Prostate Cancer Mortality Among Elderly Men After Discontinuing Organised Screening: Long-term Results from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing for discontinuing screening of prostate cancer (PCa) in elderly men is currently not known and remains debated. OBJECTIVE: To assess prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in elderly men who previously underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening and to identify those who may benefit from continued screening. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 7052 men, who participated in the screening arm of the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer and were aged 70-74 yr at their last screening visit after undergoing a maximum of three screening rounds without being diagnosed with PCa, were included. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The cumulative incidence of PCSM by the age of 85 yr was assessed. Additionally, a competing risk regression was performed to assess the potential predictors of PCSM. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median follow-up was 16 yr. The cumulative incidence of PCSM by the age of 85 yr was 0.54% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-0.70) in all men, 0.11% (95% CI: 0.05-0.27) in men with PSA <2 ng/ml, 0.85% (95% CI: 0.47-1.5) in men with PSA 2-3 ng/ml, and 6.8% (95% CI: 3.1-15) in men with PSA ≥6.5 ng/ml and no previous benign biopsy. PSA (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.7-2.3), previous benign prostate biopsy (sHR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23-0.72), and hypertension (sHR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.25-0.91) were significantly associated with PCSM. CONCLUSIONS: Men aged 70-74 yr who have previously undergone PSA-based screening without receiving a PCa diagnosis have a very low risk of dying from PCa by the age of 85 yr. These data suggest that screening may be discontinued in men with PSA <3.0 ng/ml or previous benign prostate biopsies. Those with higher PSA levels and no prior biopsies may consider continued screening if life expectancy exceeds 10 yr. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study shows that men who participated in a prostate cancer screening trial have a very low risk of dying from prostate cancer if they have not been diagnosed with prostate cancer by the age of 74 yr.

From Screening to Mortality Reduction: An Overview of Empirical Data on the Patient Journey in European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam After 21 Years of Follow-up and a Reflection on Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: Previous research quantified the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer (PCa) screening on quality-adjusted life years using 11-yr follow-up data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) extrapolated by the Microsimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN). ERSPC data now matured to 21 yr of follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the effect of PSA-based screening on tumour characteristics and PCa treatment using long-term, detailed, empirical ERSPC data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men were included from the ERSPC Rotterdam who were randomised to a PSA-based screening (S) or control (C) arm. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We assessed the effects of PSA-based screening on the number of PCa diagnoses, tumour characteristics, treatments, and cumulative incidence of disease progression. We also evaluated the changes in tumour characteristics and treatments over time for both study arms. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among PCa patients in the S-arm, fewer patients were diagnosed with advanced tumour stages (T3/T4: 12% vs 23%; relative risk [RR] = 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.57), less disease progression was observed, and less secondary treatment (30% vs 48%; RR = 0.61; 95% CI 0.57-0.66; p < 0.001) and less palliative treatment were needed (21% vs 55%; RR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.35-0.42) than among those in the C-arm. This was at the cost of overdiagnosis and increased local treatments (eg, radical prostatectomy: 32% vs 14%; RR = 2.18; 95% CI 1.92-2.48). Over time, the number of local treatments decreased, whereas expectant management strategies increased. The RRs of treatments were slightly different from those of the MISCAN. CONCLUSIONS: After 21 yr of follow-up, empirical data of the ERSPC showed that PSA-based screening reduces advanced PCa stages, disease progression, and extensive treatments at the cost of more overdiagnosis and probably more overtreatment. Our data showed reduced local treatments and increased expectant management strategies over time. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate-specific antigen-based screening reduces the number of invasive prostate cancer treatments needed, however, at the cost of more overdiagnosis and probably more overtreatment. Limiting these costs remains crucial to benefit optimally from prostate cancer screening.

A Detailed Evaluation of the Effect of Prostate-specific Antigen-based Screening on Morbidity and Mortality of Prostate Cancer: 21-year Follow-up Results of the Rotterdam Section of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Considering the long natural history of prostate cancer (PCa), long-term results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for PCa (ERSPC) are crucial. OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening on PCa-specific mortality (PCSM), metastatic disease, and overdiagnosis in the Dutch arm of the ERSPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between 1993 and 2000, a total of 42376 men, aged 55-74 yr, were randomised to a screening or a control arm. The main analysis was performed with men aged 55-69 yr (n = 34831). Men in the screening arm were offered PSA-based screening with an interval of 4 yr. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Intention-to-screen analyses with Poisson regression were used to calculate rate ratios (RRs) of PCSM and metastatic PCa. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After a median follow-up of 21 yr, the RR of PCSM was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.88) favouring screening. The numbers of men needed to invite (NNI) and needed to diagnose (NND) to prevent one PCa death were 246 and 14, respectively. For metastatic PCa, the RR was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.58-0.78) favouring screening. The NNI and NND to prevent one metastasis were 121 and 7, respectively. No statistical difference in PCSM (RR of 1.18 [95% CI: 0.87-1.62]) was observed in men aged ≥70 yr at the time of randomisation. In the screening arm, higher rates of PCSM and metastatic disease were observed in men who were screened only once and in a selected group of men above the screening age cut-off of 74 yr. CONCLUSIONS: The current analysis illustrates that with a follow-up of 21 yr, both absolute metastasis and mortality reduction continue to increase, resulting in a more favourable harm-benefit ratio than demonstrated previously. These data do not support starting screening at the age of 70-74 yr and show that repeated screening is essential. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate-specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening reduces metastasis and mortality. Longer follow-up shows fewer invitations and diagnoses needed to prevent one death, a positive note towards the issue of overdiagnosis.

The transition from transrectal to transperineal prostate biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis: Cancer detection rates and complication rates.

BACKGROUND: Currently, transperineal prostate biopsy (TPB) is preferred over transrectal biopsy (TRB) because of less infectious complications and improved clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection. However, literature on omitting antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is limited. Furthermore, previous studies did not include invasive cribriform growth/intraductal carcinoma (CR/IDC) in the definition of csPCa. Therefore, we compared the infectious complication rates between TPB without AP and TRB with AP, and we compared the csPCa detection rates between TPB and TRB including CR/IDC in the definition of csPCa. METHODS: We included 729 men who were referred to Erasmus MC Cancer Institute between 2013-2019 for MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Up to 2019, TRB was performed with AP, thereafter TPB was performed without AP. Data on complications were collected prospectively. We compared csPCa detection rates between the biopsy routes using multivariable logistic regressions for men without previous PCa diagnosis and mixed logistic regression for men on active surveillance. To compare the csPCa detection rates in anterior and apical lesions, and the complications rates between the biopsy routes, we used the chi-square test. RESULTS: Overall, we found no difference in csPCa detection between TPB and TRB (odds ratio 1.0, 95%-confidence interval (CI) 0.62-1.76, p = 0.9; for men on active surveillance: odds ratio 1.05, 95%-CI 0.58-1.88, p = 0.9). This was confirmed in anterior and apical lesions although absolute numbers were low. TPB reduced infectious complications with fever compared to TRB (1.1% vs 5.1%, difference = 4.0%, 95%-CI 1.0-7.9, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: TPB has no different csPCa detection rate from TRB taking CR/IDC into account. TPB is, however, preferable because of less infectious complications, even if AP is omitted.

Interaction of MRI and active surveillance in prostate cancer: Time to re-evaluate the active surveillance inclusion criteria.

Currently available data from long-running single- and multi-center active surveillance (AS) studies show that AS has excellent cancer-specific survival rates. For AS to be effective the 'right' patients should be selected for which up until 5-to-10 years ago systematic prostate biopsies were used. Because the systematic prostate strategy relies on sampling efficiency for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa), it is subject to sampling error. Due to this sampling error, many of the Gleason 3+3 PCas that were included on AS in the early days and were classified as low-risk, may in fact have had a higher Gleason score. Subsequently, AS-criteria were more strict to overcome or limit the number of men missing the potential window of curability in case their tumor would be reclassified. Five to ten years ago the prostate biopsy landscape changed drastically by the addition of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) into the diagnostic PCa-care pathway, which has by now trickled down into the EAU guidelines. At the moment, the EAU guidelines recommend performing a (multi-parametric) MRI before prostate biopsy and combine systematic and targeted prostate biopsy when the MRI is positive (i.e. PIRADS ≥3). So because of the introduction of the MRI into the diagnostic PCa-care pathway, literature is showing that more Gleason 3+4 PCas are being diagnosed. But can it not be that the inclusion of MRI into the diagnostic PCa-care pathway causes risk inflation, resulting in men earlier eligible for AS, now being labelled ineligible for AS? Would it not be possible to include these current Gleason 3+4 PCas on AS? The authors hypothesize that the improved accuracy that comes with the introduction of MRI into the diagnostic PCa-care pathway permits to widen both the AS-inclusion and follow-up criteria. Maintaining our inclusion criteria for AS from the systematic biopsy era will unnecessarily and undesirably expose patients to the increased risk of overtreatment. The evidence behind the addition of MRI-targeted biopsies to systematic biopsies calls upon the re-evaluation of the AS inclusion criteria and research from one-size-fits-all protocols used so far, into the direction of more dynamic and individual risk-based AS-approaches.

Shifting risk-stratified early prostate cancer detection to a primary healthcare setting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of multivariable risk stratification for early prostate cancer (PCa) detection in a primary healthcare diagnostic facility with regard to its effects on the referral rate and subsequent PCa diagnoses compared to a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/mL as the current referral indicator. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 2014, the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute and the primary healthcare diagnostic facility STAR-SHL (located in Rotterdam city centre) initiated this observational study, in which general practitioners (GPs) could refer men who wished to undergo PCa screening to STAR-SHL for consultation by specially trained personnel. Referral recommendations to secondary healthcare were based on the outcome of application of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) and were compared to the current Dutch GPs' PSA referral threshold of 3.0 ng/mL. For data collection on PCa diagnoses, the study cohort was linked to the Dutch nationwide pathology databank (PALGA). RESULTS: Between January 2014 and February 2021, 507 men were referred for consultation and in 495 men prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was tested. The median (interquartile range) follow-up from consultation to PALGA linkage was 43 (25-65) months. In total, 279 men (56%) had a PSA level ≥3.0 ng/mL, of whom 68% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 63-74) were considered at low risk according to the RPCRC. Within 1 year after consultation, one of these men (0.52%; 95% CI 0.092-2.9) was diagnosed with clinically significant (cs)PCa (i.e., International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥2). Thereafter, another four (2.1%; 95% CI 0.82-5.3) low-risk men were diagnosed with csPCa. Of the high-risk men who were biopsied within 1 year after consultation (n = 61), 77% (95% CI 65-86) were diagnosed with PCa and 49% (95% CI 37-61) with csPCa. CONCLUSION: In a primary healthcare diagnostic facility, the RPCRC could reduce up to 68% of referrals to secondary healthcare, as compared to a PSA referral threshold of 3.0 ng/mL. Deploying the RPCRC in this setting resulted in a high csPCa detection rate in those men biopsied. This strategy can be considered safe since the observational data showed low proportions of csPCa among men at low risk.

Detailed Evaluation of Androgen Deprivation Overtreatment in Prostate Cancer Patients Compared to the European Association of Urology Guidelines Using Long-term Data from the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam.

Background: Guidelines on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) arise from a critical appraisal of scientific evidence, which is a costly effort. Despite these efforts and the side effects of ADT, guidelines may not always be adhered to. Objective: To determine ADT overtreatment in PCa patients compared to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines, and to identify predictors and physicians' motivations for this overtreatment. Design setting and participants: Men were included from the European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Rotterdam who were diagnosed with PCa between 2001 and 2019, and received ADT <1 yr after diagnosis. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Patients were categorised into the concordant ADT or discordant ADT group following the EAU guidelines. Physicians' motivations for discordancy were reported. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify predictors for guideline-discordant ADT including the nonlinear fit of the year of diagnosis. Results and limitations: Of 3608 PCa patients, 1037 received ADT <1 yr after diagnosis. Adherence improved gradually over the study period, resulting in overall discordancy of 15%. A patient diagnosed in 2011 had 3.3 times lower risk on guideline-discordant ADT than a patient diagnosed in 2004 (odds ratio [OR] 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-0.50). The most common reason for discordancy was unwillingness or unfitness for curative treatment of asymptomatic patients. Age (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.15-1.24) and Gleason score ≥4 + 3 (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.06-2.74) were associated with guideline-discordant ADT. Conclusions: In a Dutch cohort, slow adaptation of the EAU guidelines on ADT for PCa patients between 2001 and 2019 resulted in overall overtreatment of 15%, mostly in asymptomatic patients who were unfit or unwilling for curative treatment. Clear, structured presentation, or integration of these tailored guidelines into the electronic health record might accelerate the adaptation of future guidelines. Patient summary: Slow adaptation of the guidelines on hormonal therapy resulted in overtreatment in 15% of prostate cancer patients, mostly in asymptomatic patients who were unfit or unwilling for curative treatment.

Serum PSA-based early detection of prostate cancer in Europe and globally: past, present and future.

In the pre-PSA-detection era, a large proportion of men were diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer and died of the disease; after the introduction of the serum PSA test, randomized controlled prostate cancer screening trials in the USA and Europe were conducted to assess the effect of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality. Contradictory outcomes of the trials and the accompanying overdiagnosis resulted in recommendations against prostate cancer screening by organizations such as the United States Preventive Services Task Force. These recommendations were followed by a decline in PSA testing and a rise in late-stage diagnosis and prostate cancer mortality. Re-evaluation of the randomized trials, which accounted for contamination, showed that PSA-based screening does indeed reduce prostate cancer mortality; however, the debate about whether to screen or not to screen continues because of the considerable overdiagnosis that occurs using PSA-based screening. Meanwhile, awareness among the population of prostate cancer as a potentially lethal disease stimulates opportunistic screening practices that further increase overdiagnosis without the benefit of mortality reduction. However, in the past decade, new screening tools have been developed that make the classic PSA-only-based screening an outdated strategy. With improved use of PSA, in combination with age, prostate volume and with the application of prostate cancer risk calculators, a risk-adapted strategy enables improved stratification of men with prostate cancer and avoidance of unnecessary diagnostic procedures. This combination used with advanced detection techniques (such as MRI and targeted biopsy), can reduce overdiagnosis. Moreover, new biomarkers are becoming available and will enable further improvements in risk stratification.

A European Model for an Organised Risk-stratified Early Detection Programme for Prostate Cancer.

CONTEXT: Overdiagnosis as the argument to stop prostate cancer (PCa) screening is less valid since the introduction of new technologies such as risk calculators (RCs) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These new technologies result in fewer unnecessary biopsy procedures and fewer cases of both overdiagnosis and underdetection. Therefore, we can now adequately respond to the growing and urgent need for a structured risk assessment to detect PCa early. OBJECTIVE: To provide expert discussion on the existing evidence for a previously published risk-stratified strategy regarding an organised population-based early detection programme for PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The proposed algorithm for early detection of PCa emerged from expert consensus by the authors based on available evidence derived from a nonsystematic review of the current literature using Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library database, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry, and the European Association of Urology guidelines on PCa. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Although not confirmed by the highest level of evidence, current literature and guidelines point towards an algorithm for early detection of PCa that starts with risk-based prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, followed by multivariable risk stratification with RCs. All men who are classified to be at intermediate and high risk are then offered prostate MRI. The combined data from RCs and MRI results can be used to select men for prostate biopsy. Low-risk men return to a risk-based safety net that includes individualised PSA-interval tests and, if necessary, repeated MRI. Depending on local availability, the use of the different risk stratification tools may be adapted. CONCLUSIONS: We present a risk-stratified algorithm for an organised population-based early detection programme for clinically significant PCa. Although the proposed strategy has not yet been analysed prospectively, it exploits and may even improve the most important available benefits of "PSA-only" screening studies, while at the same time reduces unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis by using new risk stratification tools. PATIENT SUMMARY: This paper presents a personalised strategy that enables selective early detection of prostate cancer by combining prostate-specific antigen (interval) testing' prediction models (risk calculators), and magnetic resonance imaging scans. This will likely lead to reduced prostate cancer-related morbidity and mortality, while reducing the need for prostate biopsy and limiting overdiagnosis.

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer in 2020 and Beyond: Facts and Recommendations for the European Union and the European Commission.

The burden of prostate cancer is increasing. Therefore, we need to implement a contemporary, organized, risk-stratified program for early detection to reduce both the harm from the disease and potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment, while avoiding underdiagnosis to considerably improve the harm-to-benefit ratio.