Which men benefit from prostate cancer screening? Prostate cancer mortality by subgroup in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a subgroup of men can be identified that would benefit more from screening than others. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was based on three European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) centres, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. We identified 126 827 men aged 55-69 years in the study who were followed for maximum of 16 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was prostate cancer (PCa) mortality. We analysed three age groups 55-59, 60-64 and 65-69 years and PCa cases within four European Association of Urology (EAU) risk groups: low, intermediate, high risk, and advanced disease. RESULTS: The hazard ratio (HR) for PCa mortality in the screening arm relative to the control arm for men aged 55-59 years was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-1.24) in Finland, 0.70 (95% CI 0.44-1.12) in the Netherlands and 0.42 (95% CI 0.24-0.73) in Sweden. The HR for men aged 60-64 years was 1.03 (95% CI 0.77-1.37) in Finland, 0.76 (95% CI 0.50-1.16) in the Netherlands and 0.97 (95% CI 0.64-1.48) in Sweden. The HR for men aged 65-69 years was 0.80 (95% CI 0.62-1.03) in Finland and 0.57 (95% CI 0.38-0.83) in the Netherlands, and this age group was absent in Sweden. In the EAU risk group analysis, PCa mortality rates were materially lower for men with advanced disease at diagnosis in all three countries: 0.67 (95% CI 0.56-0.82) in Finland, 0.28 (95% CI 0.18-0.44) in the Netherlands, and 0.48 (95% CI 0.30-0.78) in Sweden. CONCLUSION: We were unable to unequivocally identify the optimal age group for screening, as mortality reduction differed among centres and age groups. Instead, the screening effect appears to depend on screening duration, and the number and frequency of screening rounds. PCa mortality reduction by screening is largely attributable to stage shift.

How Can We Improve Patient-Clinician Communication for Men Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer?

Background and objective: The ability of health care professionals to communicate with patients compassionately and effectively is crucial for shared decision-making, but little research has investigated patient-clinician communication. As part of PIONEER-an international Big Data Consortium led by the European Association of Urology to answer key questions for men with prostate cancer (PCa), funded through the IMI2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement 777492- we investigated communication between men diagnosed with PCa and the health care professional(s) treating them across Europe. Methods: We used the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Communication 26, which was shared via the PIONEER and patient organisations on March 11, 2022. We sought men who spoke French, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, or English who were diagnosed with PCa and were undergoing or had already received treatment for their PCa. Results and limitations: A total of 372 men reported that they communicated with their clinician during either the diagnostic or the treatment period. Overall, the majority of participants reported positive experiences. However, important opportunities to enhance communication were identified, particularly with regard to correcting misunderstandings, understanding the patient's preferred approach to information presentation, addressing challenging questions, supporting the patient's comprehension of information, attending to the patient's emotional needs, and assessing what information had already been given to patients about their disease and treatment, and how much of it was understood. Conclusions and clinical implications: These results help us to identify gaps and barriers to shared treatment decision making. This knowledge will help devise measures to improve patient-health care professional communication in the PCa setting. Patient summary: As part of the PIONEER initiative, we investigated the communication between men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their health care professionals across Europe. A total of 372 men from six different countries participated in the study. Most participants reported positive experiences, but areas where communication could be improved were identified. These included addressing misunderstandings, tailoring the presentation of information to the patient's preferences, handling difficult questions, supporting emotional needs, and assessing the patient's understanding of their diagnosis and treatment.

Predictive Models for Assessing Patients' Response to Treatment in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Background and objective: The treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Despite this, the optimal therapy for patients with mPCa has not been determined. This systematic review identifies available predictive models that assess mPCa patients' response to treatment. Methods: We critically reviewed MEDLINE and CENTRAL in December 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Only quantitative studies in English were included with no time restrictions. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the PROBAST tool. Data were extracted following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews criteria. Key findings and limitations: The search identified 616 citations, of which 15 studies were included in our review. Nine of the included studies were validated internally or externally. Only one study had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Many studies failed to detail model performance adequately, resulting in a high risk of bias. Where reported, the models indicated good or excellent performance. Conclusions and clinical implications: Most of the identified predictive models require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before these can be implemented in clinical practice to assist with treatment decision-making for men with mPCa. Patient summary: In this review, we evaluate studies that predict which treatments will work best for which metastatic prostate cancer patients. We found that existing studies need further improvement before these can be used by health care professionals.

Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Risk Calculators to Predict Prostate Cancer Risk.

Importance: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based risk calculators can replace or augment traditional prostate cancer (PCa) risk prediction tools. However, few data are available comparing performance of different MRI-based risk calculators in external cohorts across different countries or screening paradigms. Objective: To externally validate and compare MRI-based PCa risk calculators (Prospective Loyola University Multiparametric MRI [PLUM], UCLA [University of California, Los Angeles]-Cornell, Van Leeuwen, and Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator-MRI [RPCRC-MRI]) in cohorts from Europe and North America. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multi-institutional, external validation diagnostic study of 3 unique cohorts was performed from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2022. Two cohorts from Europe and North America used MRI before biopsy, while a third cohort used an advanced serum biomarker, the Prostate Health Index (PHI), before MRI or biopsy. Participants included adult men without a PCa diagnosis receiving MRI before prostate biopsy. Interventions: Prostate MRI followed by prostate biopsy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was diagnosis of clinically significant PCa (grade group ≥2). Receiver operating characteristics for area under the curve (AUC) estimates, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis were evaluated. Results: A total of 2181 patients across the 3 cohorts were included, with a median age of 65 (IQR, 58-70) years and a median prostate-specific antigen level of 5.92 (IQR, 4.32-8.94) ng/mL. All models had good diagnostic discrimination in the European cohort, with AUCs of 0.90 for the PLUM (95% CI, 0.86-0.93), UCLA-Cornell (95% CI, 0.86-0.93), Van Leeuwen (95% CI, 0.87-0.93), and RPCRC-MRI (95% CI, 0.86-0.93) models. All models had good discrimination in the North American cohort, with an AUC of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89) for PLUM and AUCs of 0.83 for the UCLA-Cornell (95% CI, 0.80-0.88), Van Leeuwen (95% CI, 0.79-0.88), and RPCRC-MRI (95% CI, 0.78-0.87) models, with somewhat better calibration for the RPCRC-MRI and PLUM models. In the PHI cohort, all models were prone to underestimate clinically significant PCa risk, with best calibration and discrimination for the UCLA-Cornell (AUC, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.81-0.85]) model, followed by the PLUM model (AUC, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.80-0.84]). The Van Leeuwen model was poorly calibrated in all 3 cohorts. On decision curve analysis, all models provided similar net benefit in the European cohort, with higher benefit for the PLUM and RPCRC-MRI models at a threshold greater than 22% in the North American cohort. The UCLA-Cornell model demonstrated highest net benefit in the PHI cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: In this external validation study of patients receiving MRI and prostate biopsy, the results support the use of the PLUM or RPCRC-MRI models in MRI-based screening pathways regardless of European or North American setting. However, tools specific to screening pathways incorporating advanced biomarkers as reflex tests are needed due to underprediction.

Evolution of European prostate cancer screening protocols and summary of ongoing trials.

Population-based organised repeated screening for prostate cancer has been found to reduce disease-specific mortality, but with substantial overdiagnosis leading to overtreatment. Although only very few countries have implemented a screening programme on a national level, individual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is common. This opportunistic testing may have little favourable impact, while stressing the side-effects. The classic early detection protocols as were state-of-the-art in the 1990s applied a PSA and digital rectal examination threshold for sextant systematic prostate biopsy, with a fixed interval for re-testing, and limited indication for expectant management. In the three decades since these trials were started, different important improvements have become available in the cascade of screening, indication for biopsy, and treatment. The main developed aspects include: better identification of individuals at risk (using early/baseline PSA, family history, and/or genetic profile), individualised re-testing interval, optimised and individualised starting and stopping age, with gradual invitation at a fixed age rather than invitation of a wider range of age groups, risk stratification for biopsy (using PSA density, risk calculator, magnetic resonance imaging, serum and urine biomarkers, or combinations/sequences), targeted biopsy, transperineal biopsy approach, active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, and improved staging of disease. All these developments are suggested to decrease the side-effects of screening, while at least maintaining the advantages, but Level 1 evidence is lacking. The knowledge gained and new developments on early detection are being tested in different prospective screening trials throughout Europe. In addition, the European Union-funded PRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (PRAISE-U) project will compare and evaluate different screening pilots throughout Europe. Implementation and sustainability will also be addressed. Modern screening approaches may reduce the burden of the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death in European males, while minimising side-effects. Also, less efficacious opportunistic early detection may be indirectly reduced.

Survivorship Data in Prostate Cancer: Where Are We and Where Do We Need To Be?

Cancer survivorship was recently identified as a prostate cancer (PCa) research priority by PIONEER, a European network of excellence for big data in PCa. Despite being a research priority, cancer survivorship lacks a clear and agreed definition, and there is a distinct paucity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data available on the subject. Data collection on cancer survivorship depends on the availability and implementation of (validated) routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). There have been recent advances in the availability of such PROMs. For instance, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) is developing survivorship questionnaires. This provides an excellent first step in improving the data available on cancer survivorship. However, we propose that an agreed, standardised definition of (prostate) cancer survivorship must first be established. Only then can real-world data on survivorship be collected to strengthen our knowledge base. With more men than ever surviving PCa, this type of research is imperative to ensure that the quality of life of these men is considered as much as their quantity of life. Patient summary: As there are more prostate cancer survivors than ever before, research into cancer survivorship is crucial. We highlight the importance of such research and provide recommendations on how to carry it out. The first step should be establishing agreement on a standardised definition of survivorship. From this, patient-reported outcome measures can then be used to collect important survivorship data.

Health Policy for Prostate Cancer Early Detection in the European Union and the Impact of Opportunistic Screening: PRAISE-U Consortium.

With the new policy recommendation in 2022 to explore the possibilities of screening for prostate cancer by the European Commission, the landscape for prostate cancer early detection is evolving. In line with this recommendation, the PRAISE-U project aims to evaluate the early detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer through customised and risk-based screening programmes, with the goal to align protocols across European Union member states. This systematic review is part of the PRAISE-U project, with the goal to review the policy, medical guideline recommendations, and the current level of opportunistic screening presented in the scientific literature on prostate cancer early detection from 2016 to 2023 in European Union member states. An extensive literature search was performed on 1 June 2023 in a large number of databases, including Embase.com, Medline (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, and Policy Commons. We identified 318 articles (qualitative, quantitative, and reviews), of which 41 were included in the full-text screening. Seventeen articles were ultimately identified as eligible for inclusion. The included articles revealed significant variations towards PSA-based early detection policies for prostate cancer in nine European countries. Despite official recommendations, opportunistic screening was prevalent across all nine countries regardless of recommendations for or against PSA-based early detection. This systematic review suggests that the current early detection policies are not fit for purpose. High levels of opportunistic screening and overdiagnosis persist, prompting policy recommendations for standardised guidelines, informed decision making, and increased awareness to improve efficiency and effectiveness in early detection.

Clinical Characterization of Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer and Undergoing Conservative Management: A PIONEER Analysis Based on Big Data.

BACKGROUND: Conservative management is an option for prostate cancer (PCa) patients either with the objective of delaying or even avoiding curative therapy, or to wait until palliative treatment is needed. PIONEER, funded by the European Commission Innovative Medicines Initiative, aims at improving PCa care across Europe through the application of big data analytics. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of PCa patients on conservative management by using an international large network of real-world data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From an initial cohort of >100 000 000 adult individuals included in eight databases evaluated during a virtual study-a-thon hosted by PIONEER, we identified newly diagnosed PCa cases (n = 527 311). Among those, we selected patients who did not receive curative or palliative treatment within 6 mo from diagnosis (n = 123 146). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patient and disease characteristics were reported. The number of patients who experienced the main study outcomes was quantified for each stratum and the overall cohort. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate the distribution of time to event data. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The most common comorbidities were hypertension (35-73%), obesity (9.2-54%), and type 2 diabetes (11-28%). The rate of PCa-related symptomatic progression ranged between 2.6% and 6.2%. Hospitalization (12-25%) and emergency department visits (10-14%) were common events during the 1st year of follow-up. The probability of being free from both palliative and curative treatments decreased during follow-up. Limitations include a lack of information on patients and disease characteristics and on treatment intent. CONCLUSIONS: Our results allow us to better understand the current landscape of patients with PCa managed with conservative treatment. PIONEER offers a unique opportunity to characterize the baseline features and outcomes of PCa patients managed conservatively using real-world data. PATIENT SUMMARY: Up to 25% of men with prostate cancer (PCa) managed conservatively experienced hospitalization and emergency department visits within the 1st year after diagnosis; 6% experienced PCa-related symptoms. The probability of receiving therapies for PCa decreased according to time elapsed after the diagnosis.

Performance of magnetic resonance imaging-based prostate cancer risk calculators and decision strategies in two large European medical centres.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of currently available biopsy decision support tools incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively included men who underwent prostate MRI and subsequent targeted and/or systematic prostate biopsies in two large European centres. Available decision support tools were identified by a PubMed search. Performance was assessed by calibration, discrimination, decision curve analysis (DCA) and numbers of biopsies avoided vs csPCa cases missed, before and after recalibration, at risk thresholds of 5%-20%. RESULTS: A total of 940 men were included, 507 (54%) had csPCa. The median (interquartile range) age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and PSA density (PSAD) were 68 (63-72) years, 9 (7-15) ng/mL, and 0.20 (0.13-0.32) ng/mL2 , respectively. In all, 18 multivariable risk calculators (MRI-RCs) and dichotomous biopsy decision strategies based on MRI findings and PSAD thresholds were assessed. The Van Leeuwen model and the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) had the best discriminative ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.86) of the MRI-RCs that could be assessed in the whole cohort. DCA showed the highest clinical utility for the Van Leeuwen model, followed by the RPCRC. At the 10% threshold the Van Leeuwen model would avoid 22% of biopsies, missing 1.8% of csPCa, whilst the RPCRC would avoid 20% of biopsies, missing 2.6% of csPCas. These multivariable models outperformed all dichotomous decision strategies based only on MRI-findings and PSAD. CONCLUSIONS: Even in this high-risk cohort, biopsy decision support tools would avoid many prostate biopsies, whilst missing very few csPCa cases. The Van Leeuwen model had the highest clinical utility, followed by the RPCRC. These multivariable MRI-RCs outperformed and should be favoured over decision strategies based only on MRI and PSAD.

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.

Research protocol to identify progression and death amongst patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treated with available treatments: PIONEER IMI's "big data for better outcomes" program.

Androgen deprivation therapy-based with or without first-generation anti-androgens, was the standard of care for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) for decades. However, the development of docetaxel chemotherapy and new androgen receptor-targeted agents, abiraterone acetate and prednisolone, apalutamide , enzalutamide and darolutamide (in combination with docetaxel chemotherapy) has proven that combination of treatments is more effective. Recently, intensification therapy, so-called "triplets", have emerged in the armamentarium of mHSPC treatment. Metastatic disease is a clinical state that remains poorly understood. The optimal diagnostic and management of patients with mHSPC are changing thanks to the development of new imaging techniques and therapies. The primary objective of this study is to develop and validate a predictive model for the occurrence of symptomatic progression, initiation of new treatments and death amongst patients with mHSPC treated with one of the approved treatment plans, on characteristics present at admission.

Lymphoceles after pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Background: Lymphoceles, lymph fluid-filled collections within the body lacking epithelial lining, are a common complication after pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). In this study, we investigate the incidence of imaging confirmed symptomatic lymphoceles (SLC) in a centralized high-volume operating centre and assess predictive factors and treatment. Methods: We retrospectively analysed the incidence, risk factors and treatment of a consecutive series of patients who underwent PLND during RARP between September 2018 and January 2021 in a specialised operation clinic. We compared baseline patients' characteristics and pathological data between men who developed an SLC and those who did not. A multivariable model for the occurrence of an SLC was created using predetermined, clinically relevant variables to investigate predictive factors. Results: We analysed the records of 404 patients. The median follow-up length was 29 months. A total of 30 (7.4%) patients with an SLC were identified. The median time until SLC presentation was 12 weeks [interquartile range (IQR), 4-31 weeks], one-third of SLCs presented after 180 days. Percutaneous drainage was performed in 17 patients (57%). On multivariable analysis, only body mass index (BMI) significantly increased the odds of an SLC [per 5 odds ratio (OR) =1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0-3.0, P=0.04]. Conclusions: SLCs present significant consequences, as more than half of patients with an SLC were treated with percutaneous drainage. Many patients presented later than the centralized surgeons' postoperative follow-up, a drawback of centralized care. An increased BMI was a significant predictor for SLC.

Navigating through the Controversies and Emerging Paradigms in Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Bridging the Gap from Classic RCTs to Modern Population-Based Pilot Programs.

Over the last three decades, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US-based Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening have steered the conversation around the early detection of prostate cancer. These two randomized trials assessed the effect of screening on prostate cancer disease-specific mortality. Elevated PSA levels were followed by a systematic sextant prostate biopsy. Standard repeat testing intervals were applied. After controversies from 2009 to 2016 due to contradicting results of the two trials, the results aligned in 2016 and showed that early PSA detection reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality. However, overdiagnosis rates of up to 50% were reported, and this sparked an intense debate on harms and benefits for almost 20 years. The balance between harms and benefits is highly debated and has initiated further research to investigate new ways of early detection. In the meantime, the knowledge and tools for the diagnostic algorithm improved. This is a continuously ongoing effort which focuses on individual risk-based screening algorithms that preserve the benefits of the purely PSA-based screening algorithms, while reducing the side effects. An important push towards investigating new techniques for early detection came from the European Commission on the 20th of September 2022. The European Commission published its updated recommendation to investigate prostate, lung, and gastric cancer early detection programs. This opened a new window of opportunity to move away from the trial setting to population-based early detection settings. With this review, we aim to review 30 years of historical evidence of prostate cancer screening, which led to the initiation of the 'The Prostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union' (PRAISE-U) project, which aims to encourage the early detection and diagnosis of PCa through customized and risk-based screening programs.

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.

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer in the European Union: Combining Forces with PRAISE-U.

The European Association of Urology, together with consortium partners, has launched PRAISE-U (Prostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union), a project involving 25 institutions across 12 countries that is funded under the EU4Health program. The aim is to reduce the morbidity and mortality of prostate cancer in EU member states via customized and risk-based screening programs.

The combined role of MRI prostate and prostate health index in improving detection of significant prostate cancer in a screening population of Chinese men.

Using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for prostate cancer (PCa) screening led to overinvestigation and overdiagnosis of indolent PCa. We aimed to investigate the value of prostate health index (PHI) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate in an Asian PCa screening program. Men aged 50-75 years were prospectively recruited from a community-based PSA screening program. Men with PSA 4.0-10.0 ng ml -1 had PHI result analyzed. MRI prostate was offered to men with PSA 4.0-50.0 ng ml -1 . A systematic prostate biopsy was offered to men with PSA 4.0-9.9 ng ml -1 and PHI ≥35, or PSA 10.0-50.0 ng ml -1 . Additional targeted prostate biopsy was offered if they had PI-RADS score ≥3. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) ≥2 or ISUP GG 1 with involvement of ≥30% of total systematic cores. In total, 12.8% (196/1536) men had PSA ≥4.0 ng ml -1 . Among 194 men with PSA 4.0-50.0 ng ml -1 , 187 (96.4%) received MRI prostate. Among them, 28.3% (53/187) had PI-RADS ≥3 lesions. Moreover, 7.0% (107/1536) men were indicated for biopsy and 94.4% (101/107) men received biopsy. Among the men received biopsy, PCa, ISUP GG ≥2 PCa, and csPCa was diagnosed in 42 (41.6%), 24 (23.8%), and 34 (33.7%) men, respectively. Compared with PSA/PHI pathway in men with PSA 4.0-50.0 ng ml -1 , additional MRI increased diagnoses of PCa, ISUP GG ≥2 PCa, and csPCa by 21.2% (from 33 to 40), 22.2% (from 18 to 22), and 18.5% (from 27 to 32), respectively. The benefit of additional MRI was only observed in PSA 4.0-10.0 ng ml -1 , and the number of MRI needed to diagnose one additional ISUP GG ≥2 PCa was 20 in PHI ≥35 and 94 in PHI <35. Among them, 45.4% (89/196) men with PSA ≥4.0 ng ml -1 avoided unnecessary biopsy with the use of PHI and MRI. A screening algorithm with PSA, PHI, and MRI could effectively diagnose csPCa while reducing unnecessary biopsies. The benefit of MRI prostate was mainly observed in PSA 4.0-9.9 ng ml -1 and PHI ≥35 group. PHI was an important risk stratification step for PCa screening.

How to follow the new EU Council recommendation and improve prostate cancer early detection: the Prostaforum 2022 declaration.

An updated Council of the EU recommendation on cancer screening was adopted in December 2022 during the Czech EU presidency. The recommendation included prostate cancer as a suitable target disease for organised screening, and invited countries to proceed with piloting and further research. To support further discussions and actions to promote early detection of prostate cancer, an international conference in November 2022 (Prostaforum 2022) resulted in a joint declaration. Here we describe the EU policy background, summarise the preparation of the declaration and the key underlying evidence and expert recommendations, and report the text of the declaration. The declaration summarises the striking inequalities in prostate cancer burden in Europe and calls on all stakeholders to consider and support concrete steps for advancement of organised early detection of prostate cancer. Our aim is to request endorsement of the text and potential initiation of practical actions by all stakeholders to support the aims of the declaration. Patient summary: Prostate cancer is among the most frequent cancers and is one of the most common causes of cancer death among men. The European Union has recommended new pilot programmes for prostate cancer screening. The Prostaforum 2022 declaration invites all stakeholders to support this new recommendation with specific steps.

The Europa Uomo Patient Reported Outcome Study 2.0-Prostate Cancer Patient-reported Outcomes to Support Treatment Decision-making.

BACKGROUND: To further strengthen the voice of patients, Europa Uomo initiated the Europa Uomo Patient Reported Outcome Study 2.0 (EUPROMS 2.0) in October 2021. OBJECTIVE: To collect the self-reported perspective of prostate cancer (PCa) patients on physical and mental well-being after PCa treatment outside a clinical trial setting to inform future fellow patients about the impact of PCa treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Europa Uomo invited PCa patients to complete a cross-sectional survey including the validated EQ-5D-5L, EORTC-QLQ-C30, and the EPIC-26 questionnaires. Furthermore, the nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and diagnostic clinical scenarios were included. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics was used to assess the demographic and clinical characteristics and to analyze the patient-reported outcome data. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Between October 25, 2021 and January 17, 2022, 3571 men from 30 countries completed the EUPROMS 2.0 survey. The median age of respondents was 70 yr (interquartile range 65-75 yr). Half of the respondents underwent one treatment, most often radical prostatectomy. Men who are treated actively experience lower health-related quality of life than men on active surveillance, mainly regarding sexual function, fatigue, and insomnia. Lower urinary incontinence levels were seen for men who underwent radical prostatectomy (single treatment or in combination with other treatments). Of the respondents, 42% indicated that the determination of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value was part of a routine blood test; 25% wanted to undergo screening/early detection for PCa, and 20% indicated that the determination of the PSA value had a clinical reason. CONCLUSIONS: A large sample of 3571 international patients has contributed patient experience after PCa treatment in the EUPROMS 2.0 study, confirming that treatment for PCa mainly affects urinary incontinence, sexual function, fatigue, and insomnia. Such information can be used to direct toward a better patient-doctor relationship, to offer patients ready access to responsible information and a better understanding of their disease and treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY: Through the EUPROMS 2.0 survey, Europa Uomo has strengthened the voice of the patient. Such information can be used to inform future prostate cancer (PCa) patients about the impact of PCa treatment and to engage them in informed and shared decision-making.