Tailoring biopsy strategy in the MRI-fusion prostate biopsy era: systematic, targeted or neither?

BACKGROUND: Magnetic  resonance imaging (MRI) followed by targeted biopsy (TBx) is utilized for prostate cancer (PCa) detection. However, the value of adding systematic biopsies (SBx) to targeted biopsy procedures (combined biopsy; CBx) in men with suspicious MRI findings has not been determined. METHODS: We analysed biopsy outcomes in 429 men with MRI lesions in the prospective multicenter STHLM3MRI pilot study, planned for prostate biopsy. Participants underwent 1.5T biparametric MRI without contrast enhancement, reported according to the PI-RADS v2, and with TBx plus SBx if the MRI lesion score was ≥ 3. The endpoints were clinically nonsignificant (nsPCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa), defined as ISUP grade groups 1 and ≥ 2, respectively. RESULTS: The median age was 65 years (59-70), and the median PSA 6.0 ng/ml (4.1-9.0). The detection rates of csPCa when using TBx or SBx combined were 18%, 46%, and 85% in men with PIRADS scores of 3 (n = 195), 4 (n = 121), and 5 (n = 113), respectively. This combined strategy detected csPCa in more men than TBx alone (43.6% vs 39.2%, p < 0.02), with similar detection of nsPCa (19.3% vs 17.7%, p = 0.2). In men with equivocal lesions (PI-RADS 3), the detection rates for csPCa were similar for the combined strategy and for TBx alone (17.9% and 15.4%, p = 0.06). However, there was an increase in the detection of nsPCa when using the combined strategy (21.0% vs 15.4%, p < 0.02). Men with equivocal lesions and a PSA density < 0.1 ng/ml2 or a Stockholm 3 test < 0.11 had a low risk of harboring csPCa. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementing targeted with systematic biopsies enhances clinically significant cancer detection. However, in men with equivocal lesions, this combination has potential for detecting nonsignificant disease. A subgroup of men with equivocal MRI findings may be identified as having a low risk for significant cancer and spared unnecessary biopsies.

Prognosis of Gleason score 8 prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies: a nationwide population-based study.

A 5-tier grouping of Gleason scores has recently been proposed. Studies have indicated prognostic heterogeneity within these groups. We assessed prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) for men diagnosed with Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8, 4 + 4 = 8 and 5 + 3 = 8 acinar adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy in a population-based national cohort. The Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 5.0 was used for survival analysis with PCSM and ACM at 5 and 10 years as endpoints. Multivariable Cox regression models controlling for socioeconomic factors, stage and primary treatment type were used for PCSM and ACM. Among 199,620 men reported with prostate cancer in 2000-2020, 172,112 were diagnosed on needle biopsy. In 18,281 (11%), there was a Gleason score of 8 in needle biopsies, including a Gleason score of 3 + 5, 4 + 4 and 5 + 3 in 11%, 86% and 2.3%, respectively. The primary treatment was androgen deprivation therapy (55%), deferred treatment (8%), radical prostatectomy (16%) or radical radiotherapy (21%). PCSM in men with Gleason scores of 3 + 5, 4 + 4 and 5 + 3 at 5 years of follow-up was 0.10 (95% CI 0.09-0.12), 0.22 (0.22-0.23) and 0.32 (0.27-0.36), respectively, and at 10 years 0.19 (0.17-0.22), 0.34 (0.33-0.35) and 0.44 (0.39-0.49), respectively. There was a significantly higher PCSM after 5 and 10 years in men with Gleason score 5 + 3 cancers than in those with 4 + 4 and in Gleason score 4 + 4 cancers than in those with 3 + 5. Grouping of Gleason scores will eliminate the prognostic granularity of Gleason scoring, thus diminishing the prognostic significance of this proposed grading system.

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.

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.

AI-based selection of individuals for supplemental MRI in population-based breast cancer screening: the randomized ScreenTrustMRI trial.

Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, but studies analyzing interval cancers diagnosed after negative screens have shown that many cancers are missed. Supplemental screening using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can reduce the number of missed cancers. However, as qualified MRI staff are lacking, the equipment is expensive to purchase and cost-effectiveness for screening may not be convincing, the utilization of MRI is currently limited. An effective method for triaging individuals to supplemental MRI screening is therefore needed. We conducted a randomized clinical trial, ScreenTrustMRI, using a recently developed artificial intelligence (AI) tool to score each mammogram. We offered trial participation to individuals with a negative screening mammogram and a high AI score (top 6.9%). Upon agreeing to participate, individuals were assigned randomly to one of two groups: those receiving supplemental MRI and those not receiving MRI. The primary endpoint of ScreenTrustMRI is advanced breast cancer defined as either interval cancer, invasive component larger than 15 mm or lymph node positive cancer, based on a 27-month follow-up time from the initial screening. Secondary endpoints, prespecified in the study protocol to be reported before the primary outcome, include cancer detected by supplemental MRI, which is the focus of the current paper. Compared with traditional breast density measures used in a previous clinical trial, the current AI method was nearly four times more efficient in terms of cancers detected per 1,000 MRI examinations (64 versus 16.5). Most additional cancers detected were invasive and several were multifocal, suggesting that their detection was timely. Altogether, our results show that using an AI-based score to select a small proportion (6.9%) of individuals for supplemental MRI after negative mammography detects many missed cancers, making the cost per cancer detected comparable with screening mammography. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04832594 .

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.

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-assisted Pathology for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Sweden: A Microsimulation Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Image-based artificial intelligence (AI) methods have shown high accuracy in prostate cancer (PCa) detection. Their impact on patient outcomes and cost effectiveness in comparison to human pathologists remains unknown. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of AI-assisted pathology for PCa diagnosis in Sweden. METHODS: We modeled quadrennial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for men between the ages of 50 and 74 yr over a lifetime horizon using a health care perspective. Men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml were referred for standard biopsy (SBx), for which cores were either examined via AI followed by a pathologist for AI-labeled positive cores, or a pathologist alone. The AI performance characteristics were estimated using an internal STHLM3 validation data set. Outcome measures included the number of tests, PCa incidence and mortality, overdiagnosis, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the potential reduction in pathologist-evaluated biopsy cores if AI were used. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: In comparison to a pathologist alone, the AI-assisted workflow increased the number of PSA tests, SBx procedures, and PCa deaths by ≤0.03%, and slightly reduced PCa incidence and overdiagnosis. AI would reduce the proportion of biopsy cores evaluated by a pathologist by 80%. At a cost of €10 per case, the AI-assisted workflow would cost less and result in <0.001% lower QALYs in comparison to a pathologist alone. The results were sensitive to the AI cost. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: According to our model, AI-assisted pathology would significantly decrease the workload of pathologists, would not affect patient quality of life, and would yield cost savings in Sweden when compared to a human pathologist alone. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared outcomes for prostate cancer patients and relevant costs for two methods of assessing prostate biopsies in Sweden: (1) artificial intelligence (AI) technology and review of positive biopsies by a human pathologist; and (2) a human pathologist alone for all biopsies. We found that addition of AI would reduce the pathology workload and save money, and would not affect patient outcomes when compared to a human pathologist alone. The results suggest that adding AI to prostate pathology in Sweden would save costs.

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.

Operative versus Nonoperative Treatment of Proximal Hamstring Avulsions.

BACKGROUND: Operative treatment is widely used for acute proximal hamstring avulsions, but its effectiveness compared with that of nonoperative treatment has not been shown in randomized trials. METHODS: In this noninferiority trial at 10 centers in Sweden and Norway, we enrolled patients 30 to 70 years of age with a proximal hamstring avulsion in a randomized trial and a parallel observational cohort. Treatments were operative reinsertion of the tendons or nonoperative management. The primary end point was the Perth Hamstring Assessment Tool (PHAT) at 2 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included scores on the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS). RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were enrolled in the randomized trial and 97 patients in the observational cohort. In the per-protocol analysis of the randomized trial, the mean (±standard deviation) PHAT scores were 79.9±19.5 and 78.5±19.4 in the operative and nonoperative groups, respectively (PHAT scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher function). The prespecified noninferiority limit of 10 points was not crossed (mean difference, -1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.6 to 6.2; P=0.009 for noninferiority). Analyses of secondary outcomes, including a mean difference in the LEFS score of -1.6 (95% CI, -5.2 to 2.0), aligned with the primary outcome. The observed numbers of adverse events in the randomized trial were nine in the operative group versus three in the nonoperative group (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.2). In the analysis of the observational cohort, the mean PHAT score difference between the nonoperative and operative treatment groups was -2.6 (95% CI, -9.9 to 4.6). CONCLUSIONS: In patients 30 to 70 years of age with proximal hamstring avulsions, nonoperative treatment was noninferior to operative treatment. (Funded by Afa Försäkring and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03311997.).

Stockholm3 in a Multiethnic Cohort for Prostate Cancer Detection (SEPTA): A Prospective Multicentered Trial.

PURPOSE: Asian, Black, and Hispanic men are underrepresented in prostate cancer (PCa) clinical trials. Few novel prostate cancer biomarkers have been validated in diverse cohorts. We aimed to determine if Stockholm3 can improve prostate cancer detection in a diverse cohort. METHODS: An observational prospective multicentered (17 sites) clinical trial (2019-2023), supplemented by prospectively recruited participants (2008-2020) in a urology clinic setting included men with suspicion of PCa and underwent prostate biopsy. Before biopsy, sample was collected for measurement of the Stockholm3 risk score. Parameters include prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, KLK2, GDF15, PSP94, germline risk (single-nucleotide polymorphisms), age, family history, and previous negative biopsy. The primary endpoint was detection of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade ≥2 cancer (clinically significant PCa, csPC). The two primary aims were to (1) demonstrate noninferior sensitivity (0.8 lower bound 95% CI noninferiority margin) in detecting csPC using Stockholm3 compared with PSA (relative sensitivity) and (2) demonstrate superior specificity by reducing biopsies with benign results or low-grade cancers (relative specificity). RESULTS: A total of 2,129 biopsied participants were included: Asian (16%, 350), Black or African American (Black; 24%, 505), Hispanic or Latino and White (Hispanic; 14%, 305), and non-Hispanic or non-Latino and White (White; 46%, 969). Overall, Stockholm3 showed noninferior sensitivity compared with PSA ≥4 ng/mL (relative sensitivity: 0.95 [95% CI, 0.92 to 0.99]) and nearly three times higher specificity (relative specificity: 2.91 [95% CI, 2.63 to 3.22]). Results were consistent across racial and ethnic subgroups: noninferior sensitivity (0.91-0.98) and superior specificity (2.51-4.70). Compared with PSA, Stockholm3 could reduce benign and ISUP 1 biopsies by 45% overall and between 42% and 52% across racial and ethnic subgroups. CONCLUSION: In a substantially diverse population, Stockholm3 significantly reduces unnecessary prostate biopsies while maintaining a similar sensitivity to PSA in detecting csPC.

Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and taxanes in metastatic prostate cancer: an outcome-adaptive randomized platform trial.

ProBio is the first outcome-adaptive platform trial in prostate cancer utilizing a Bayesian framework to evaluate efficacy within predefined biomarker signatures across systemic treatments. Prospective circulating tumor DNA and germline DNA analysis was performed in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer before randomization to androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs), taxanes or a physician's choice control arm. The primary endpoint was the time to no longer clinically benefitting (NLCB). Secondary endpoints included overall survival and (serious) adverse events. Upon reaching the time to NLCB, patients could be re-randomized. The primary endpoint was met after 218 randomizations. ARPIs demonstrated ~50% longer time to NLCB compared to taxanes (median, 11.1 versus 6.9 months) and the physician's choice arm (median, 11.1 versus 7.4 months) in the biomarker-unselected or 'all' patient population. ARPIs demonstrated longer overall survival (median, 38.7 versus 21.7 and 21.8 months for taxanes and physician's choice, respectively). Biomarker signature findings suggest that the largest increase in time to NLCB was observed in AR (single-nucleotide variant/genomic structural rearrangement)-negative and TP53 wild-type patients and TMPRSS2-ERG fusion-positive patients, whereas no difference between ARPIs and taxanes was observed in TP53-altered patients. In summary, ARPIs outperform taxanes and physician's choice treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with detectable circulating tumor DNA. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03903835 .

Patient-Reported Outcome in Dupuytren's Disease Treated With Fasciectomy, Collagenase or Needle Fasciotomy: A Swedish Registry Study.

Purpose: This registry study compares the patient-reported outcomes of 3 treatments for Dupuytren´s disease: open fasciectomy (OF), collagenase injection (CCH) and percutaneous needle fasciotomy (PNF). Methods: From the Swedish national quality registry for hand surgery (HAKIR) we included 2,585 procedures (in 2,414 patients): 1,200 treatments were OF, 918 CCH, and 467 PNF. The choice between CCH and PNF varied mainly because of regional differences in reimbursement of CCH. We report the results of the validated patient-reported outcome instrument HQ-8. HQ-8 evaluates symptoms in the treated hand and is issued before treatment, 3 and 12 months after treatment and is used for all patients in HAKIR. Results: At 3-month follow-up, patients treated with CCH or PNF experienced less stiffness, weakness, numbness, tingling and sensitivity to cold. At 12 months, the differences among the 3 treatments were smaller, but CCH patients experienced less stiffness and weakness compared to PNF-treated patients. Conclusions: Most randomized controlled trials have not shown significant differences in recurrence rates or patient-reported outcomes between CCH and PNF, but the number of patients has been limited and no randomized controlled trials have included all 3 treatments. In the present study, we compared registry data on patient-reported outcomes for OF, CCH, and PNF in a real-life clinical setting. Our results confirm that the noninvasive treatments (CCH and PNF) cause less disability than OF and indicate a possible advantage of CCH compared to PNF regarding stiffness and weakness at 1 year after treatment based on patient-reported outcomes. Patient-reported residual symptoms are important to consider when informing patients and selecting treatment for Dupuytren´s disease. Type of study/level of evidence: Observational registry study III.