To be screened or not to be screened Modeling the consequences of PSA screening for the individual

Background:Screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) can reduce prostate cancer mortality, but may advance diagnosis and treatment in time and lead to overdetection and overtreatment. We estimated benefits and adverse effects of PSA screening for individuals who are deciding whether or not to be screened.Methods:Using a microsimulation model, we estimated lifetime probabilities of prostate cancer diagnosis and death, overall life expectancy and expected time to diagnosis, both with and without screening. We calculated anticipated loss in quality of life due to prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment that would be acceptable to decide in favour of screening.Results:Men who were screened had a gain in life expectancy of 0.08 years but their expected time to diagnosis decreased by 1.53 life-years. Of the screened men, 0.99% gained on average 8.08 life-years and for 17.43% expected time to diagnosis decreased by 8.78 life-years. These figures imply that the anticipated loss in quality of life owing to diagnosis and treatment should not exceed 4.8%, for screening to have a positive effect on quality-adjusted life expectancy.Conclusion:The decision to be screened should depend on personal preferences. The negative impact of screening might be reduced by screening men who are more willing to accept the side effects from treatment

Prostate cancer mortality in areas with high and low prostate cancer incidence

BACKGROUND: The effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on prostate cancer mortality remains debated, despite evidence from randomized trials. We investigated the association between prostate cancer incidence, reflecting uptake of PSA testing, and prostate cancer mortality. METHODS: The study population consisted of all men aged 50 to 74 years residing in eight counties in Sweden with an early increase in prostate cancer incidence and six counties with a late increase during two time periods. Incidence of metastatic prostate cancer was investigated in the period from 2000 to 2009, and prostate cancer-specific mortality and excess mortality were investigated in the period from 1990 to 1999 and the period from 2000 to 2009 by calculating rate ratios for high- vs low-incidence counties and rate ratios for the period from 2000 to 2009 vs the period from 1990 to 1999 within these two groups. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: There were 4528134 person-years at risk, 1577 deaths from prostate cancer, and 1210 excess deaths in men with prostate cancer in high-incidence counties and 2471373 person-years at risk, 985 prostate cancer deaths, and 878 excess deaths in low-incidence counties in the period from 2000 to 2009. Rate ratios in counties with high vs low incidence adjusted for time period were 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73 to 0.90) for prostate cancer- specific mortality and 0.74 (95% CI = 0.64 to 0.86) for excess mortality, and the rate ratio of metastatic prostate cancer was 0.85 (95% CI = 0.79 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: The lower prostate cancer mortality in high-incidence counties reflecting a high PSA uptake suggests that more-intense as compared with less-intense opportunistic PSA screening reduces prostate cancer mortality

Which men benefit from prostate cancer screening?:Prostate cancer mortality by subgroup in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether a subgroup of men can be identified that would benefit more from screening than others.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective cohort study was based on three European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) centres, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. We identified 126 827 men aged 55-69 years in the study who were followed for maximum of 16 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was prostate cancer (PCa) mortality. We analysed three age groups 55-59, 60-64 and 65-69 years and PCa cases within four European Association of Urology (EAU) risk groups: low, intermediate, high risk, and advanced disease.ResultsThe hazard ratio (HR) for PCa mortality in the screening arm relative to the control arm for men aged 55-59 years was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-1.24) in Finland, 0.70 (95% CI 0.44-1.12) in the Netherlands and 0.42 (95% CI 0.24-0.73) in Sweden. The HR for men aged 60-64 years was 1.03 (95% CI 0.77-1.37) in Finland, 0.76 (95% CI 0.50-1.16) in the Netherlands and 0.97 (95% CI 0.64-1.48) in Sweden. The HR for men aged 65-69 years was 0.80 (95% CI 0.62-1.03) in Finland and 0.57 (95% CI 0.38-0.83) in the Netherlands, and this age group was absent in Sweden. In the EAU risk group analysis, PCa mortality rates were materially lower for men with advanced disease at diagnosis in all three countries: 0.67 (95% CI 0.56-0.82) in Finland, 0.28 (95% CI 0.18-0.44) in the Netherlands, and 0.48 (95% CI 0.30-0.78) in Sweden.ConclusionWe were unable to unequivocally identify the optimal age group for screening, as mortality reduction differed among centres and age groups. Instead, the screening effect appears to depend on screening duration, and the number and frequency of screening rounds. PCa mortality reduction by screening is largely attributable to stage shift

Which men benefit from prostate cancer screening?:Prostate cancer mortality by subgroup in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether a subgroup of men can be identified that would benefit more from screening than others.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective cohort study was based on three European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) centres, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. We identified 126 827 men aged 55-69 years in the study who were followed for maximum of 16 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was prostate cancer (PCa) mortality. We analysed three age groups 55-59, 60-64 and 65-69 years and PCa cases within four European Association of Urology (EAU) risk groups: low, intermediate, high risk, and advanced disease.ResultsThe hazard ratio (HR) for PCa mortality in the screening arm relative to the control arm for men aged 55-59 years was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-1.24) in Finland, 0.70 (95% CI 0.44-1.12) in the Netherlands and 0.42 (95% CI 0.24-0.73) in Sweden. The HR for men aged 60-64 years was 1.03 (95% CI 0.77-1.37) in Finland, 0.76 (95% CI 0.50-1.16) in the Netherlands and 0.97 (95% CI 0.64-1.48) in Sweden. The HR for men aged 65-69 years was 0.80 (95% CI 0.62-1.03) in Finland and 0.57 (95% CI 0.38-0.83) in the Netherlands, and this age group was absent in Sweden. In the EAU risk group analysis, PCa mortality rates were materially lower for men with advanced disease at diagnosis in all three countries: 0.67 (95% CI 0.56-0.82) in Finland, 0.28 (95% CI 0.18-0.44) in the Netherlands, and 0.48 (95% CI 0.30-0.78) in Sweden.ConclusionWe were unable to unequivocally identify the optimal age group for screening, as mortality reduction differed among centres and age groups. Instead, the screening effect appears to depend on screening duration, and the number and frequency of screening rounds. PCa mortality reduction by screening is largely attributable to stage shift

A 16-yr Follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

Background: The European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) has previously demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening decreases prostate cancer (PCa) mortality. Objective: To determine whether PSA screening decreases PCa mortality for up to 16 yr and to assess results following adjustment for nonparticipation and the number of screening rounds attended. Design, setting, and participants: This multicentre population-based randomised screening trial was conducted in eight European countries. Report includes 182 160 men, followed up until 2014 (maximum of 16 yr), with a predefined core age group of 162 389 men (55-69 yr), selected from population registry. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The outcome was PCa mortality, also assessed with adjustment for nonparticipation and the number of screening rounds attended. Results and limitations: The rate ratio of PCa mortality was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.89, p 20 ng/ml (9.9% compared with 4.1% in the second round, p <0.001) and higher PCa mortality (hazard ratio = 1.86, p <0.001) than those detected subsequently. Conclusions: Findings corroborate earlier results that PSA screening significantly reduces PCa mortality, showing larger absolute benefit with longer follow-up and a reduction in excess incidence. Repeated screening may be important to reduce PCa mortality on a population level. Patient summary: In this report, we looked at the outcomes from prostate cancer in a large European population. We found that repeated screening reduces the risk of dying from prostate cancer. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.Peer reviewe

Rule-based versus probabilistic selection for active surveillance using three definitions of insignificant prostate cancer

To study whether probabilistic selection by the use of a nomogram could improve patient selection for active surveillance (AS) compared to the various sets of rule-based AS inclusion criteria currently used. We studied Dutch and Swedish patients participating in the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). We explored which men who were initially diagnosed with cT1-2, Gleason 6 (Gleason pattern a parts per thousand currency sign3 + 3) had histopathological indolent PCa at RP [defined as pT2, Gleason pattern a parts per thousand currency sign3 and tumour volume (TV) a parts per thousand currency sign0.5 or TV a parts per thousand currency sign 1.3 ml, and TV no part of criteria (NoTV)]. Rule-based selection was according to the Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS), Klotz, and Johns Hopkins criteria. An existing nomogram to define probability-based selection for AS was refitted for the TV1.3 and NoTV indolent PCa definitions. 619 of 864 men undergoing RP had cT1-2, Gleason 6 disease at diagnosis and were analysed. Median follow-up was 8.9 years. 229 (37 %), 356 (58 %), and 410 (66 %) fulfilled the TV0.5, TV1.3, and NoTV indolent PCa criteria at RP. Discriminating between indolent and significant disease according to area under the curve (AUC) was: TV0.5: 0.658 (PRIAS), 0.523 (Klotz), 0.642 (Hopkins), 0.685 (nomogram). TV1.3: 0.630 (PRIAS), 0.550 (Klotz), 0.615 (Hopkins), 0.646 (nomogram). NoTV: 0.603 (PRIAS), 0.530 (Klotz), 0.589 (Hopkins), 0.608 (nomogram). The performance of a nomogram, the Johns Hopkins, and PRIAS rule-based criteria are comparable. Because the nomogram allows individual trade-offs, it could be a good alternative to rigid rule-based criteria

Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group

OBJECTIVES: To compare the predictive performance and potential clinical usefulness of risk calculators of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC RC) with and without information on prostate volume. METHODS: We studied 6 cohorts (5 European and 1 US) with a total of 15,300 men, all biopsied and with pre-biopsy TRUS measurements of prostate volume. Volume was categorized into 3 categories (25, 40, and 60 cc), to reflect use of digital rectal examination (DRE) for volume assessment. Risks of prostate cancer were calculated according to a ERSPC DRE-based RC (including PSA, DRE, prior biopsy, and prostate volume) and a PSA + DRE model (including PSA, DRE, and prior biopsy). Missing data on prostate volume were completed by single imputation. Risk predictions were evaluated with respect to calibration (graphically), discrimination (AUC curve), and clinical usefulness (net benefit, graphically assessed in decision curves). RESULTS: The AUCs of the ERSPC DRE-based RC ranged from 0.61 to 0.77 and were substantially larger than the AUCs of a model based on only PSA + DRE (ranging from 0.56 to 0.72) in each of the 6 cohorts. The ERSPC DRE-based RC provided net benefit over performing a prostate biopsy on the basis of PSA and DRE outcome in five of the six cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying men at increased risk for having a biopsy detectable prostate cancer should consider multiple factors, including an estimate of prostate volume

Impact of cause of death adjudication on the results of the European prostate cancer screening trial

Background:The European Randomised Study of Prostate Cancer Screening has shown a 21% relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality at 13 years. The causes of death can be misattributed, particularly in elderly men with multiple comorbidities, and therefore accurate assessment of the underlying cause of death is crucial for valid results. To address potential unreliability of end-point assessment, and its possible impact on mortality results, we analysed the study outcome adjudication data in six countries.Methods:Latent class statistical models were formulated to compare the accuracy of individual adjudicators, and to assess whether accuracy differed between the trial arms. We used the model to assess whether correcting for adjudication inaccuracies might modify the study results.Results:There was some heterogeneity in adjudication accuracy of causes of death, but no consistent differential accuracy by trial arm. Correcting the estimated screening effect for misclassification did not alter the estimated mortality effect of screening.Conclusions:Our findings were consistent with earlier reports on the European screening trial. Observer variation, while demonstrably present, is unlikely to have materially biased the main study results. A bias in assigning causes of death that might have explained the mortality reduction by screening can be effectively ruled out

Reasons for Discontinuing Active Surveillance : Assessment of 21 Centres in 12 Countries in the Movember GAP3 Consortium

Background: Careful assessment of the reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance (AS) is required for men with prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: Using Movember's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance initiative (GAP3) database, we report on reasons for AS discontinuation. Design, setting, and participants: We compared data from 10 296 men on AS from 21 centres across 12 countries. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Cumulative incidence methods were used to estimate the cumulative incidence rates of AS discontinuation. Results and limitations: During 5-yr follow-up, 27.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.4-28.6%) men showed signs of disease progression, 12.8% (95% CI: 12.0-13.6%) converted to active treatment without evidence of progression, 1.7% (95% CI: 1.5-2.0%) continued to watchful waiting, and 1.7% (95% CI: 1.4-2.1%) died from other causes. Of the 7049 men who remained on AS, 2339 had follow-up for >5 yr, 4561 had follow-up for Conclusions: Our descriptive analyses of current AS practices worldwide showed that 43.6% of men drop out of AS during 5-yr follow-up, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Improvements in selection tools for AS are thus needed to correctly allocate men with PCa to AS, which will also reduce discontinuation due to conversion to active treatment without evidence of disease progression. Patient summary: Our assessment of a worldwide database of men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) shows that 43.6% drop out of AS within 5 yr, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Better tools are needed to select and monitor men with PCa as part of AS. (C) 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe