongoing studies is still too short to allow evaluation of mortality. We report here the intermediate indicators of screening efficacy from the second round of the Finnish trial.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The Finnish trial, with approximately 80,000 men in the target population, is the largest component in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. The first round was completed in 1996-1999. Each year 8,000 men 55-67 years of age were randomly assigned to the screening arm, and the rest formed the control arm. Men randomized to the screening arm in 1996 were reinvited 4 years later, in 2000, and PSA was determined.

RESULTS

Of the eligible 6415 men, 4407 (69%) eventually participated in the second round of screening. Of the first-round participants, up to 84% (3833 of 4556) attended rescreening. A total of 461 screenees (10.5%) had PSA levels of > or = 4 microg/liter. Altogether, 97 cancers were found, yielding an overall detection rate of 2.2% (97 of 4407). Seventy-nine cases were found among the 3833 second-time screenees (detection rate 2.1%) and 18 in those 574 men (3.1%) who had not participated previously. A PSA of > or = 4 microg/liter, but negative biopsy in the first screening round was associated with an up to 9-fold risk of cancer in rescreening relative to those with lower PSA levels at baseline. Ninety-one (94%) of all of the detected cancers were clinically localized.

CONCLUSIONS

As surrogate measures of an effective screening program, both compliance as well as the overall and advanced prostate cancer detection rates remained acceptable. Men defined as screen-positive but with a negative confirmation of cancer at prevalence screen formed a high-risk group at rescreening.

Evaluation of a bladder tumor antigen test as a screening test for transitional cell carcinoma of the lower urinary tract in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the veterinary version of the bladder tumor antigen (V-BTA) test as a screening test for transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the lower urinary tract of dogs.

ANIMALS

229 client-owned dogs.

PROCEDURE

Urine samples from dogs were shipped overnight to a single laboratory to facilitate testing within 48 hours of collection by use of the V-BTA rapid latex agglutination urine dipstick test. Groups of dogs included the following: 1) dogs with TCC of the lower urinary tract, 2) healthy control dogs, 3) unhealthy control dogs with non-TCC urinary tract disease, and 4) unhealthy control dogs without urinary tract disease. Test sensitivity and specificity were calculated by use of standard methods. Logistic models were developed to assess the effect of disease status, test conditions, urine composition, and signalment on the performance of the V-BTA test.

RESULTS

A total of 229 urine samples were analyzed, including 48 from dogs with suspected (n = 3) or confirmed (45) TCC. Test sensitivities were 88, 87, and 85% for all dogs with (suspected and confirmed) TCC, dogs with confirmed TCC at any site, and dogs with confirmed TCC of the urinary bladder, respectively. Test specificities were 84, 41, and 86% for healthy control dogs, unhealthy control dogs with non-TCC urinary tract disease, and unhealthy control dogs without urinary tract disease, respectively. The test performed slightly better on centrifuged urine samples than on uncentrifuged urine samples.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our results indicate that the V-BTA test is useful in screening for urinary tract TCC in dogs.

Familial risk of cancer: Data for clinical counseling and cancer genetics

Familial risks for cancer are important for clinical counseling and understanding cancer etiology. Medically verified data on familial risks have not been available for all types of cancer. The nationwide Swedish Family-Cancer Database includes all Swedes born in 1932 and later (0-to 68-year-old offspring) with their parents, totaling over 10.2 million individuals. Cancer cases were retrieved from the Swedish Cancer Registry up to year 2000. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and 95% confidence limits (CI) were calculated for age-specific familial risk in offspring by an exact proband status. The familial risks for offspring cancer were increased at 24/25 sites from concordant cancer in only the parent, at 20/21 sites from a sibling proband and at 12/12 sites from a parent and sibling proband. The highest SIRs by parent were for Hodgkin's disease (4.88) and testicular (4.26), non-medullary thyroid (3.26), ovarian (3.15) and esophageal (3.14) cancer and for multiple myeloma (3.33). When a sibling was affected, even prostate, renal, squamous cell skin, endocrine, gastric and lung cancer and leukemia showed SIRs in excess of 3.00. The highest cumulative risks were found for familial breast (5.5%) and prostate (4.2%) cancers. We identified reliable familial risks for 24 common neoplasms, most of which lack guidelines for clinical counseling or action level. If, for example, a familial SIR of 2.2 would be use as an action level, counseling would be needed for most cancers at some diagnostic age groups. The present data provide the basis for clinical counseling.