Prostate-specific antigen patterns in US and European populations:Comparison of six diverse cohorts

Objective: To determine whether there are differences in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at diagnosis or changes in PSA levels between US and European populations of men with and without prostate cancer (PCa). Subjects and Methods: We analysed repeated measures of PSA from six clinically and geographically diverse cohorts of men: two cohorts with PSA-detected PCa, two cohorts with clinically detected PCa and two cohorts without PCa. Using multilevel models, average PSA at diagnosis and PSA change over time were compared among study populations. Results: The annual percentage PSA change of 4-5% was similar between men without cancer and men with PSA-detected cancer. PSA at diagnosis was 1.7 ng/mL lower in a US cohort of men with PSA-detected PCa (95% confidence interval 1.3-2.0 ng/mL), compared with a UK cohort of men with PSA-detected PCa, but there was no evidence of a different rate of PSA change between these populations. Conclusion: We found that PSA changes over time are similar in UK and US men diagnosed through PSA testing and even in men without PCa. Further development of PSA models to monitor men on active surveillance should be undertaken in order to take advantage of these similarities. We found no evidence that guidelines for using PSA to monitor men cannot be passed between US and European studies

Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and 15-year Prostate Cancer Mortality:A Secondary Analysis of the CAP Randomized Clinical Trial

Key PointsQuestion  In men aged 50 to 69 years, does a single invitation for a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening test reduce prostate cancer mortality at 15-year follow-up compared with no invitation for testing?Findings  In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of 415 357 men aged 50 to 69 years randomized to a single invitation for PSA screening (n = 195 912) or a control group without PSA screening (n = 219 445) and followed up for a median of 15 years, risk of death from prostate cancer was lower in the group invited to screening (0.69% vs 0.78%; mean difference, 0.09%) compared with the control group.Meaning  Compared with no invitation for routine PSA testing, a single invitation for a PSA screening test reduced prostate cancer mortality at a median follow-up of 15 years, but the absolute mortality benefit was small.AbstractIMPORTANCE The Cluster randomized trial of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP) reported no effect of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening on prostate cancer mortality at median 10-year follow-up (primary outcome), but the long-term effects of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality remain unclear.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of a single invitation for PSA screening on the pre-specified secondary outcome of prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median of 15 years’ follow-up, compared to a control group not invited for screening. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS Cluster randomized trial of men aged 50-69 identified from 573 primary-care practices in England and Wales. Primary-care practices were randomized between 09/25/2001 and 08/24/2007 and men were enrolled between 01/08/2002 and 01/20/2009. Follow-up was completed on 03/31/2021. INTERVENTION A single invitation for a PSA screening test with subsequent diagnostic tests if PSA≥3.0ng/ml, compared to standard practice (control). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was reported previously. Of eight prespecified secondary outcomes, results of four were reported previously. The four remaining pre-specified secondary outcomes at 15-year follow-up were prostate cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer stage and Gleason grade at diagnosis.RESULTS Of 415,357 randomized men (mean [SD] age: 59.0 [5.6] years), 98% were analyzed in these analyses. Overall, 12,013 and 12,958 men with prostate cancers were diagnosed in the intervention and control groups (15-year cumulative risks 7.1% and 6.9% respectively). At a median 15-year follow-up, 1,199 (0.69%) men in the intervention group and 1,451 (0.78%) men in the control group died of prostate cancer (rate ratio [RR] 0.92 [95% CI 0.85, 0.99]; p=0.03). Compared to the control group, the PSA screening intervention increased detection of low-grade (Gleason score [GS]≤6; 2.2% versus 1.6%;p&lt;0.001) and localized (T1/T2; 3.6% versus 3.1%;p&lt;0.001) disease, but not intermediate (GS=7), high-grade (GS≥8), locally-advanced (T3) or distally-advanced (T4/N1/M1) tumors. There were 45,084 all-cause deaths (23.2%) in the intervention group and 50,336 deaths (23.3%) in the control group respectively (RR 0.97 [95% CI 0.94, 1.01]; p=0.11). Eight deaths in the intervention and seven deaths in the control group were related to a diagnostic biopsy or prostate cancer treatment.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE A single invitation for PSA screening, compared to standard practice without routine screening, reduced the secondary outcome of prostate cancer deaths at a median follow-up of 15-years. However, the absolute reduction in deaths was small.<br/

Exercise for men with prostate cancer : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Context: Exercise could be beneficial for prostate cancer survivors. However, no systematic review across cancer stages and treatment types addressing potential benefits and harms exists to date. Objective: To assess the effects of exercise on cancer-specific quality of life and adverse events in prostate cancer trials. Evidence acquisition: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and PEDro. We also searched grey literature databases, including trial registers. Searches were from database inception to March 2015. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for meta-analysis. Evidence synthesis: We included 16 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1574 men with prostate cancer. Follow-up varied from 8 wk to 12 mo. RCTs involved men with stage I–IV cancers. A high risk of bias was frequently due to problematic intervention adherence. Seven trials involving 912 men measured cancer-specific quality of life. Pooling of the data from these seven trials revealed no significant effect on this outcome (SMD 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] –0.08 to 0.34, median follow-up 12 wk). Sensitivity analysis of studies that were judged to be of high quality indicated a moderate positive effect estimate (SMD 0.33, 95% CI 0.08–0.58; median follow-up 12 wk). Similar beneficial effects were seen for cancer-specific fatigue, submaximal fitness, and lower body strength. We found no evidence of benefit for disease progression, cardiovascular health, or sexual function. There were no deaths attributable to exercise interventions. Other serious adverse events (eg, myocardial infarction) were equivalent to those seen in controls. Conclusions: These results support the hypothesis that exercise interventions improve cancer-specific quality of life, cancer-specific fatigue, submaximal fitness, and lower body strength. Patient summary: This review shows that exercise/physical activity interventions can improve quality of life, fatigue, fitness, and function for men with prostate cancer

Use of 5-α-Reductase Inhibitors for Prostate Cancer Chemoprevention: American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Urological Association 2008 Clinical Practice Guideline

To develop an evidence-based guideline on the use of 5-α-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) for prostate cancer chemoprevention

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Context: Prostate cancer (PCa) remains an increasingly common malignancy worldwide. The optimal management of clinically localized, early-stage disease remains unknown, and profound quality of life issues surround PCa interventions. Objective: To systematically summarize the current literature on the management of low-risk PCa with active surveillance (AS), with a focus on patient selection, outcomes, and future research needs. Evidence acquisition: A comprehensive search of the PubMed and Embase databases from 1980 to 2011 was performed to identify studies pertaining to AS for PCa. The search terms used included prostate cancer and active surveillance or conservative management or watchful waiting or expectant management. Selected studies for outcomes analysis had to provide a comprehensive description of entry characteristics, criteria for surveillance, and indicators for further intervention. Evidence synthesis: Data from seven large AS series were reviewed. Inclusion criteria for surveillance vary among studies, and eligibility therefore varies considerably (4-82%). PCa-specific mortality remains low (0-1%), with the longest published-median follow-up being 6.8 yr. Up to one-third of patients receive secondary therapy after a median of about 2.5 yr of surveillance. Surveillance protocols and triggers for intervention vary among institutions. Most patients are treated for histologic reclassification (27-100%) or prostate-specific antigen doubling time <3 yr (13-48%), while 7-13% are treated with no evidence of progression. Repeat prostate biopsy with a minimum of 12 cores appears to be important for monitoring patients for changes in tumor histology over time. Conclusions: AS for PCa offers an opportunity to limit intervention to patients who will likely benefit the most from radical treatment. This approach confers a low risk of disease-specific mortality in the short to intermediate term. An early, confirmatory biopsy is essential for limiting the risk of underestimating tumor grade and amount. (C) 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved

Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT randomised controlled trial according to treatment received

Background The ProtecT trial reported intention-to-treat analysis of men with localised prostate cancer randomly allocated to active monitoring (AM), radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy. Objective To report outcomes according to treatment received in men in randomised and treatment choice cohorts. Design, setting, and participants This study focuses on secondary care. Men with clinically localised prostate cancer at one of nine UK centres were invited to participate in the treatment trial comparing AM, radical prostatectomy, and radiotherapy. Intervention Two cohorts included 1643 men who agreed to be randomised and 997 who declined randomisation and chose treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Analysis was carried out to assess mortality, metastasis and progression and health-related quality of life impacts on urinary, bowel, and sexual function using patient-reported outcome measures. Analysis was based on comparisons between groups defined by treatment received for both randomised and treatment choice cohorts in turn, with pooled estimates of intervention effect obtained using meta-analysis. Differences were estimated with adjustment for known prognostic factors using propensity scores. Results and limitations According to treatment received, more men receiving AM died of PCa (AM 1.85%, surgery 0.67%, radiotherapy 0.73%), whilst this difference remained consistent with chance in the randomised cohort (p = 0.08); stronger evidence was found in the exploratory analyses (randomised plus choice cohort) when AM was compared with the combined radical treatment group (p = 0.003). There was also strong evidence that metastasis (AM 5.6%, surgery 2.4%, radiotherapy 2.7%) and disease progression (AM 20.35%, surgery 5.87%, radiotherapy 6.62%) were more common in the AM group. Compared with AM, there were higher risks of sexual dysfunction (95% at 6 mo) and urinary incontinence (55% at 6 mo) after surgery, and of sexual dysfunction (88% at 6 mo) and bowel dysfunction (5% at 6 mo) after radiotherapy. The key limitations are the potential for bias when comparing groups defined by treatment received and changes in the protocol for AM during the lengthy follow-up required in trials of screen-detected PCa. Conclusions Analyses according to treatment received showed increased rates of disease-related events and lower rates of patient-reported harms in men managed by AM compared with men managed by radical treatment, and stronger evidence of greater PCa mortality in the AM group. Patient summary More than 95 out of every 100 men with low or intermediate risk localised prostate cancer do not die of prostate cancer within 10 yr, irrespective of whether treatment is by means of monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy. Side effects on sexual and bladder function are better after active monitoring, but the risks of spreading of prostate cancer are more common

Measuring Illness Uncertainty in Men Undergoing Active Surveillance (AS) for Prostate Cancer

Uncertainty is an aversive experience and plays an important role in the lives of men undergoing active surveillance (AS) (earlier referred to as watchful waiting) for early-stage prostate cancer. Yet reliable and valid measures of uncertainty have not been fully tested in this population. This secondary analysis therefore tested the reliability of the Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale – Community Form (MUIS-C; Mishel, 1997b) for use with a population of men undergoing AS for prostate cancer

Does a Positive Margin Always Mandate Adjuvant Radiotherapy?

The appropriate treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer continues to generate controversy. For men with low grade disease it is unclear whether surgery or radiati on therapy provides a survival advantage over active surveillance, and among men with high grade disease it is unclear how many derive a substantial benefit from either intervention. No trial has yet to compare surgery and radiation with observation, but the recent update of the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 study suggests that radical prostatectomy provides a significant survival advantage for younger men with intermediate grade disea