Comparison of ciprofloxacin versus fosfomycin versus fosfomycin plus trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for preventing infections after transrectal prostate biopsy.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate antibiotic prophylaxis in transrectal prostate biopsies due to the recommendation of the European Medicines Agency (EMA): We describe our single center experience switching from ciprofloxacin to fosfomycin trometamol (FMT) alone and to an augmented prophylaxis combining fosfomycin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX). METHODS: Between 01/2019 and 12/2020 we compared three different regimes. The primary endpoint was the clinical diagnosis of an infection within 4 weeks after biopsy. We enrolled 822 men, 398 (48%) of whom received ciprofloxacin (group-C), 136 (16.5%) received FMT (group-F) and 288 (35%) received the combination of TMP/SMX and FMT (group-BF). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. In total 37/398 (5%) postinterventional infections were detected, of which 13/398 (3%) vs 18/136 (13.2%) vs 6/288 (2.1%) were detected in group-C, group-F and group-BF respectively. The relative risk of infectious complication was 1.3 (CI 0.7-2.6) for group-C vs. group-BF and 2.8 (CI 1.4-5.7) for group-F vs. group-BF respectively. CONCLUSION: The replacement of ciprofloxacin by fosfomycin alone resulted in a significant increase of postinterventional infections, while the combination of FMT and TMP/SMX had a comparable infection rate to FQ without apparent adverse events. Therefore, this combined regimen of FMT and TMP/SMX is recommended.

Variation across operating sites in urinary and sexual outcomes after radical prostatectomy in localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The extent of variation in urinary and sexual functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RPE) between prostate cancer (PC) operating sites remains unknown. Therefore, this analysis aims to compare casemix-adjusted functional outcomes (EPIC-26 scores incontinence, irritative/obstructive function and sexual function) between operating sites 12 months after RPE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of a cohort of 7065 men treated with RPE at 88 operating sites (prostate cancer centers, "PCCs") between 2016 and 2019. Patients completed EPIC-26 and sociodemographic information surveys at baseline and 12 months after RPE. Survey data were linked to clinical data. EPIC-26 domain scores at 12 months after RPE were adjusted for relevant confounders (including baseline domain score, clinical and sociodemographic information) using regression analysis. Differences between sites were described using minimal important differences (MIDs) and interquartile ranges (IQR). The effects of casemix adjustment on the score results were described using Cohen's d and MIDs. RESULTS: Adjusted domain scores at 12 months varied between sites, with IQRs of 66-78 (incontinence), 89-92 (irritative/obstructive function), and 20-29 (sexual function). Changes in domain scores after casemix adjustment for sites ≥ 1 MID were noted for the incontinence domain (six sites). Cohen's d ranged between - 0.07 (incontinence) and - 0.2 (sexual function), indicating a small to medium effect of casemix adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Variation between sites was greatest in the incontinence and sexual function domains for RPE patients. Future research will need to identify the factors contributing to this variation. TRIAL REGISTRY: The study is registered at the German Clinical Trial Registry ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/ ) with the following ID: DRKS00010774.

Indication for Active Surveillance in the Era of MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsies.

INTRODUCTION: Active surveillance (AS) strategies were established to avoid overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Low tumor volume represents one indication criteria; however, applying this criterion after MRI-targeted prostate biopsies may lead to overestimation of tumor volume; wherefore, patients suitable for AS would be exposed to the risk of overtreatment. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 318 patients in which PCa was detected by MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy. Classic and extended indication for AS included Gleason 6 and Gleason 3 + 4 cancer, respectively. We assessed the effect of targeted biopsies and temporary rating strategies on eligibility for AS and developed new "composite" algorithms to more accurately assess eligibility for AS. RESULTS: Forty-four (13.8%) and 60 (18.9%) of the 318 patients qualified for AS according to "classic" and "extended" criteria, respectively. Application of the "composite 1" definition led to AS eligibility of 52 of 248 patients (20.97%) in the classic and of 77 of 248 patients (31.05%) in the "extended" group. CONCLUSIONS: We could demonstrate that classic algorithms led to ineligibility of patients for AS. We propose a new rating algorithm to improve tumor assessment for a more accurate indication for AS.

Efficacy, safety, and perioperative outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate-a comparison of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and urinary retention.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a valid treatment option to relieve bladder outlet obstruction in patients with large prostate volumes (PV). Its efficacy, tolerability, and safety are comparable to the ones of other laser treatments of the prostate and resection techniques. However, safety and efficacy of HoLEP have not been compared between patients with and without preoperative urinary retention. We included 350 patients (mean age 71.2 years) who had undergone HoLEP due to lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or urinary retention caused by prostatic hyperplasia. We evaluated the differences in peri- and postoperative outcomes and complications between patients with and patients without preoperative urinary retention. The mean PV was 115 cm3. PV was > 100 cm3 in 61.9% and < 100 cm3 in 38.1% of the patients. Perioperative complications occurred in 23 patients (6.6%), 15 of which (4.3%) required operative revision. We found no significant differences in terms of complication rates between patients with PV > 100 cm3 and patients with PV < 100 cm3. Mean catheterization-duration was 3.3 days. Preoperatively, 140 patients (40%) had a suprapubic or transurethral indwelling catheter; they did not differ from patients without preoperative catheter regarding postoperative catheter removal success rate, early postoperative complications, and functional outcomes. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 43 patients (12.3%). Median postoperative PSA-decline was 6.1 ug/l (89.8% drop). HoLEP is a safe and effective treatment for patients with LUTS or urinary retention and large PV. PV > 100 cm3 was not associated with higher complication rates or successful catheter-removal. Furthermore, functional outcomes were independent of preoperative catheterization.

Influence of regular aspirin intake on PSA values, prostate cancer incidence and overall survival in a prospective screening trial (ERSPC Aarau).

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the influence of aspirin (ASA) intake on PSA values and prostate cancer (PCa) development in a prospective screening study cohort. METHODS: 4314 men from the Swiss section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) were included. A transrectal prostate biopsy was performed in men with a PSA level ≥ 3 ng/ml. Mortality data were obtained through registry linkages. PCa incidence and grade, total PSA, free-to-total PSA and overall survival were compared between ASA users and non-users. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 9.6 years. In 789 men (18.3%) using aspirin [ASA +], the overall PCa incidence was significantly lower (6.8% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.015), but the multivariate Cox regression analysis showed no significant decrease in risk of PCa diagnosis (HR 0.84, p = 0.297). Total PSA values were significantly lower in ASA users for both baseline (1.6 vs. 1.8 ng/ml, p = 0.007) and follow-up visits (1.75 vs. 2.1 ng/ml, p < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis predicted significantly higher overall mortality risk among ASA users (HR 1.46, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In our study population, PCa incidence was significantly reduced among patients on aspirin. While we did not observe a statistically significant PCa risk reduction during the follow-up period, we found lower PSA values among ASA users compared to non-users, with a more distinct difference after 4 years of ASA intake, suggesting a cumulative effect and a potential protective association between regular ASA intake and PCa development. As for clinical practice, lowering PSA cutoff values by 0.4 ng/ml could be considered in long-term ASA users to avoid a potential bias towards delayed PCa detection.

The efficacy of prostate-specific antigen screening: Impact of key components in the ERSPC and PLCO trials.

BACKGROUND: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91). The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial indicated no such reduction but had a wide 95% CI (rate ratio for prostate cancer mortality, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.87-1.36). Standard meta-analyses are unable to account for key differences between the trials that can impact the estimated effects of screening and the trials' point estimates. METHODS: The authors calibrated 2 microsimulation models to individual-level incidence and mortality data from 238,936 men participating in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. A cure parameter for the underlying efficacy of screening was estimated by the models separately for each trial. The authors changed step-by-step major known differences in trial settings, including enrollment and attendance patterns, screening intervals, PSA thresholds, biopsy receipt, control arm contamination, and primary treatment, to reflect a more ideal protocol situation and differences between the trials. RESULTS: Using the cure parameter estimated for the ERSPC, the models projected 19% to 21% and 6% to 8%, respectively, prostate cancer mortality reductions in the ERSPC and PLCO settings. Using this cure parameter, the models projected a reduction of 37% to 43% under annual screening with 100% attendance and biopsy compliance and no contamination. The cure parameter estimated for the PLCO trial was 0. CONCLUSIONS: The observed cancer mortality reduction in screening trials appears to be highly sensitive to trial protocol and practice settings. Accounting for these differences, the efficacy of PSA screening in the PLCO setting is not necessarily inconsistent with ERSPC results. Cancer 2018;124:1197-206. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Reconciling the Effects of Screening on Prostate Cancer Mortality in the ERSPC and PLCO Trials.

BACKGROUND: The ERSPC (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer) found that screening reduced prostate cancer mortality, but the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial) found no reduction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether effects of screening on prostate cancer mortality relative to no screening differed between the ERSPC and PLCO. DESIGN: Cox regression of prostate cancer death in each trial group, adjusted for age and trial. Extended analyses accounted for increased incidence due to screening and diagnostic work-up in each group via mean lead times (MLTs), which were estimated empirically and using analytic or microsimulation models. SETTING: Randomized controlled trials in Europe and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 55 to 69 (ERSPC) or 55 to 74 (PLCO) years at randomization. INTERVENTION: Prostate cancer screening. MEASUREMENTS: Prostate cancer incidence and survival from randomization; prostate cancer incidence in the United States before screening began. RESULTS: Estimated MLTs were similar in the ERSPC and PLCO intervention groups but were longer in the PLCO control group than the ERSPC control group. Extended analyses found no evidence that effects of screening differed between trials (P = 0.37 to 0.47 [range across MLT estimation approaches]) but strong evidence that benefit increased with MLT (P = 0.0027 to 0.0032). Screening was estimated to confer a 7% to 9% reduction in the risk for prostate cancer death per year of MLT. This translated into estimates of 25% to 31% and 27% to 32% lower risk for prostate cancer death with screening as performed in the ERSPC and PLCO intervention groups, respectively, compared with no screening. LIMITATION: The MLT is a simple metric of screening and diagnostic work-up. CONCLUSION: After differences in implementation and settings are accounted for, the ERSPC and PLCO provide compatible evidence that screening reduces prostate cancer mortality. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Impact of cause of death adjudication on the results of the European prostate cancer screening trial.

BACKGROUND: The European Randomised Study of Prostate Cancer Screening has shown a 21% relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality at 13 years. The causes of death can be misattributed, particularly in elderly men with multiple comorbidities, and therefore accurate assessment of the underlying cause of death is crucial for valid results. To address potential unreliability of end-point assessment, and its possible impact on mortality results, we analysed the study outcome adjudication data in six countries. METHODS: Latent class statistical models were formulated to compare the accuracy of individual adjudicators, and to assess whether accuracy differed between the trial arms. We used the model to assess whether correcting for adjudication inaccuracies might modify the study results. RESULTS: There was some heterogeneity in adjudication accuracy of causes of death, but no consistent differential accuracy by trial arm. Correcting the estimated screening effect for misclassification did not alter the estimated mortality effect of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings were consistent with earlier reports on the European screening trial. Observer variation, while demonstrably present, is unlikely to have materially biased the main study results. A bias in assigning causes of death that might have explained the mortality reduction by screening can be effectively ruled out.

Estimating the harms and benefits of prostate cancer screening as used in common practice versus recommended good practice: A microsimulation screening analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and concomitant treatment can be implemented in several ways. The authors investigated how the net benefit of PSA screening varies between common practice versus "good practice." METHODS: Microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) was used to evaluate the effect on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) if 4 recommendations were followed: limited screening in older men, selective biopsy in men with elevated PSA, active surveillance for low-risk tumors, and treatment preferentially delivered at high-volume centers. Outcomes were compared with a base model in which annual screening started at ages 55 to 69 years and were simulated using data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. RESULTS: In terms of QALYs gained compared with no screening, for 1000 screened men who were followed over their lifetime, recommended good practice led to 73 life-years (LYs) and 74 QALYs gained compared with 73 LYs and 56 QALYs for the base model. In contrast, common practice led to 78 LYs gained but only 19 QALYs gained, for a greater than 75% relative reduction in QALYs gained from unadjusted LYs gained. The poor outcomes for common practice were influenced predominantly by the use of aggressive treatment for men with low-risk disease, and PSA testing in older men also strongly reduced potential QALY gains. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used PSA screening and treatment practices are associated with little net benefit. Following a few straightforward clinical recommendations, particularly greater use of active surveillance for low-risk disease and reducing screening in older men, would lead to an almost 4-fold increase in the net benefit of prostate cancer screening. Cancer 2016;122:3386-3393. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Limitations of Elastography Based Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: The role of elastography in patients initially and at repeat prostate biopsy is still indeterminate. The existing literature is sparse and controversial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied patients who underwent elastography based and systematic biopsy between October 2009 and February 2015 at Braunschweig Prostate Cancer Center. Patients were separated according to first vs repeat biopsy setting. Each prostate sextant was considered an individual case. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of elastography to predict biopsy results were analyzed. The 95% CIs were determined by bootstrapping analysis of 2,000 samples. RESULTS: Overall 679 men and a total of 4,074 sextants were identified. Of the 679 men 160 (23.6%) underwent first biopsy and 519 (76.4%) underwent repeat biopsy. In the 160 men at first biopsy sensitivity was 18.0% (95% CI 14.5-21.3), specificity was 87.7% (95% CI 85.3-89.9), positive predictive value was 36.6% (95% CI 28.4-45.4), negative predictive value was 73.0% (95% CI 67.5-77.9) and accuracy was 67.9% (95% CI 63.4-72.2). Results in 519 men (76.4%) at repeat biopsy were 19.8% (95% CI 16.0-23.7), 90.9% (95% CI 89.9-91.9), 20.1% (95% CI 15.8-24.8), 90.7% (95% CI 89.0-92.3) and 83.5% (95% CI 81.6-85.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found limited reliability of elastography prediction at prostate biopsy in patients at first and repeat biopsies. Based on our analyses we cannot recommend a variation of well established systematic biopsy patterns or a decrease in biopsy cores based on elastography.

A positive family history as a risk factor for prostate cancer in a population-based study with organised prostate-specific antigen screening: results of the Swiss European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC, Aarau).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of a positive family history (FH) as a risk factor for prostate cancer incidence and grade among men undergoing organised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in a population-based study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study cohort comprised all attendees of the Swiss arm of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) with systematic PSA level tests every 4 years. Men reporting first-degree relative(s) diagnosed with prostate cancer were considered to have a positive FH. Biopsy was exclusively PSA triggered at a PSA level threshold of 3 ng/mL. The primary endpoint was prostate cancer diagnosis. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used. RESULTS: Of 4 932 attendees with a median (interquartile range, IQR) age of 60.9 (57.6-65.1) years, 334 (6.8%) reported a positive FH. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 11.6 (10.3-13.3) years. Cumulative prostate cancer incidence was 60/334 (18%, positive FH) and 550/4 598 (12%, negative FH) [odds ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-2.2, P = 0.001). In both groups, most prostate cancer diagnosed was low grade. There were no significant differences in PSA level at diagnosis, biopsy Gleason score or Gleason score on pathological specimen among men who underwent radical prostatectomy between both groups. On multivariable analysis, age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), baseline PSA level (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.12-1.14), and FH (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.24-2.14) were independent predictors for overall prostate cancer incidence (all P < 0.001). Only baseline PSA level (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.12-1.16, P < 0.001) was an independent predictor of Gleason score ≥7 prostate cancer on prostate biopsy. The proportion of interval prostate cancer diagnosed in-between the screening rounds was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of the FH status, the current PSA-based screening setting detects the majority of aggressive prostate cancers and missed only a minority of interval cancers with a 4-year screening algorithm. Our results suggest that men with a positive FH are at increased risk of low-grade but not aggressive prostate cancer.

Is further screening of men with baseline PSA < 1 ng ml(-1) worthwhile? The discussion continues-Results of the Swiss ERSPC (Aarau).

Recent studies indicate frequent early PSA retesting unrelated of men's baseline PSA, which increases the harms of early detection especially among men with low PSA. The current study investigates the PCa incidence among men with baseline PSA <1.0 ng ml(-1) in order to adjust retest intervals for more targeted early detection. Between 1998 and 2012, 2,416 men with baseline PSA <1.0 ng ml(-1) were prospectively observed. Primary endpoint was PCa diagnosis. Negative predictive value (NPV) and number needed to screen (NNS) to detect one PCa were calculated. During a median follow-up time of 12.1 years, 54 (2.2%) PCa were diagnosed with n = 26 (48.1%) among men with baseline PSA of 0.75 ≤ 1.0 ng ml(-1) (upper baseline PSA quartile). The 10-year probability of being diagnosed with PCa increased significantly from 0.19% (baseline PSA < 0.40 ng ml(-1) ) to 2.0% (baseline PSA 0.40 ≤ 0.56 ng ml(-1) ), 2.5% (baseline PSA 0.56 ≤ 0.75 ng ml(-1) ) over 4.4% (baseline PSA 0.75 ≤ 1.0 ng ml(-1) ) (all p values <0.0001), respectively. The frequency of Gleason ≥7 PCa increased from 1 (0.17%) to 8 (1.4%), 5 (0.8) over 11 (1.8%) in these groups. The 8-year NPV for Gleason ≥ 7 PCa were 99.8 (baseline PSA < 0.40 ng ml(-1) ), 99.8 (baseline PSA 0.40 ≤ 0.56 ng ml(-1) ), 100 (baseline PSA 0.56 ≤ 0.75 ng ml(-1) ) and 99.5 (baseline PSA 0.75 ≤ 1.0 ng ml(-1) ), respectively. During 12 years, the numbers were 99.8, 98.6, 99.2, and 98.2, respectively. Therefore, due to the very low rate of Gleason ≥ 7 PCa, further screening might be omitted in men with baseline PSA < 0.4 ng ml(-1) . Between 0.4 and 1.0 ng ml(-1) , an 8-year interval can be discussed.

Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) has shown significant reductions in prostate cancer mortality after 9 years and 11 years of follow-up, but screening is controversial because of adverse events such as overdiagnosis. We provide updated results of mortality from prostate cancer with follow-up to 2010, with analyses truncated at 9, 11, and 13 years. METHODS: ERSPC is a multicentre, randomised trial with a predefined centralised database, analysis plan, and core age group (55-69 years), which assesses prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in eight European countries. Eligible men aged 50-74 years were identified from population registries and randomly assigned by computer generated random numbers to screening or no intervention (control). Investigators were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was prostate cancer mortality in the core age group. Analysis was by intention to treat. We did a secondary analysis that corrected for selection bias due to non-participation. Only incidence and no mortality data at 9 years' follow-up are reported for the French centres. This study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN49127736. FINDINGS: With data truncated at 13 years of follow-up, 7408 prostate cancer cases were diagnosed in the intervention group and 6107 cases in the control group. The rate ratio of prostate cancer incidence between the intervention and control groups was 1·91 (95% CI 1·83-1·99) after 9 years (1·64 [1·58-1·69] including France), 1·66 (1·60-1·73) after 11 years, and 1·57 (1·51-1·62) after 13 years. The rate ratio of prostate cancer mortality was 0·85 (0·70-1·03) after 9 years, 0·78 (0·66-0·91) after 11 years, and 0·79 (0·69-0·91) at 13 years. The absolute risk reduction of death from prostate cancer at 13 years was 0·11 per 1000 person-years or 1·28 per 1000 men randomised, which is equivalent to one prostate cancer death averted per 781 (95% CI 490-1929) men invited for screening or one per 27 (17-66) additional prostate cancer detected. After adjustment for non-participation, the rate ratio of prostate cancer mortality in men screened was 0·73 (95% CI 0·61-0·88). INTERPRETATION: In this update the ERSPC confirms a substantial reduction in prostate cancer mortality attributable to testing of PSA, with a substantially increased absolute effect at 13 years compared with findings after 9 and 11 years. Despite our findings, further quantification of harms and their reduction are still considered a prerequisite for the introduction of populated-based screening. FUNDING: Each centre had its own funding responsibility.

Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Several trials evaluating the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing on prostate-cancer mortality have shown conflicting results. We updated prostate-cancer mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer with 2 additional years of follow-up. METHODS: The study involved 182,160 men between the ages of 50 and 74 years at entry, with a predefined core age group of 162,388 men 55 to 69 years of age. The trial was conducted in eight European countries. Men who were randomly assigned to the screening group were offered PSA-based screening, whereas those in the control group were not offered such screening. The primary outcome was mortality from prostate cancer. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 11 years in the core age group, the relative reduction in the risk of death from prostate cancer in the screening group was 21% (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.91; P=0.001), and 29% after adjustment for noncompliance. The absolute reduction in mortality in the screening group was 0.10 deaths per 1000 person-years or 1.07 deaths per 1000 men who underwent randomization. The rate ratio for death from prostate cancer during follow-up years 10 and 11 was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.85; P=0.003). To prevent one death from prostate cancer at 11 years of follow-up, 1055 men would need to be invited for screening and 37 cancers would need to be detected. There was no significant between-group difference in all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses after 2 additional years of follow-up consolidated our previous finding that PSA-based screening significantly reduced mortality from prostate cancer but did not affect all-cause mortality. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN49127736.).

Quality-of-life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening.

BACKGROUND: After 11 years of follow-up, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) reported a 29% reduction in prostate-cancer mortality among men who underwent screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. However, the extent to which harms to quality of life resulting from overdiagnosis and treatment counterbalance this benefit is uncertain. METHODS: On the basis of ERSPC follow-up data, we used Microsimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN) to predict the number of prostate cancers, treatments, deaths, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained after the introduction of PSA screening. Various screening strategies, efficacies, and quality-of-life assumptions were modeled. RESULTS: Per 1000 men of all ages who were followed for their entire life span, we predicted that annual screening of men between the ages of 55 and 69 years would result in nine fewer deaths from prostate cancer (28% reduction), 14 fewer men receiving palliative therapy (35% reduction), and a total of 73 life-years gained (average, 8.4 years per prostate-cancer death avoided). The number of QALYs that were gained was 56 (range, -21 to 97), a reduction of 23% from unadjusted life-years gained. To prevent one prostate-cancer death, 98 men would need to be screened and 5 cancers would need to be detected. Screening of all men between the ages of 55 and 74 would result in more life-years gained (82) but the same number of QALYs (56). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of PSA screening was diminished by loss of QALYs owing to postdiagnosis long-term effects. Longer follow-up data from both the ERSPC and quality-of-life analyses are essential before universal recommendations regarding screening can be made. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others.).

Influence of metformin use on PSA values, free-to-total PSA, prostate cancer incidence and grade and overall survival in a prospective screening trial (ERSPC Aarau).

PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of the oral antidiabetic drug metformin on PSA level, free-to-total PSA ratio (f/t-ratio), PCa incidence and grade as well as mortality in men participating in a population-based screening trial. METHODS: Data from 4,314 men aged 55-70 years from a population-based PSA-screening trial (ERSPC Aarau) were analyzed. Information on metformin exposure was obtained by a self-administered questionnaire. Serum PSA threshold at ≥3 ng/ml triggered prostate biopsy. Data on PCa incidence and mortality were obtained through registry linkages. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 7.6 years. Mean age at baseline was 65.5 years (±SD 4.4). In all, n = 150 (3.5 %) men used metformin [metf+]. Mean baseline PSA levels were comparable between both groups ([metf+] 1.6 ng/ml ± 2.4 vs. [metf-] 1.8ug/l ± 2.2, p = 0.4) while f/t-ratio was slightly higher in metformin users ([metf+] 30.7 % ± 10.9 vs. [metf-] 27.3 % ± 10.9, p = 0.01). Overall, n = 372 (8.6 %) PCa cases were detected. Neither cumulative PCa incidence (n = 11; 7.3 % [metf+] vs. n = 361 8.7 % [metf-]; p = 0.5) nor d`Amico risk groups were significantly different between both groups. One man in each group (metf+ 0.7 % and metf- 0.02 %) died from PCa (p < 0.0001), respectively. All-cause mortality was significantly higher among met + compared to met- (adjusted OR 2.50, 95 %CI 1.59-3.82; p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: No significant differences in PSA levels or PCa incidence and grade were observed. The slightly higher f/t-ratio did not result in lower PCa detection rate. Metformin users were at significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality. The relatively small number of men on metformin is a main limitation of the study.

Differences among men on active surveillance for very low-risk prostate cancer detected through population-based versus opportunistic prostate-specific antigen-screening.

INTRODUCTION: Very low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is being increasingly managed by active surveillance (AS). Our aim was to assess the influence of the origin of diagnosis on PCa characteristics and treatment rates among men with very low-risk PCa in our prospective AS cohort. METHODS: Overall, 191 men with very low-risk PCa fulfilling Epstein-criteria underwent protocol-based AS. These men originated either from the prospective population-based screening program (P-AS) or were diagnosed by opportunistic screening (O-AS). RESULTS: Overall, n = 86 (45.0%) originated from the P-AS group, whereas n = 105 (55.0%) from the O-AS group. On univariate Cox regression analysis, age (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-1.00; p = 0.05), origin of diagnosis (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41-1.28; p = 0.001), number of positive cores (HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.18-3.90; p = 0.01) and maximum core involvement (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99-1.05; p = 0.05) were predictors for treatment necessity. On multivariate analysis, age (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-0.99; p = 0.05), number of positive cores (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.10-3.88; p = 0.02), maximum core involvement (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.06; p = 0.04) but not origin of diagnosis were independent predictors for treatment necessity. Four men developed biochemical recurrence (all from O-AS group [p = 0.05]). CONCLUSION: The origin of PCa diagnosis in men undergoing AS had no influence on disease progression and treatment necessity.

A comparative assessment of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer in the community versus tertiary care referral center.

OBJECTIVES: To date, evidence on active surveillance (AS) is restricted to protocol-based studies. Conversely, practice patterns outside of such protocols are unknown. The aim of this study was to capture the current AS treatment patterns for localized prostate cancer in patients managed by office-based urologists compared to patients treated at a tertiary care center. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two prospective cohorts were investigated: 361 AS arm patients of the German Hormonal treatment, Active surveillance, Radiation therapy, OP, Watchful waiting (HAROW) study, an observational health service study and 387 protocol-based AS patients treated at the Department of Urology of the Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland were included. Observational non-protocol HAROW versus on-protocol Kantonsspital Aarau (KSA) was compared, and active-treatment-free survival represented the primary outcome. RESULTS: Study population of the observational HAROW versus tertiary care protocol-based KSA cohorts differed statistically significantly regarding age (p < 0.001) and proportion of patients meeting the Chism criteria (p < 0.001). In stratified analyses, AFTS at 1 and 2 years was, respectively, 87.7 % (95 % CI 84.0-91.7) and 75.0 % (95 % CI 69.7-80.8) in HAROW patients compared to 90.8 % (95 % CI 87.8-93.9) and 75.3 % (95 % CI 70.7-80.1) for patients in the KSA cohort (p = 0.97). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate significant differences in terms of AS inclusion, surveillance and discontinuation criteria between patients managed by office-based urologists compared to their tertiary care counterparts. Interestingly, the risk of deferred active therapy was equally moderate for both groups in the short-term follow-up.

Overexpression of cyclin F/CCNF as an independent prognostic factor for poor survival in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Cyclin F (encoded by CCNF gene) has been reported to be implicated in the pathobiology of several human cancers. However, its potential clinical significance in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) remains unknown. The present study aimed to evaluate the potential significance of cyclin F, assessed by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining and molecular (bioinformatics) techniques, as a prognostic marker in ccRCC in relation to clinicopathological features and outcomes. IHC staining was performed using two independent ccRCC tissue array cohorts, herein called tissue macroarray (TMA)_1 and tissue microarray (TMA)_2, composed of 108 ccRCCs and 37 histologically normal tissues adjacent to the tumor (NAT) and 192 ccRCCs and 16 normal kidney samples, respectively. The mRNA expression data were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) public datasets, followed by bioinformatics analysis of biological mechanisms underlying prognosis. The relationship between immune cell infiltration level and CCNF expression in ccRCC was investigated using the Tumor Immune Estimation Resource 2.0 (TIMER2) and Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis 2 (GEPIA2). Cyclin F expression was significantly elevated in ccRCC lesions compared to both NAT and normal renal tissues. Likewise, CCNF mRNA was markedly increased in ccRCCs relative to non-cancerous tissues. In all analyzed cohorts, tumors with features of more aggressive behavior were more likely to display cyclin F/CCNF-high expression than low. Furthermore, patients with high cyclin F/CCNF expression had shorter overall survival (OS) times than those with low expression. In addition, multivariable analysis revealed that cyclin F/CCNF-high expression was an independent prognostic factor for poor OS in ccRCC. Enrichment analysis for mechanistically relevant processes showed that CCNF and its highly correlated genes initiate the signaling pathways that eventually result in uncontrolled cell proliferation. CCNF expression was also correlated with immune cell infiltration and caused poor outcomes depending on the abundance of tumor-infiltrating immune cells in ccRCC. Our findings suggest that cyclin F/CCNF expression is likely to have an essential role in ccRCC pathobiology through regulating multiple oncogenic signaling pathways and affecting the tumor immune microenvironment and may serve as prognostic biomarker and promising therapeutic target in ccRCC.

Prostate cancer screening in Switzerland: a literature review and consensus statement from the Swiss Society of Urology.

Over a decade ago, the United States Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer in all men, which considerably influenced prostate cancer screening policies worldwide after that. Consequently, the world has seen increasing numbers of advanced stages and prostate cancer deaths, which later led the USPSTF to withdraw its initial statement. Meanwhile, the European Union has elaborated a directive to address the problem of implementing prostate cancer screening in "Europe's Beating Cancer Plan". In Switzerland, concerned urologists formed an open Swiss Prostate Cancer Screening Group to improve the early detection of prostate cancer. On the 20th of September 2023, during the annual general assembly of the Swiss Society of Urology (SGU/SSU) in Lausanne, members positively voted for a stepwise approach to evaluate the feasibility of implementing organised prostate cancer screening programs in Switzerland. The following article will summarise the events and scientific advances in the last decade during which evidence and promising additional modalities to complement PSA-based prostate cancer screening have emerged. It also aims to provide an overview of contemporary strategies and their potential harms and benefits.