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

The New US Preventive Services Task Force “C” Draft Recommendation for Prostate Cancer Screening

The US Preventive Services Task Force has issued a new draft guideline, with a "C" recommendation that men aged 55-69 yr should be informed about the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer, and offered prostate-specific antigen testing if they choose it. For men aged ≥70 yr, the recommendation remains "D", or "do not screen." This draft represents substantial progress in the right direction towards offering men a fair opportunity to discuss the risks and benefits of screening with their primary care providers. However, the evidence review underlying the draft remains fundamentally inadequate, leading to biased presentations of both benefits and harms of screening. The final guideline and future revisions should reflect formal engagement with subject matter experts to optimize the advise given to men and their physicians

Contemporary accuracy of death certificates for coding prostate cancer as a cause of death : Is reliance on death certification good enough? A comparison with blinded review by an independent cause of death evaluation committee

BACKGROUND: Accurate cause of death assignment is crucial for prostate cancer epidemiology and trials reporting prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes. METHODS: We compared death certificate information with independent cause of death evaluation by an expert committee within a prostate cancer trial (2002-2015). RESULTS: Of 1236 deaths assessed, expert committee evaluation attributed 523 (42%) to prostate cancer, agreeing with death certificate cause of death in 1134 cases (92%, 95% CI: 90%, 93%). The sensitivity of death certificates in identifying prostate cancer deaths as classified by the committee was 91% (95% CI: 89%, 94%); specificity was 92% (95% CI: 90%, 94%). Sensitivity and specificity were lower where death occurred within 1 year of diagnosis, and where there was another primary cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: UK death certificates accurately identify cause of death in men with prostate cancer, supporting their use in routine statistics. Possible differential misattribution by trial arm supports independent evaluation in randomised trials

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in Australia

Background and Objectives: The Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial demonstrated that Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) based screening reduces prostate cancer deaths compared with an age matched control group. Utilising the prostate cancer detection rates from this study we have investigated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a similar PSA-based screening strategy for an Australian population of men aged 50-69 years. Methods: A decision model that incorporated Markov processes was developed from a health system perspective.The base case scenario compared a population-based screening programme with current opportunistic screening practices. Costs, utility values, treatment patterns and background mortality rates were derived from Australian data. All costs were adjusted to reflect July 2015 Australian dollars. An alternative scenario compared systematic with opportunistic screening but with optimisation of active surveillance (AS) uptake in both groups. A discount rate of 5% for costs and benefits was utilised. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of variable uncertainty on model outcomes. Results: Our model very closely replicated the number of deaths from both prostate cancer and background mortality in the Göteborg study. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for PSA screening was $AU147,528. However, for years of life gained (LYGs) PSA based screening ($AU45,890/LYG) appeared more favourable. Our alternative scenario with optimised AS improved cost-utility to $AU45,881/QALY, with screening becoming cost-effective at a 92$AU50,000/QALY. It appears more cost-effective if LYGs are used as the relevant outcome, and is more cost effective than the established Australian breast cancer screening programme on this basis. Optimised utilisation of AS increases the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening dramatically