Serum Androgens as Predictive Biomarkers: Results From a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Enzalutamide and Abiraterone Acetate in Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between baseline androgen concentrations and outcomes in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with first-line enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We previously randomized men with mCRPC to enzalutamide or AAP to compare side-effects and measured androgen concentrations. In this post-hoc analysis, patients were grouped in quartiles (Q) based on their serum androgen values. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression were used to analyze progression-free and overall survival for baseline androgen groups, treatment subgroups and their interaction. The trial was registered at clinicaltrialsregister.eu (2017-000099-27). RESULTS: Eighty-four patients received enzalutamide and 85 AAP. Overall, higher (Q4) compared with lower (Q1) baseline serum testosterone was associated with longer progression-free survival (24.8 vs. 10.7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33; 0.84) and overall survival (52.8 vs. 31.5 months, HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28; 0.85). The risk reduction in death seemed to be treatment dependent (treatment subgroup interaction P = .04). For men in the AAP subgroup, the Q4 compared with Q1 group had a significant lower risk of death (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13; 0.73), while no difference was found for enzalutamide (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.35; 1.69). Similar results were found for the other androgens. CONCLUSION: Pre-treatment serum testosterone levels may be a clinically useful biomarker for predicting mCRPC treatment responses and guiding treatment selection.

Risk Factors for Infection After Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Population-based Register Study.

Background and objective: Infection after transrectal prostate biopsy (TPBx) is a well-known risk. A comprehensive investigation of risk factors may identify measures for safe TPBx as an alternative to a change in biopsy route. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for infection after TPBx. Methods: We included all outpatient TPBx cases in Region Kronoberg, Sweden, from January 2010 to December 2019. The primary outcome was post-TPBx infection, defined as prescription of antibiotics indicated for urinary tract infection (UTI) or inpatient care for infection within 30 d. We analysed the following factors in relation to post-TPBx infection: age, diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer diagnosed at index biopsy, previous prostate biopsy, two or more biopsies in the past 24 mo, a positive urine culture, two or more negative urine cultures (UCs) in the past 24 mo, antibiotic treatment grouped as four types, and medication for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs). Key findings and limitations: Of 5788 TPBx procedures in 4040 patients, 405 (7.0%) led to an infection and 170 (2.9%) to inpatient care for infection. Risk factors for post-TPBx infection (ORs 1.5-2.5) were diabetes mellitus, antibiotic treatment for a UTI, fluoroquinolone treatment, and a positive urine culture. Weaker risk factors (ORs 1.3-1.5) were non-UTI antibiotic treatment, BPH medication, and negative UCs before TPBx. Conclusions and clinical implications: Our results confirm that diabetes mellitus and previous UTI are risk factors for infection after TPBx. Lower urinary tract symptoms and treatment with any kind of antibiotic were associated with infection, which has not been previously reported. Patient summary: In a large population-based study from Sweden, we investigated which clinical factors increase the risk of an infection after transrectal prostate biopsy. Our results confirm that diabetes and a previous urinary tract infection are risk factors. We also found two new factors associated with the risk of infection after biopsy: lower urinary tract symptoms and any antibiotic treatment.

[Prostate cancer - from the patients' perspective]. / Prostatacancer ur patienternas perspektiv.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among Swedish men. To get this diagnose is not only a threat to the men's lives but also to their quality of life because the treatment often affects sexuality, bladder function and bowel function. It is therefore particularly problematic that the rehabilitation of men after treatment for prostate cancer often does not reach the standards set out in the national guidelines. Despite the past years' promotion of standardized cancer care pathways to speed up the process of investigating and treating cancer, the lead times for men who are being investigated for a suspicion of prostate cancer, or are waiting for a planned prostate cancer treatment, are the longest in Swedish cancer care. Patients' organisations are currently active in all 21 Swedish regions to support men with prostate cancer and their near ones. Their national umbrella organisation is increasingly involved in various healthcare organisations, such as the National Prostate Cancer Guidelines Group, and supports clinical prostate cancer research.

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

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

[Treatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer]. / Behandling av icke spridd prostatacancer ­ individuellt val.

There is a long history of curative treatment of prostate cancer. However, as prostate cancer often grows very slowly, and symptoms do not have time to develop during a person's lifetime, a more tentative approach has become more and more common in many cases. This may be through either watchful waiting or active surveillance. In the first case palliative hormonal treatment is given in the case of progression, in the latter curative treatment would be the choice. When treatment is deemed necessary for localized disease, surgery and radiotherapy are considered equivalent in terms of efficacy and overall risk of side effects. For locally advanced disease, radiotherapy is the recommended first-hand choice outside the SPCG 15 study. Focal treatment, which may lead to less side effects than surgery or radiotherapy, is not recommended outside trial settings due to lack of long-term follow-up data.

[Prostate cancer - a disease in transformation]. / Prostatacancer ­ sjukdom i förändring.

This article introduces a series of articles covering some of the most important aspects of contemporary prostate cancer care. After the introduction of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test and systematic prostate biopsies in the early 1990s, the incidence of localised prostate cancer and the use of radical treatment rose dramatically. Improved diagnostic methods and understanding of the tumour biology now reduce overdiagnosis and pave the way for organised screening. New and more effective treatments, in combination with the stage shift from advanced to localised disease at the time of diagnosis, have reduced the age-standardised prostate cancer specific mortality by half in men under the age of 85 years. The National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden (NPCR) has evolved over the past 25 years and now comprehensively supports clinical care and is an invaluable research data source. Patients' organisations have emerged as important players on the national arena.

Time trends in the use of curative treatment in men 70 years and older with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Undertreatment of otherwise healthy men in their seventies with prostate cancer has been reported previously. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using information in a Swedish prostate cancer research database, patterns of management and cancer-specific mortality were compared across age groups in over 70,000 men diagnosed with intermediate- or high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer between 2008 and 2020. Crude probabilities of death were estimated non-parametrically. Staging procedures, primary treatment, and cancer death were compared using regression models, adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: During the study period, the proportion of men treated with curative intent increased in ages 70-74 (intermediate-risk from 45% to 72% and high-risk from 49% to 84%), 75-79 (intermediate-risk from 11% to 52% and high-risk from 12% to 70%), and 80-84 years (intermediate-risk from < 1% to 14% and high-risk from < 1% to 30%). Older age was associated with lower likelihoods of staging investigations and curative treatment, also after adjustment for tumor characteristics and comorbidity. Men treated with curative intent and those initially managed conservatively had lower crude risks of prostate cancer death than men receiving androgen deprivation treatment (ADT). In adjusted analyses, ADT was associated with higher prostate cancer mortality than curative treatment across ages and risk groups. Among men managed conservatively, prostate cancer mortality was higher in ages 70 and above. INTERPRETATION: Use of curative treatment increased substantially in older men with prostate cancer between 2008 and 2020. Our findings suggest reduced age-bias and under-treatment, likely reflecting improved individualized decision-making and adherence to guidelines recommending more active management of older men.

Socioeconomic inequality in prostate cancer diagnostics, primary treatment, rehabilitation, and mortality in Sweden.

We designed a nationwide study to investigate the association between socioeconomic factors (household income and education) and different aspects of prostate cancer care, considering both individual- and neighbourhood-level variables. Data were obtained from Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe), a research database with data from several national health care registers including clinical characteristics and treatments for nearly all men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Sweden. Four outcomes were analysed: use of pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 2018-2020 (n = 11,843), primary treatment of high-risk non-metastatic disease in 2016-2020 (n = 6633), rehabilitation (≥2 dispensed prescriptions for erectile dysfunction within 1 year from surgery in 2016-2020, n = 6505), and prostate cancer death in 7770 men with high-risk non-metastatic disease diagnosed in 2010-2016. Unadjusted and adjusted odds and hazard ratios (OR/HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Adjusted odds ratio (ORs) comparing low versus high individual education were 0.74 (95% CI 0.66-0.83) for pre-biopsy MRI, 0.66 (0.54-0.81) for primary treatment, and 0.82 (0.69-0.97) for rehabilitation. HR gradients for prostate cancer death were significant on unadjusted analysis only (low vs. high individual education HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17-1.70); co-variate adjustments markedly attenuated the gradients (low vs. high individual education HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90-1.35). Generally, neighbourhood-level analyses showed weaker gradients over the socioeconomic strata, except for pre-biopsy MRI. Socioeconomic factors influenced how men were diagnosed with prostate cancer in Sweden but had less influence on subsequent specialist care. Neighbourhood-level socioeconomic data are more useful for evaluating inequality in diagnostics than in later specialist care.

Normalised repeat serum prostate-specific antigen: associations with age and magnetic resonance imaging results.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of a repeat prostate-specific antigen measurement (PSA2) before magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in men with a raised PSA (PSA1) <10 µg/L. METHOD: Medical records of men aged < 75 years referred in 2021 for PSA1 3.0-9.9 µg/L (< 70 years) or 5.0-9.9 µg/L (70-74 years) were reviewed. PSA2 was sampled before MRI within 60 days from PSA1. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with logistic regression. Chi-square and trend-test were used for categorical variables. RESULTS: A total of 341 men were included. Median time between PSA1 and PSA2 was 28 days (interquartile range 20-35 days). PSA normalised in 16% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13-21). Younger men were more likely to have a normal PSA2 (OR: 0.95 per year older, 95% CI: 0.92-0.99). Among men aged < 70 years, those with PSA1 < 5 µg/L were more likely to have normalised PSA2 than those with PSA1 ≥ 5 µg/L (21% vs. 10%, p = 0.01). A greater proportion of men with normalised PSA2 had a Prostate Imaging Data and Reporting System MRI score of 1-3 than men with non-normalised PSA2 (93% vs. 77%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A clinically significant proportion of men with a moderately raised PSA value have a normal PSA2. Younger men and men with lower PSA1 were more likely to have a normal PSA2. Few men with normalised PSA2 had suspicious MRI findings. Routine repeat PSA-testing may be motivated in men with a moderately raised PSA value to save MRI resources, particularly in younger men.

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

BACKGROUND: The European Union recently recommended evaluation of the feasibility of organised prostate cancer screening. In Sweden, regional population-based organised prostate cancer testing (OPT) programmes were introduced in 2020. OBJECTIVE: To describe initial participation rates and diagnostic outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The three most populated Swedish regions invited all men aged 50 yr to OPT by a letter in 2020-2022. Men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥3 ng/ml were referred for prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). PSA assays differed across regions. Men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 1-3 and PSA density ≥0.15 ng/ml/cm3 or PI-RADS 4-5 were referred for a biopsy. Data were obtained from the Swedish Register for Organised Prostate Cancer Testing. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall and regional participation rates, PSA distributions, PI-RADS score distributions, cancer detection, and treatment were evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 23 855 (35%) of 68 060 invited men participated; 696 (2.9%) had PSA ≥3 ng/ml, and of them, 306 (44%) had a biopsy indication and 221 (32%) had a biopsy. On biopsy, 93 (42%) had Gleason grade group ≥2 (0.39% of PSA-tested men) and 44 (20%) Gleason grade group 1 cancer. Most men with cancer had treatment with curative intent (70%) or were under active surveillance (28%). Across regions, proportions of men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml ranged from 2.3% to 4.0%, and those with PI-RADS score 4-5 ranged from 12% to 21%. A limitation is that results are applicable only to first testing of men in their early 50s. CONCLUSIONS: The OPT programmes are feasible with good compliance to the diagnostic pathway. The use of MRI and PSA density avoided a biopsy for over half of the men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml. Inter-regional differences in diagnostic outcomes show a need for standardisation of the diagnostic pathway's components. PATIENT SUMMARY: We report the diagnostic outcomes of inviting 68 000 50-yr-old men to organised prostate cancer testing.

Family History and Risk of Renal Cell Carcinoma: A National Multiregister Case-Control Study.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to investigate the association between family history of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and RCC risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: RCC cases diagnosed in Sweden between 2005 and 2014 and 10 matched controls were identified using the Renal Cell Cancer Database Sweden, with linkage to the Multigeneration Register and the Swedish Cancer Registry. The association between a family history of RCC and RCC was investigated, overall and by sex and age groups. RESULTS: Among 9416 RCC cases, 294 (3.1%) had 1 or more parent or sibling (first-degree relative [FDR]) with RCC. Median age at diagnosis for cases with an affected FDR was 65 years (IQR 59-71) and 68 years (IQR 60-75) for all cases. The proportion of women was significantly higher among familial RCC compared to sporadic RCC (44.6% vs 38.5%, P = .035). RCC was twice as likely with 1 or more FDR with RCC (OR 1.9; CI 1.65-2.16). Stratified analysis showed an OR of 2.4 for women (CI 1.93-2.92) and 1.6 for men (CI 1.35-1.93). Two or more FDRs was associated with a sixfold increased risk (95% CI 2.37-15.5). Familial RCC was strongly associated with bilateral and multifocal tumors (OR 5.5; CI 2.36-13.0, OR 3.5; CI 1.89-6.49). CONCLUSIONS: In this Swedish data set, 3.1% of RCC patients have 1 or more FDR diagnosed with RCC. There was no statistical difference in median age between sporadic RCC and familial RCC. Having 1 or more FDR with RCC approximately doubles the risk of RCC with a higher risk increase for women than for men. People with 2 FDRs with RCC constitute a small high-risk group that may benefit from 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.

Men's Perception of Being Invited for Prostate Cancer Testing and the Information About Its Pros and Cons-A Survey from Two Population-based Testing Programmes.

Background: There is no national screening programme for prostate cancer in Sweden. Instead, population-based organised prostate cancer testing (OPT) projects are introduced to make information and testing more equal and effective. Objective: To evaluate men's perception of being invited to OPT and of the information in the invitation letter, and whether their perception is influenced by educational level. Design setting and participants: A questionnaire was sent out to men invited to OPT in 2020: 600 50-yr-old men in Region Västra Götaland and 1000 50-, 56-, and 62-yr-old men in Region Skåne. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Responses were evaluated on a Likert scale. The chi-square test was used to compare proportions. Results and limitations: A total of 534 men (34%) responded. Almost all considered the OPT concept as very good (84%) or good (13%). Among men not previously undergone a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, a larger proportion with nonacademic (53%) than with academic education (41%) responded that the text about disadvantages was very clear (p = 0.03). A similar difference was observed for the text about advantages (68% vs 58%, p = 0.09). There was no association between education and searching for more information elsewhere. The low response rate is the main limitation. Conclusions: Almost all responding men evaluating the invitation letter for OPT were positive about making a personal decision regarding whether or not to have a PSA test. Most were content with the brief information. Men with academic education were somewhat less likely to find the information very clear. This shows a need for further research about how best to describe the advantages and disadvantages of prostate cancer testing. Patient summary: Almost all men who responded to a questionnaire to evaluate the invitation letter for organised prostate cancer testing were positive about the opportunity to make a personal decision regarding whether or not to have a prostate-specific antigen test.