Search

Background: The European Union recently recommended evaluation of the feasibility of organised prostate cancer screening. In Sweden, regional population-based organised prostate cancer testing (OPT) programmes were introduced in 2020., Objective: To describe initial participation rates and diagnostic outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: The three most populated Swedish regions invited all men aged 50 yr to OPT by a letter in 2020-2022. Men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥3 ng/ml were referred for prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). PSA assays differed across regions. Men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 1-3 and PSA density ≥0.15 ng/ml/cm 3 or PI-RADS 4-5 were referred for a biopsy. Data were obtained from the Swedish Register for Organised Prostate Cancer Testing., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Overall and regional participation rates, PSA distributions, PI-RADS score distributions, cancer detection, and treatment were evaluated., Results and Limitations: A total of 23 855 (35%) of 68 060 invited men participated; 696 (2.9%) had PSA ≥3 ng/ml, and of them, 306 (44%) had a biopsy indication and 221 (32%) had a biopsy. On biopsy, 93 (42%) had Gleason grade group ≥2 (0.39% of PSA-tested men) and 44 (20%) Gleason grade group 1 cancer. Most men with cancer had treatment with curative intent (70%) or were under active surveillance (28%). Across regions, proportions of men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml ranged from 2.3% to 4.0%, and those with PI-RADS score 4-5 ranged from 12% to 21%. A limitation is that results are applicable only to first testing of men in their early 50s., Conclusions: The OPT programmes are feasible with good compliance to the diagnostic pathway. The use of MRI and PSA density avoided a biopsy for over half of the men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml. Inter-regional differences in diagnostic outcomes show a need for standardisation of the diagnostic pathway's components., Patient Summary: We report the diagnostic outcomes of inviting 68 000 50-yr-old men to organised prostate cancer testing., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The European Association of Urology guidelines recommend a risk-based strategy for prostate cancer screening based on the first prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and age., Objective: To analyze the impact of the first PSA level on prostate cancer (PCa) detection and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) in a population-based screening trial (repeat screening every 2-4 yr)., Design, Setting, and Participants: We evaluated 25589 men aged 55-59 yr, 16898 men aged 60-64 yr, and 12936 men aged 65-69 yr who attended at least one screening visit in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial (screening arm: repeat PSA testing every 2-4 yr and biopsy in cases with elevated PSA; control arm: no active screening offered) during 16-yr follow-up (FU)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: We assessed the actuarial probability for any PCa and for clinically significant (cs)PCa (Gleason ≥7). Cox proportional-hazards regression was performed to assess whether the association between baseline PSA and PCSM was comparable for all age groups. A Lorenz curve was computed to assess the association between baseline PSA and PCSM for men aged 60-61 yr., Results and Limitations: The overall actuarial probability at 16 yr ranged from 12% to 16% for any PCa and from 3.7% to 5.7% for csPCa across the age groups. The actuarial probability of csPCa at 16 yr ranged from 1.2-1.5% for men with PSA <1.0 ng/ml to 13.3-13.8% for men with PSA ≥3.0 ng/ml. The association between baseline PSA and PCSM differed marginally among the three age groups. A Lorenz curve for men aged 60-61 yr showed that 92% of lethal PCa cases occurred among those with PSA above the median (1.21 ng/ml). In addition, for men initially screened at age 60-61 yr with baseline PSA <2 ng/ml, further continuation of screening is unlikely to be beneficial after the age of 68-70 yr if PSA is still <2 ng/ml. No case of PCSM emerged in the subsequent 8 yr (up to age 76-78 yr). A limitation is that these results may not be generalizable to an opportunistic screening setting or to contemporary clinical practice., Conclusions: In all age groups, baseline PSA can guide decisions on the repeat screening interval. Baseline PSA of <1.0 ng/ml for men aged 55-69 yr is a strong indicator to delay or stop further screening., Patient Summary: In prostate cancer screening, the patient's baseline PSA (prostate-specific antigen) level can be used to guide decisions on when to repeat screening. The PSA test when used according to current knowledge is valuable in helping to reduce the burden of prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Studies have suggested associations between greater age, increased risk of prostate cancer (PC), and higher Gleason score., Objective: The present study aimed at investigating these associations within the Göteborg-1 randomized, population-based PC screening trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: The screening arm of the Göteborg-1 screening trial comprises 10000 randomly selected men (aged 50-64 yr at randomization) from the Göteborg region of Sweden. Between 1995 and 2014, they were biennially invited to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to an upper age limit of 70 yr (range 67-71 yr). PSA ≥3 ng/ml triggered a prostate biopsy (sextant biopsy 1995-2009, thereafter a ten-core biopsy)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The impact of age on Gleason score, given a screen-detected PC, was investigated with multinomial logistic regression analyses adjusted for year of testing and screening round., Results and Limitations: Overall, 7625 men had at least one PSA test and 1022 men were diagnosed with PC. For men with screen-detected PC, age was associated with the risk of clinically significant PC above and beyond screening round and year of testing (p < 0.001). For each 1-yr increase in age, the risk of being diagnosed with a Gleason score ≥3 + 4 cancer (vs <7) increased by 11% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7-17), whereas the risk of being diagnosed with a Gleason score ≥4 + 3 cancer (vs <7) increased by 8.5% (95% CI -1.6 to 20)., Conclusions: The increased risk of a higher Gleason score in older men should be considered when counseling men regarding early diagnosis and treatment for PC., Patient Summary: We found that older age increased both the risk of prostate cancer and the risk of more aggressive prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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 16yr 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 182160 men, followed up until 2014 (maximum of 16yr), with a predefined core age group of 162389 men (55-69yr), 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<0.001) at 16yr. The difference in absolute PCa mortality increased from 0.14% at 13yr to 0.18% at 16yr. The number of men needed to be invited for screening to prevent one PCa death was 570 at 16yr compared with 742 at 13yr. The number needed to diagnose was reduced to 18 from 26 at 13yr. Men with PCa detected during the first round had a higher prevalence of PSA >20ng/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., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Active surveillance (AS) has become a well-accepted and widely used treatment strategy., Objective: To assess the long-term safety of AS for men with screen-detected prostate cancer (PCa)., Design, Setting, and Participants: All men with screen-detected PCa who had very low-, low-, or intermediate-risk PCa and were managed with AS (January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2014) in the Göteborg screening trial., Intervention: Prostate-specific antigen tests every 3-12 mo, rebiopsies in cases of clinical progression, and every 2-3 yr in men with stable disease. Triggers for intervention were disease progression (prostate-specific antigen, grade, and/or stage) or patient initiative., Outcomes Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Treatment-free, failure-free, PCa-specific, and overall survival. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were used., Results and Limitations: Four-hundred and seventy-four men were managed with AS (median age at diagnosis 66.0 yr, median follow-up 8.0 yr). Two-hundred and two men discontinued AS and initiated treatment. The 10-yr and 15-yr treatment-free survival was 47% and 34%, respectively. The hazard ratio for the treatment for low- and intermediate-risk PCa, compared with very low risk, was 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.94) and 1.6 (95% CI 1.13-2.25). Fifty-four men failed AS. The 10-yr and 15-year failure-free survival was 87% and 72%, respectively. These estimates were 94% and 88% for the very low-risk group, 85% and 77% for the low-risk group, and 73% and 40% for the intermediate-risk group. The hazard ratio for failure for low- and intermediate-risk PCa, compared with very low-risk, was 2.2 (95% CI 1.05-4.47) and 4.8 (95% CI 2.44-9.33). Six men died from PCa and none had very low-risk PCa. The 10-yr and 15-yr PCa-specific survival was 99.5% and 96%, respectively. These estimates were 100% for the very low-risk group, 100% and 94% for the low-risk group, and 98% and 90% for the intermediate-risk group. No predefined protocol was used., Conclusions: AS is safe for men with very low-risk PCa, but for men with low- and intermediate-risk PCa, AS carries a risk of missing the possibility of being able to cure the cancer. It is questionable whether men who are not in the lowest tumor risk group and who have a long remaining life expectancy are suitable candidates for this strategy., Patient Summary: Long-term results from this study indicate that some men will miss their chance of cure with active surveillance and it is questionable whether active surveillance is a suitable strategy for men who are not in the lowest tumor risk group and who have a very long remaining life expectancy., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a treatment strategy for reducing overtreatment of screen-detected, low-risk prostate cancer (PCa)., Objective: To assess outcomes following AS of men with screen-detected PCa., Design, Setting, and Participants: Of the 968 men who were diagnosed with screen-detected PCa between 1995 and 2010 in the Göteborg randomised, population-based PCa screening trial, 439 were managed with AS and were included in this study. Median age at diagnosis was 65.4 yr of age, and median follow-up was 6.0 yr from diagnosis., Intervention: The study participants were followed at intervals of 3-12 mo and were recommended to switch to deferred active treatment in case of a progression in prostate-specific antigen, grade, or stage., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The end points-overall survival (OS), treatment-free survival, failure-free (no relapse after radical treatment) survival, and cancer-specific survival-were calculated for various risk groups (very low, low, intermediate, and high) with Kaplan-Meier estimates. A Cox proportional hazards model as well as a competing risk analysis were used to assess whether risk group or age at diagnosis was associated with failure after AS., Results and Limitations: Forty-five per cent of all screen-detected PCa were managed with AS, and very low-risk and low-risk PCa constituted 60% of all screen-detected PCa. Thirty-seven per cent (162 of 439) switched from surveillance to deferred active treatment, and 39 men failed AS. The 10-yr OS, treatment-free survival, and failure-free survival were 81.1%, 45.4%, and 86.4%, respectively (Kaplan-Meier estimates). Men with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk tumours had a hazard ratio for failure of 2.1 (p=0.09), 3.6 (p=0.002), and 4.6 (p=0.15), respectively, compared to very low-risk tumours (Cox regression). Only one PCa death occurred, and one patient developed metastasis (both in the intermediate-risk group). The main limitation of this study is the relatively short follow-up., Conclusions: A large proportion of men with screen-detected PCa can be managed with AS. AS appears safe for men with low-risk PCa., (Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)