Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Men Exposed to α1-Adrenoceptor Antagonists.

BACKGROUND: α1-antagonists are commonly used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia. Preclinical studies suggest they induce cell death and inhibit tumor growth. This study evaluates the risk of prostate cancer death in men using α1-antagonists. METHODS: A population-based cohort study in Stockholm, Sweden (January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2019) including 451,779 men with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Study entry was one year after the first PSA test. Men were considered exposed at their second filled prescription. Primary outcome: prostate cancer mortality. Secondary outcomes: all-cause mortality and prostate cancer incidence. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for all outcomes. Inverse probability weighting with marginal structural models accounted for time-dependent confounders. RESULTS: Of 351,297 men in the cohort, 39,856 (11.3%) were exposed to α1-antagonists. Median follow-up for prostate cancer mortality was 8.9 years and median exposure time to α1-antagonists was 4.4 years. There was no evidence of an association between α1-antagonist use and prostate cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, or high-grade prostate cancer. α1-antagonist-use was associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (HR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.06-1.17) and low-grade prostate cancer (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.11-1.33). Men treated with α1-antagonists had more frequent PSA testing. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show no significant association between α1-adrenoceptor antagonist exposure and prostate cancer mortality or high-grade prostate cancer. Although the preclinical evidence indicates a potential chemopreventive effect, this study's findings do not support it.

[Prostate cancer - diagnostics and screening]. / Prostatacancer ­ utredning, klinisk diagnostik och screening.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening is controversial, even though randomised trials show that screening can reduce prostate cancer mortality. The main reason is that screening leads to overdiagnosis of indolent cancers that would never have surfaced clinically in the absence of screening. Recently, several large studies have shown that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves prostate cancer diagnostics. With MRI, up to half of all men with elevated PSA values can be spared a biopsy. When a biopsy is needed, the needles can be directed towards the suspicious area in the prostate, which increases the detection of clinically significant tumors. In Sweden, regional programmes with organised prostate cancer testing were introduced in 2020. These programmes aim to make prostate cancer testing more standardized, efficient, and equitable. In the future, biomarkers and AI-based systems will likely be important to further improve prostate cancer diagnostics.

Biomarker vs MRI-Enhanced Strategies for Prostate Cancer Screening: The STHLM3-MRI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Prostate cancer guidelines often recommend obtaining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before a biopsy, yet MRI access is limited. To date, no randomized clinical trial has compared the use of novel biomarkers for risk estimation vs MRI-based diagnostic approaches for prostate cancer screening. Objective: To evaluate biomarker-based risk estimation (Stockholm3 risk scores or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] levels) with systematic biopsies vs an MRI-enhanced strategy (PSA levels and MRI with systematic and targeted biopsy) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in a screening setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label randomized clinical trial conducted in Stockholm, Sweden, between April 4, 2018, and December 10, 2020, recruited men aged 50 to 74 years with no history of prostate cancer. Participants underwent blood sampling for PSA and Stockholm3 tests to estimate their risk of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥3 + 4). After the blood tests were performed, participants were randomly assigned in a 2:3 ratio to receive a Stockholm3 test with systematic biopsy (biomarker group) or a PSA test followed by MRI with systematic and targeted biopsy (MRI-enhanced group). Data were analyzed from September 1 to November 5, 2023. Interventions: In the biomarker group, men with a Stockholm3 risk score of 0.15 or higher underwent systematic biopsies. In the MRI-enhanced group, men with a PSA level of 3 ng/mL or higher had an MRI and those with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 3 or higher (range: 1-5, with higher scores indicating a higher likelihood of clinically significant prostate cancer) underwent targeted and systematic biopsies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥3 + 4). Secondary outcomes included detection of clinically insignificant cancer (Gleason score ≤6) and the number of biopsy procedures performed. Results: Of 12 743 male participants (median [IQR] age, 61 [55-67] years), 5134 were assigned to the biomarker group and 7609 to the MRI-enhanced group. In the biomarker group, 8.0% of men (413) had Stockholm3 risk scores of 0.15 or higher and were referred for systematic biopsies. In the MRI-enhanced group, 12.2% of men (929) had a PSA level of 3 ng/mL or higher and were referred for MRI with biopsies if they had a PI-RADS score of 3 or higher. Detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer were comparable between the 2 groups: 2.3% in the biomarker group and 2.5% in the MRI-enhanced group (relative proportion, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.73-1.15). More biopsies were performed in the biomarker group than in the MRI-enhanced group (326 of 5134 [6.3%] vs 338 of 7609 [4.4%]; relative proportion, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.23-1.66]), and more indolent prostate cancers were detected (61 [1.2%] vs 41 [0.5%]; relative proportion, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.49-3.27]). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this randomized clinical trial indicate that combining a Stockholm3 test with systematic biopsies is comparable with MRI-based screening with PSA levels and systematic and targeted biopsies for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, but this approach resulted in more biopsies as well as detection of a greater number of indolent cancers. In regions where access to MRI is lacking, the Stockholm3 test can aid in selecting patients for systematic prostate biopsy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03377881.

Prediagnostic Prostate-specific Antigen Testing and Clinical Characteristics in Men with Lethal Prostate Cancer.

Background and objective: Prostate cancer (PC) is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related mortality in men worldwide. Opportunistic testing with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has limited impact on PC mortality. Our objective was to assess prediagnostic PSA testing patterns and clinical characteristics at diagnosis in men with lethal PC. Methods: We conducted a population-based observational study of all men dying from PC in Stockholm County, Sweden, from 2015 to 2019. Data were retrieved from the National Prostate Cancer Register and the Stockholm PSA and Biopsy Register. If the first PSA was registered within 1 yr before diagnosis, men were categorised as PSA naïve. If an elevated PSA level was registered >1 yr before diagnosis without leading to prostate biopsy or repeating PSA within 1 yr, men were categorised as having delayed diagnosis. If a normal PSA level was registered within 5 yr before diagnosis, followed by an elevated PSA level that resulted in PC diagnosis within 1 yr, men were categorised as PSA tested. Clinical characteristics at diagnosis were stratified with D'Amico risk group classification. Key findings and limitations: Among 1473 men dying from PC, PSA test history was available for 995. Of these men, 60% (n = 592) were PSA naïve, 25% (n = 250) received delayed diagnosis, and 15% (n = 153) were PSA tested. After examining all 1473 men, 25% (n = 350) were diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk cancer, 48% (n = 687) with high-risk cancer, and 27% (n = 385) with metastatic disease. Limitations include the retrospective design. Conclusions and clinical implications: Many men with lethal PC lacked PSA testing before diagnosis or had been tested without subsequent follow-up. Nearly half of the study population was diagnosed with high-risk cancer and almost one-third with metastatic disease. These findings suggest further evaluation of the current opportunistic PSA testing approach. Patient summary: Data from a population-based observational study of men dying from prostate cancer showed that many of them did not undergo either prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing before diagnosis or subsequent follow-up if tested. These findings implicate deficiencies in the current opportunistic PSA testing approach.

Protocol of a randomised, controlled trial comparing immediate curative therapy with conservative treatment in men aged ≥75 years with non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer (SPCG 19/GRand-P).

BACKGROUND: Older men (aged ≥75 years) with high risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) are increasingly treated with curative therapy (surgery or radiotherapy). However, it is unclear if curative therapy prolongs life and improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in this age group compared to conservative therapy, which has evolved considerably during the last decade. STUDY DESIGN: The Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group (SPCG) 19/Norwegian Get-Randomized Research Group-Prostate (GRand-P) is a randomised, two-armed, controlled, multicentre, phase III trial carried out at study centres in Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. ENDPOINTS: The primary endpoints are overall survival and HRQoL (burden of disease scale, European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] Elderly Cancer patients). Secondary endpoints are PCa-specific survival, metastasis-free survival, role-functioning scale (EORTC quality of life questionnaire 30-item core), urinary irritative/obstructive scale (26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC-26]), bowel scale (EPIC-26), intervention-free survival, PCa morbidity, use of secondary and tertiary systemic therapies, mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and mean total healthcare costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 980 men (aged ≥75 years) with non-metastatic, high-risk PCa will initially be screened with Geriatric 8 (G8) health status screening tool and Mini-COG© brief cognitive test. Participants identified by G8 as 'fit' or 'frail' will be randomised (ratio 1:1) to either immediate curative therapy (radiotherapy or prostatectomy) or conservative therapy (endocrine therapy or observation). Participants who are unable or unwilling to participate in randomisation will be enrolled in a separate observation group. Randomised patients will be followed for 10 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Ethics approval has been granted in Norway (457593), Denmark (H-22051998), Finland (R23043) and Sweden (Dnr 2023-05296-01). The trial is registered on Clinicaltrials.org (NCT05448547).

Repeated Prostate Cancer Screening Using Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Secondary Analysis of the STHLM3-MRI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been proposed to enhance the benefit-to-harm ratio of prostate cancer screening, but data on repeated screening outcomes are lacking. Objective: To describe outcomes of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening with MRI and prostate biopsies at repeat screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis examined the population-based, screen-by-invitation STHLM3-MRI randomized clinical trial, which recruited Swedish men aged 50 to 74 years. Men were eligible for repeat screening at 2 to 3 years if they had PSA levels of 1.5 ng/mL or greater at trial inclusion, were randomized to the MRI-targeted group (including screening using biomarkers and MRI), and were not diagnosed with prostate cancer after the first screening round. Repeat screening was performed between November 10, 2021, and February 20, 2023. Data analysis was performed between May and August 2023. Intervention: Participants underwent blood sampling, including PSA testing. A biparametric MRI scan was performed if PSA levels were 3 ng/mL or greater, and men with lesions with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 3 or greater were referred for targeted and systematic biopsies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score of ≥3 + 4). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men with clinically insignificant cancer (Gleason score of 6), the number of elevated PSA tests, MRI scans, and biopsy procedures. Results: Of 7609 men from the first screening round, 2078 (27.3%) were eligible for and were invited for rescreening. Among the invitees, 1500 (72.2%) participated. Their median age was 67 (IQR, 61-72) years. Of 1094 men with PSA levels between 1.5 and 2.9 ng/mL in the first screening round, 326 (29.8%) had levels of 3 ng/mL or greater in the second round. Overall, 667 men (44.5%) had PSA levels of 3 ng/mL or greater: 617 underwent MRI (92.5%), revealing 51 (7.6%) with equivocal lesions (PI-RADS score of 3) and 33 (4.9%) with suspicious lesions (PI-RADS score of ≥4). Only 10 of 383 men (2.6%) with a prior negative MRI result had a lesion with a PI-RADS score of 4 or greater. Among the 1500 rescreened men, 48 (3.2%) had a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or greater, including 19 (1.3%) with a score of 4 + 3 or greater and 11 (0.7%) with a score of 6. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of the STHLM3-MRI randomized clinical trial, cancer detection during the second screening round in biennial PSA and MRI-based prostate cancer screening was limited, and the detection of low-grade tumors remained low. A substantial proportion of men exhibited elevated PSA levels during rescreening, and a considerable portion of MRI scans performed lacked lesions suggestive of cancer. Future studies should explore strategies to reduce MRI-related resource use. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03377881.

Population-based Organised Prostate Cancer Testing: Results from the First Invitation of 50-year-old Men.

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/cm3 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.

Diagnosis of prostate cancer with magnetic resonance imaging in men treated with 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate if exposure to 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) modifies the effect of MRI for the diagnosis of clinically significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) (ISUP Gleason grade ≥ 2). METHODS: This study is a multicenter cohort study including patients undergoing prostate biopsy and MRI at 24 institutions between 2013 and 2022. Multivariable analysis predicting csPCa with an interaction term between 5-ARIs and PIRADS score was performed. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative (NPV) and positive (PPV) predictive values of MRI were compared in treated and untreated patients. RESULTS: 705 patients (9%) were treated with 5-ARIs [median age 69 years, Interquartile range (IQR): 65, 73; median PSA 6.3 ng/ml, IQR 4.0, 9.0; median prostate volume 53 ml, IQR 40, 72] and 6913 were 5-ARIs naïve (age 66 years, IQR 60, 71; PSA 6.5 ng/ml, IQR 4.8, 9.0; prostate volume 50 ml, IQR 37, 65). MRI showed PIRADS 1-2, 3, 4, and 5 lesions in 141 (20%), 158 (22%), 258 (37%), and 148 (21%) patients treated with 5-ARIs, and 878 (13%), 1764 (25%), 2948 (43%), and 1323 (19%) of untreated patients (p < 0.0001). No difference was found in csPCa detection rates, but diagnosis of high-grade PCa (ISUP GG ≥ 3) was higher in treated patients (23% vs 19%, p = 0.013). We did not find any evidence of interaction between PIRADS score and 5-ARIs exposure in predicting csPCa. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of PIRADS ≥ 3 were 94%, 29%, 46%, and 88% in treated patients and 96%, 18%, 43%, and 88% in untreated patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to 5-ARIs does not affect the association of PIRADS score with csPCa. Higher rates of high-grade PCa were detected in treated patients, but most were clearly visible on MRI as PIRADS 4 and 5 lesions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The present study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT05078359.

Prostate Age Gap: An MRI Surrogate Marker of Aging for Prostate Cancer Detection.

BACKGROUND: Aging is the most important risk factor for prostate cancer (PC). Imaging techniques can be useful to measure age-related changes associated with the transition to diverse pathological states. However, biomarkers of aging from prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remain to be explored. PURPOSE: To develop an aging biomarker from prostate MRI and to examine its relationship with clinically significant PC (csPC, Gleason score ≥7) risk occurrence. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: Four hundred and sixty-eight (65.97 ± 6.91 years) biopsied males, contributing 7243 prostate MRI slices. A deep learning (DL) model was trained on 3223 MRI slices from 81 low-grade PC (Gleason score ≤6) and 131 negative patients, defined as non-csPC. The model was tested on 90 negative, 52 low-grade (142 non-csPC), and 114 csPC patients. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3-T, axial T2-weighted spin sequence. ASSESSMENT: Chronological age was defined as the age of the participant at the time of the visit. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, Gleason, and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores were also obtained. Manually annotated prostate masks were used to crop the MRI slices, and a DL model was trained with those from non-csPC patients to estimate the age of the patients. Following, we obtained the prostate age gap (PAG) on previously unseen csPC and non-csPC cropped MRI exams. PAG was defined as the estimated model age minus the patient's age. Finally, the relationship between PAG and csPC risk occurrence was assessed through an adjusted multivariate logistic regression by PSA levels, age, prostate volume, and PI-RADS ≥ 3 score. STATISTICAL TESTS: T-test, Mann-Whitney U test, permutation test, receiver operating characteristics (ROC), area under the curve (AUC), and odds ratio (OR). A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: After adjusting, there was a significant difference in the odds of csPC (OR = 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.32-6.16). Further, PAG showed a significantly larger bootstrapped AUC to discriminate between csPC and non-csPC than that of adjusted PI-RADS ≥ 3 (AUC = 0.981, 95% CI: 0.975-0.987). DATA CONCLUSION: PAG may be associated with the risk of csPC and could outperform other PC risk factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Biochemical Recurrence and Risk of Mortality Following Radiotherapy or Radical Prostatectomy.

Importance: Stratifying patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary treatment for prostate cancer based on the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) is essential for determining the need for further testing and treatments. Objective: To evaluate the association of BCR after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy and its current risk stratification with PCSM. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study included a total of 16 311 male patients with 10 364 (64%) undergoing radical prostatectomy and 5947 (36%) undergoing radiotherapy with curative intent (cT1-3, cM0) and PSA follow-up in Stockholm, Sweden, between 2003 and 2019. Follow-up for all patients was until death, emigration, or end of the study (ie, December 31, 2018). Data were analyzed between September 2022 and March 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes of the study were the cumulative incidence of BCR and PCSM. Patients with BCR were stratified in low- and high-risk according to European Association of Urology (EAU) criteria. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Results: A total of 16 311 patients were included. Median (IQR) age was 64 (59-68) years in the radical prostatectomy cohort (10 364 patients) and 69 (64-73) years in the radiotherapy cohort (5947 patients). Median (IQR) follow-up for survivors was 88 (55-138) months and 89 (53-134) months, respectively. Following radical prostatectomy, the 15-year cumulative incidences of BCR were 16% (95% CI, 15%-18%) for the 4024 patients in the low D'Amico risk group, 30% (95% CI, 27%-32%) for the 5239 patients in the intermediate D'Amico risk group, and 46% (95% CI, 42%-51%) for 1101 patients in the high D'Amico risk group. Following radiotherapy, the 15-year cumulative incidences of BCR were 18% (95% CI, 15%-21%) for the 1230 patients in the low-risk group, 24% (95% CI, 21%-26%) for the 2355 patients in the intermediate-risk group, and 36% (95% CI, 33%-39%) for the 2362 patients in the high-risk group. The 10-year cumulative incidences of PCSM after radical prostatectomy were 4% (95% CI, 2%-6%) for the 1101 patients who developed low-risk EAU-BCR and 9% (95% CI, 5%-13%) for 649 patients who developed high-risk EAU-BCR. After radiotherapy, the 10-year PCSM cumulative incidences were 24% (95% CI, 19%-29%) for the 591 patients in the low-risk EAU-BCR category and 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%) for the 600 patients in the high-risk EAU-BCR category. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest the validity of EAU-BCR stratification system. However, while the risk of dying from prostate cancer in low-risk EAU-BCR after radical prostatectomy was very low, patients who developed low-risk EAU-BCR after radiotherapy had a nonnegligible risk of prostate cancer mortality. Improving risk stratification of patients with BCR is pivotal to guide salvage treatment decisions, reduce overtreatment, and limit the number of staging tests in the event of PSA elevations after primary treatment.

[Improved prostate cancer diagnostics with a structured pathway including ¼Stockholm 3« test, MRI and targeted perineal biopsies]. / Strukturerad kedja vid test för prostatacancer kortar ledtider.

The Prostate Cancer Center at Capio S:t Göran hospital is located in Stockholm and offers testing for prostate cancer. The pathway applies task shifting from doctors to nurses and new and innovative test methods, and leverages digitalization opportunities to enable a cost-efficient pathway with high specificity and sensitivity. In this article, we describe our experiences of the Capio S:t Göran Model.

Prostate Cancer IRE Study (PRIS): A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Focal Therapy to Radical Treatment in Localized Prostate Cancer.

The aim of focal treatments (FTs) in prostate cancer (PCa) is to treat lesions while preserving surrounding benign tissue and anatomic structures. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a nonthermal technique that uses high-voltage electric pulses to increase membrane permeability and induce membrane disruption in cells, which potentially causes less damage to the surrounding tissue in comparison to other ablative techniques. We summarize the study protocol for the Prostate Cancer IRE Study (PRIS), which involves two parallel randomized controlled trials comparing IRE with (1) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or (2) radiotherapy in men with newly diagnosed intermediate-risk PCa (NCT05513443). To reduce the number of patients for inclusion and the study duration, the primary outcomes are functional outcomes: urinary incontinence in study 1 and irritative urinary symptoms in study 2. Providing evidence of the lower impact of IRE on functional outcomes will lay a foundation for the design of future multicenter studies with an oncological outcome as the primary endpoint. Erectile function, quality of life, treatment failure, adverse events, and cost effectiveness will be evaluated as secondary objectives. Patients diagnosed with Gleason score 3 + 4 or 4 + 3 PCa from a single lesion visible on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) without any Gleason grade 4 or higher in systematic biopsies outside of the target (unifocal significant disease), aged ≥40 yr, with no established extraprostatic extension on multiparametric MRI, a lesion volume of <1.5 cm3, prostate-specific antigen <20 ng/ml, and stage ≤T2b are eligible for inclusion. The study plan is to recruit 184 men.

External Validation of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator and Comparison with Stockholm3 for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in a Swedish Population-based Screening Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) and Stockholm3 can be used to aid urologists in their decision to refer men to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess the external validity of the RPCRC and compare it with using PSA and Stockholm3 to detect clinically significant prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using data from the prospective, population-based, randomised STHLM3-MRI screening trial, we included participants with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥3 ng/ml or Stockholm3 risk threshold ≥11% in the standard group who underwent systematic prostate biopsies. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Probabilities for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC, International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2) were calculated for each participant using the RPCRC and Stockholm3 with and without prostate volume. Performance of the risk calculators was assessed by discrimination, calibration, and clinical benefits. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 666 men with a median age of 67 yr (interquartile range [IQR]: 61-71) and PSA of 3.4 ng/ml (2.5-5.0) were included, of whom 154 (23%) had csPC. Risk distribution of the RPCRC was narrow: median risks of 2% (IQR 1-4%) compared with 14% (IQR: 9.5-23%) for Stockholm3. Using RPCRC's recommended risk threshold of ≥4% for finding csPC, 54% of all csPC cases would be detected versus 94% using Stockholm3 with a threshold of ≥11%. Calibration of Stockholm3 was adequate while RPCRC underestimated the risk of csPC. The Stockholm3 test showed positive net benefits at clinically relevant thresholds, while the RPCRC showed negative net benefits. Compared with PSA, the RPCRC was associated with lower detection of csPC (84 vs 103; 0.82 [0.71-0.93]), while Stockholm3 was associated with higher detection of csPC (143 vs 103; 1.40 [1.23-1.57]). The main limitation was that Stockholm3 was evaluated in a similar population to where it was developed. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of the RPCRC in a Swedish population-based cohort is suboptimal with a considerable underestimation of prostate cancer risk, while the Stockholm3 test showed superior performance and a positive clinical benefit. PATIENT SUMMARY: The use of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator available online to predict the risk of prostate cancer in a Swedish cohort was found to be clinically harmful as it underpredicted the risk of clinically significant prostate cancer, while the Stockholm3 test performed well showing clinical benefits.

Cost-effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Screening Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Standard Biopsy Based on the STHLM3-MRI Study.

Importance: The combination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer detection has rarely been evaluated in a screening context. The STHLM3-MRI screening-by-invitation study (NCT03377881) has reported the benefits of using MRI with subsequent combined targeted and standard biopsies compared with using standard biopsies alone. Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening using MRI with combined targeted and standard biopsies compared with standard biopsies alone among men aged 55 to 69 years in Sweden, based on evidence from the STHLM3-MRI study. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation study was conducted from a lifetime health care perspective using a microsimulation model to evaluate no screening and screening strategies among adult men in Sweden. Men aged 55 to 69 years in Sweden were simulated for no screening and screening strategies. Input parameters were obtained from the STHLM3-MRI study and recent reviews. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed in May 2022. Interventions: No screening, quadrennial PSA screening using standard biopsies alone, and MRI-based screening using combined targeted and standard biopsies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of tests, incidence, deaths, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Results: A total 603 men were randomized to the standard arm, 165 of these participants (27.4%) did not undergo standard biopsy; 929 men were randomized to the experimental arm, 111 (11.9%) of whom did undergo MRI or any biopsy. Compared with no screening, the screening strategies were associated with reduced lifetime prostate cancer-related deaths by 6% to 9%. Screening with MRI and the combined biopsies resulted in an ICER of US $53 736, which is classified as a moderate cost per QALY gained in Sweden. Relative to screening with standard biopsies alone, MRI-based screening reduced the number of both lifetime biopsies and overdiagnosis by approximately 50% and had a high probability of being cost-effective than the traditional PSA screening. Conclusions and Relevance: For prostate cancer screening, this economic evaluation study found that PSA testing followed by MRI with subsequent combined targeted and standard biopsies had a high probability to be more cost-effective compared with the traditional screening pathway using PSA and standard biopsy. MRI-based screening may be considered for early detection of prostate cancer in Sweden.

Digital Rectal Examination in Stockholm3 Biomarker-based Prostate Cancer Screening.

Background: Pathological digital rectal examination (DRE) is suggestive of prostate cancer but has low sensitivity and specificity. DRE is incorporated in many clinical risk calculators, but there is less evidence on how DRE performs in the setting of blood biomarkers and polygenic risk prediction models other than prostate-specific antigen (PSA) associated with prostate cancer. The Stockholm3 test combines a blood test and clinical variables including DRE. Objective: To assess the predictive performance of DRE for finding clinically significant prostate cancer in systematic biopsy and evaluate its added value to the multivariable diagnostic test Stockholm3. Design setting and participants: This population-based study in the screening by invitation setting included 5543 men aged 50-69 yr with PSA ≥3 ng/ml who were referred for systematic prostate biopsy between 2012 and 2015. The STHLM3 study is registered with ISRCTN.com as ISRCTN84445406. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Predictive performance was assessed via estimates of sensitivity and specificity and in logistic regression. Clinically significant cancer was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2 (GG ≥2) cancer on systematic biopsy. Results and limitations: We found that 11% of men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml had a suspicious DRE. A suspicious DRE was associated with a 3.16-fold higher risk (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.83-3.52) of GG ≥2 cancer and greater length of cancer on biopsy. The risk of nonsignificant cancer was similar regardless of the DRE finding. The risk of GG ≥2 cancer was 46.2% (95% CI 42.2-50.3%) for men with a suspicious DRE versus 14.6% (95% CI 13.7-15.7%) for men with a negative DRE. The elevated risk of GG ≥2 cancer persisted after adjusting for the other Stockholm3 test parameters (odds ratio 2.88, 95% CI 2.32-3.57). For detection of GG ≥2 cancer among men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml, DRE had sensitivity of 27.8% (95% CI 25.1-30.7%) and specificity of 92.8% (95% CI 92.1-93.6%). Conclusions: In this screening-by-invitation setting we found that for men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml, a suspicious DRE indicates more than threefold higher risk of harboring significant prostate cancer. DRE as a variable adds significant precision to the Stockholm3 prediction model. Men with a suspicious DRE should be referred for further diagnostic workup, including biopsy. Patient summary: We investigated the ability of digital rectal examination to predict if a patient has clinically significant prostate cancer. We found that digital rectal examination provides valuable information and can help doctors in making an informed decision on whether to recommend prostate biopsy.

Predicting the Need for Biopsy to Detect Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with a Magnetic Resonance Imaging-detected Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert ≥3 Lesion: Development and Multinational External Validation of the Imperial Rapid Access to Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis Risk Score.

BACKGROUND: Although multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has high sensitivity, its lower specificity leads to a high prevalence of false-positive lesions requiring biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To develop and externally validate a scoring system for MRI-detected Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS)/Likert ≥3 lesions containing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The multicentre Rapid Access to Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis (RAPID) pathway included 1189 patients referred to urology due to elevated age-specific prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE); April 27, 2017 to October 25, 2019. INTERVENTION: Visual-registration or image-fusion targeted and systematic transperineal biopsies for an MRI score of ≥4 or 3 + PSA density ≥0.12 ng/ml/ml. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Fourteen variables were used in multivariable logistic regression for Gleason ≥3 + 4 (primary) and Gleason ≥4 + 3, and PROMIS definition 1 (any ≥4 + 3 or ≥6 mm any grade; secondary). Nomograms were created and a decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed. Models with varying complexity were externally validated in 2374 patients from six international cohorts. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The five-item Imperial RAPID risk score used age, PSA density, prior negative biopsy, prostate volume, and highest MRI score (corrected c-index for Gleason ≥3 + 4 of 0.82 and 0.80-0.86 externally). Incorporating family history, DRE, and Black ethnicity within the eight-item Imperial RAPID risk score provided similar outcomes. The DCA showed similar superiority of all models, with net benefit differences increasing in higher threshold probabilities. At 20%, 30%, and 40% of predicted Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer, the RAPID risk score was able to reduce, respectively, 11%, 21%, and 31% of biopsies against 1.8%, 6.2%, and 14% of missed csPCa (or 9.6%, 17%, and 26% of foregone biopsies, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The Imperial RAPID risk score provides a standardised tool for the prediction of csPCa in patients with an MRI-detected PIRADS/Likert ≥3 lesion and can support the decision for prostate biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this multinational study, we developed a scoring system incorporating clinical and magnetic resonance imaging characteristics to predict which patients have prostate cancer requiring treatment and which patients can safely forego an invasive prostate biopsy. This model was validated in several other countries.

External Validation of the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group Risk Calculator and the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in a Swedish Population-based Screening Cohort.

Background: External validation of risk calculators (RCs) is necessary to determine their clinical applicability beyond the setting in which these were developed. Objective: To assess the performance of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer RC (RPCRC) and the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group RC (PBCG-RC). Design setting and participants: We used data from the prospective, population-based STHLM3 screening study, performed in 2012-2015. Participants with prostate-specific antigen ≥3 ng/ml who underwent systematic prostate biopsies were included. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Probabilities for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2, were calculated for each participant. External validity was assessed by calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness for both original and recalibrated models. Results and limitations: Out of 5841 men, 1054 (18%) had csPCa. Distribution of risk predictions differed between RCs; median risks for csPCa using the RPCRC and PBCG-RC were 3.3% (interquartile range [IQR] 2.1-7.1%) and 20% (IQR 15-28%), respectively. The correlation between RC risk estimates on individual level was moderate (Spearman's r = 0.55). Using the RPCRC's recommended risk threshold of ≥4% for finding csPCa, 36% of participants would get concordant biopsy recommendations. At 10% risk cut-off, RCs agreed in 23% of cases. Both RCs showed good discrimination, with areas under the curves for the RPCRC of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.76) and the PBCG-RC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.68-0.72). Calibration was adequate using the PBCG-RC (calibration slope: 1.13 [95% CI 1.03-1.23]), but the RPCRC underestimated the risk of csPCa (calibration slope: 0.73 [0.68-0.79]). The PBCG-RC showed a net benefit in a decision curve analysis, whereas the RPCRC showed no net benefit at clinically relevant risk threshold levels. Recalibration improved clinical benefit, and differences between RCs decreased. Conclusions: Assessment of calibration is essential to ensure the clinical value of risk prediction tools. The PBCG-RC provided clinical benefit in its current version online. On the contrary, the RPCRC cannot be recommended in this setting. Patient summary: Predicting the probability of finding prostate cancer on biopsy differed between two assessed risk calculators. After recalibration, the agreement of the models improved, and both were shown to be clinically useful.

The Mount Sinai Prebiopsy Risk Calculator for Predicting any Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Development of a Risk Predictive Tool and Validation with Advanced Neural Networking, Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Outcome Database, and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator.

Background: The European Association of Urology guidelines recommend the use of imaging, biomarkers, and risk calculators in men at risk of prostate cancer. Risk predictive calculators that combine multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with prebiopsy variables aid as an individualized decision-making tool for patients at risk of prostate cancer, and advanced neural networking increases reliability of these tools. Objective: To develop a comprehensive risk predictive online web-based tool using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical data, to predict the risk of any prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) applicable to biopsy-naïve men, men with a prior negative biopsy, men with prior positive low-grade cancer, and men with negative MRI. Design setting and participants: Institutional review board-approved prospective data of 1902 men undergoing biopsy from October 2013 to September 2021 at Mount Sinai were collected. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate clinical variables such as age, race, digital rectal examination, family history, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy status, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score, and prostate volume, which emerged as predictors for any PCa and csPCa. Binary logistic regression was performed to study the probability. Validation was performed with advanced neural networking (ANN), multi-institutional European cohort (Prostate MRI Outcome Database [PROMOD]), and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ERSPC RC) 3/4. Results and limitations: Overall, 2363 biopsies had complete clinical information, with 57.98% any cancer and 31.40% csPCa. The prediction model was significantly associated with both any PCa and csPCa having an area under the curve (AUC) of 81.9% including clinical data. The AUC for external validation was calculated in PROMOD, ERSPC RC, and ANN for any PCa (0.82 vs 0.70 vs 0.90) and csPCa (0.82 vs 0.78 vs 0.92), respectively. This study is limited by its retrospective design and overestimation of csPCa in the PROMOD cohort. Conclusions: The Mount Sinai Prebiopsy Risk Calculator combines PSA, imaging and clinical data to predict the risk of any PCa and csPCa for all patient settings. With accurate validation results in a large European cohort, ERSPC RC, and ANN, it exhibits its efficiency and applicability in a more generalized population. This calculator is available online in the form of a free web-based tool that can aid clinicians in better patients counseling and treatment decision-making. Patient summary: We developed the Mount Sinai Prebiopsy Risk Calculator (MSP-RC) to assess the likelihood of any prostate cancer and clinically significant disease based on a combination of clinical and imaging characteristics. MSP-RC is applicable to all patient settings and accessible online.

A Head-to-head Comparison of Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Strategies Using the Stockholm3 Test, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Swedish National Guidelines: Results from a Prospective Population-based Screening Study.

Background: Strategies for early detection of prostate cancer aim to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and avoid detection of insignificant cancers and unnecessary biopsies. Swedish national guidelines (SNGs), years 2019 and 2020, involve prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, clinical variables, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The Stockholm3 test and MRI have been suggested to improve selection of men for prostate biopsy. Performance of SNGs compared with the Stockholm3 test or MRI in a screening setting is unclear. Objective: To compare strategies based on previous and current national guidelines, Stockholm3, and MRI to select patients for biopsy in a screening-by-invitation setting. Design setting and participants: All participants underwent PSA test, and men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml underwent Stockholm3 testing and MRI. Men with Stockholm3 ≥11%, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score ≥3 on MRI, or indication according to SNG-2019 or SNG-2020 were referred to biopsy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary outcome was the detection of csPCa at prostate biopsy, defined as an International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade of ≥2. Results and limitations: We invited 8764 men from the general population, 272 of whom had PSA ≥3 ng/ml. The median PSA was 4.1 (interquartile range: 3.4-5.8), and 136 of 270 (50%) who underwent MRI lacked any pathological lesions. In total, 37 csPCa cases were diagnosed. Using SNG-2019, 36 csPCa cases with a high biopsy rate (179 of 272) were detected and 49 were diagnosed with ISUP 1 cancers. The Stockholm3 strategy diagnosed 32 csPCa cases, with 89 biopsied and 27 ISUP 1 cancers. SNG-2020 detected 32 csPCa and 33 ISUP 1 cancer patients, with 99 men biopsied, and the MRI strategy detected 30 csPCa and 35 ISUP 1 cancer cases by biopsying 123 men. The latter two strategies generated more MRI scans than the Stockholm3 strategy (n = 270 vs 33). Conclusions: Previous guidelines provide high detection of significant cancer but at high biopsy rates and detection of insignificant cancer. The Stockholm3 test may improve diagnostic precision compared with the current guidelines or using only MRI. Patient summary: The Stockholm3 test facilitates detection of significant cancer, and reduces the number of biopsies and detection of insignificant cancer.