Do the Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Tests That Are Ordered in Clinical Practice Adhere to the Pertinent Guidelines?

A Comprehensive National Survey of Prostate-specific Antigen Testing and Prostate Cancer Management in France: Uncovering Regional and Temporal Disparities

We report nationwide real-life practice in the management of prostate cancer (PC) in France in a population of 4936750 men. All prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood tests performed between 2006 and 2018 were recorded in a National Health registry, which allowed to identify 692516 men diagnosed with PC and a control population consisting of 3899509 men without PC. PSA tests, age at diagnosis, treatments, and survival were analysed. Their management was analysed by age range and compared in the different French regions. Disparities were found in age at PSA testing and management approaches (surveillance, and local and systemic therapies). We found that 50% of men had received five PSA blood tests, but the first PSA test was taken late in life, with a peak in the decade between 65 and 75 yr of age. Adoption of monitoring was low (12%). Older men appeared to receive a late diagnosis with reduced chances of curative therapy and a subsequent increase in mortality, but cautious interpretation of our data is warranted in view of competing morbidities and other causes of death. The incidence of metastases at diagnosis, indicated by the use of systemic therapies, increased progressively from 2011 onwards. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we report nationwide real-life practice in the management of prostate cancer (PC) in France in a population of 4936750 men, including 692516 patients with PC. We found that the first prostate-specific antigen test is taken too late in life, leading to a late diagnosis with reduced chances of curative therapy and a subsequent increase in mortality.

Significantly reduced incidence and improved survival from prostate cancer over 25 years

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) was the second most frequent cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer death among men in 2020. The aim of this study was to analyze trends in the incidence, mortality and survival of PCa in Girona, Spain, over 25 years.

METHODS

Population-based study of PCa collected in the Girona Cancer Registry, 1994-2018. Age-adjusted incidence and mortality rates were calculated per 100,000 men-year. Joinpoint regression models were used for trends, calculating the annual percentage changes (APC). Observed and net survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Pohar-Perme estimations, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 9,846 cases of PCa were registered between 1994-2018. The age-adjusted incidence and mortality rates were 154.7 (95%CI: 151.7 157.8) and 38.9 (95%CI: 37.3 -40.6), respectively. An increased incidence of 6.2% was observed from 1994 to 2003 (95%CI: 4.4 -8.1), and a decrease of -2.7% (95%CI: -3.5 -;-1.9) between 2003 and 2018. Mortality APC was -2.6% (95%CI: -3.3 --2.0). Five-year observed and net survival were 72.8% (95%CI: 71.8 - 73.7) and 87.2% (95%CI: 85.9 - 88.4), respectively. Five-year net survival increased over time from 72.9% (1994-1998) to 91.3% (2014-2018).

CONCLUSIONS

The analyses show a clear reduction in PCa incidence rates from 2003 on, along with an increase in overall survival when comparing the earlier period with more recent years.

Variables Associated with False-Positive PSA Results: A Cohort Study with Real-World Data

(1) Background: There are no real-world data evaluating the incidence of false-positive results. We analyzed the clinical and analytical factors associated with the presence of false-positive results in PSA determinations in practice. (2) Methods: A prospective cohort study of patients with a PSA test was performed in clinical practice. We followed the patients by reviewing their medical records for 2 years or until the diagnosis of PCa was reached, whichever came first. (3) Results: False-positive PSA rate was 46.8% (95% CI 44.2-49.2%) and false-negative PSA rate was 2.8% (95% CI 2-3.5%). Patients aged 61-70 years and those over 70 years were more likely to have a false-positive result than those under 45 years (aOR 2.83, 95% CI 1.06-7.55, p = 0.038, and aOR 4.62, 95% CI 1.75-12.22, p = 0.002, respectively). Patients with urinary tract infection were more likely to have a false-positive result (aOR 8.42, 95% CI 2.42-29.34, p = 0.001). Patients with diabetes mellitus were less likely to have a false-positive result (aOR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.98, p = 0.038); (4) Conclusions: This study has generated relevant information that could be very useful for shared decision making in clinical practice.

PROSHADE Protocol: Designing and Evaluating a Decision Aid for Promoting Shared Decision Making in Opportunistic Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Mix-Method Study

Background: Opportunistic prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening may reduce prostate cancer mortality risk but is associated with false positive results, biopsy complications and overdiagnosis. Although different organisations have emphasised the importance of shared decision making (SDM) to assist men in deciding whether to undergo prostate cancer screening, recent evaluations show that the available decision aids fail to facilitate SDM, mainly because they do not consider the patients’ perspective in their design. We aim to systematically develop and test a patient decision aid to promote SDM in prostate cancer screening, following the Knowledge to Action framework. Methods: (1) Feasibility study: a quantitative survey evaluating the population and clinician (urologists and general practitioners) knowledge of the benefits and risks derived from PSA determination and the awareness of the available recommendations. Focus groups to explore the challenges patients and clinicians face when discussing prostate cancer screening, the relevance of a decision aid and how best to integrate it into practice. (2) Patient decision aid development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multicomponent SDM patient decision aid will be developed. (3) User-testing: an assessment of the prototype of the initial patient decision aid through a user-testing design based on mix-methods (questionnaire and semi-structured review). The decision aid will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign. (4) Validation: an evaluation of the patient decision aid through a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Discussion: The designed patient decision aid will provide balanced information on screening benefits and risks and should help patients to consider their personal preferences and to take a more active role in decision making. Conclusions: The well-designed patient decision aid (PDA) will provide balanced information on screening benefits and risks and help patients consider their personal preferences.