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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

Prognosis of Gleason Score 9-10 Prostatic Adenocarcinoma in Needle Biopsies: A Nationwide Population-based Study.

BACKGROUND: Since 2014, prostate cancer is reported using five-tier grouping of Gleason scores. Studies have suggested prognostic heterogeneity within the groups. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the risk of prostate cancer death for men diagnosed with Gleason scores 4 + 5, 5 + 4, and 5 + 5 on needle biopsy in a population-based cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the data from Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) 4.0 for a survival analysis. Among 199 620 men reported to have prostate cancer in 2000-2020, 172 112 were diagnosed on needle biopsy. The primary treatment was classified as androgen deprivation therapy (66%), deferred treatment (5%), radical prostatectomy (7%), or radical radiotherapy (21%). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The risks of death from prostate cancer in men with Gleason score 9-10 at 5 and 10 yr were used as endpoints. Multivariable Cox regression models controlling for socioeconomic factors and primary treatment were used for time-to-event analyses of death from prostate cancer and death from any causes. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 20 419 (12%) men had a Gleason score of 9-10, including Gleason scores of 4 + 5, 5 + 4, and 5 + 5 in 14 333 (70%), 4223 (21%), and 1863 (9%) men, respectively. The risks of prostate cancer death for men with Gleason scores 4 + 5, 5 + 4, and 5 + 5 at 10 yr of follow-up were 0.45 (confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.46), 0.56 (0.55-0.58), and 0.66 (0.63-0.68), respectively. The risks of death of any cause for men with Gleason scores 4 + 5, 5 + 4, and 5 + 5 at 10 yr were 0.73 (CI 0.72-0.74), 0.81 (0.80-0.83), and 0.87 (0.85-0.89), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate in the largest and most complete cohort analyzed to date that collapsing the Gleason scores by grouping results in loss of prognostic information in men with Gleason score 9-10 cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: Survival of prostate cancer patients with the highest tumor grades varies depending on grade composition.

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.

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

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

Differences and similarities in false interpretations by AI CAD and radiologists in screening mammography.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the false interpretations between artificial intelligence (AI) and radiologists in screening mammography to get a better understanding of how the distribution of diagnostic mistakes might change when moving from entirely radiologist-driven to AI-integrated breast cancer screening. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective case-control study was based on a mammography screening cohort from 2008 to 2015. The final study population included screening examinations for 714 women diagnosed with breast cancer and 8029 randomly selected healthy controls. Oversampling of controls was applied to attain a similar cancer proportion as in the source screening cohort. We examined how false-positive (FP) and false-negative (FN) assessments by AI, the first reader (RAD 1) and the second reader (RAD 2), were associated with age, density, tumor histology and cancer invasiveness in a single- and double-reader setting. RESULTS: For each reader, the FN assessments were distributed between low- and high-density females with 53 (42%) and 72 (58%) for AI; 59 (36%) and 104 (64%) for RAD 1 and 47 (36%) and 84 (64%) for RAD 2. The corresponding numbers for FP assessments were 1820 (47%) and 2016 (53%) for AI; 1568 (46%) and 1834 (54%) for RAD 1 and 1190 (43%) and 1610 (58%) for RAD 2. For ductal cancer, the FN assessments were 79 (77%) for AI CAD; with 120 (83%) for RAD 1 and with 96 (16%) for RAD 2. For the double-reading simulation, the FP assessments were distributed between younger and older females with 2828 (2.5%) and 1554 (1.4%) for RAD 1 + RAD 2; 3850 (3.4%) and 2940 (2.6%) for AI+RAD 1 and 3430 (3%) and 2772 (2.5%) for AI+RAD 2. CONCLUSION: The most pronounced decrease in FN assessments was noted for females over the age of 55 and for high density-women. In conclusion, AI could have an important complementary role when combined with radiologists to increase sensitivity for high-density and older females. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our results highlight the potential impact of integrating AI in breast cancer screening, particularly to improve interpretation accuracy. The use of AI could enhance screening outcomes for high-density and older females.

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

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

Artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in screening mammography in Sweden: a prospective, population-based, paired-reader, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) as an independent reader of screening mammograms has shown promise, but there are few prospective studies. Our aim was to conduct a prospective clinical trial to examine how AI affects cancer detection and false positive findings in a real-world setting. METHODS: ScreenTrustCAD was a prospective, population-based, paired-reader, non-inferiority study done at the Capio Sankt Göran Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden. Consecutive women without breast implants aged 40-74 years participating in population-based screening in the geographical uptake area of the study hospital were included. The primary outcome was screen-detected breast cancer within 3 months of mammography, and the primary analysis was to assess non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin of 0·15 relative reduction in breast cancer diagnoses) of double reading by one radiologist plus AI compared with standard-of-care double reading by two radiologists. We also assessed single reading by AI alone and triple reading by two radiologists plus AI compared with standard-of-care double reading by two radiologists. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04778670. FINDINGS: From April 1, 2021, to June 9, 2022, 58 344 women aged 40-74 years underwent regular mammography screening, of whom 55 581 were included in the study. 269 (0·5%) women were diagnosed with screen-detected breast cancer based on an initial positive read: double reading by one radiologist plus AI was non-inferior for cancer detection compared with double reading by two radiologists (261 [0·5%] vs 250 [0·4%] detected cases; relative proportion 1·04 [95% CI 1·00-1·09]). Single reading by AI (246 [0·4%] vs 250 [0·4%] detected cases; relative proportion 0·98 [0·93-1·04]) and triple reading by two radiologists plus AI (269 [0·5%] vs 250 [0·4%] detected cases; relative proportion 1·08 [1·04-1·11]) were also non-inferior to double reading by two radiologists. INTERPRETATION: Replacing one radiologist with AI for independent reading of screening mammograms resulted in a 4% higher non-inferior cancer detection rate compared with radiologist double reading. Our study suggests that AI in the study setting has potential for controlled implementation, which would include risk management and real-world follow-up of performance. FUNDING: Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Region Stockholm, and Lunit.

Development, multi-institutional external validation, and algorithmic audit of an artificial intelligence-based Side-specific Extra-Prostatic Extension Risk Assessment tool (SEPERA) for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of side-specific extraprostatic extension (ssEPE) is essential for performing nerve-sparing surgery to mitigate treatment-related side-effects such as impotence and incontinence in patients with localised prostate cancer. Artificial intelligence (AI) might provide robust and personalised ssEPE predictions to better inform nerve-sparing strategy during radical prostatectomy. We aimed to develop, externally validate, and perform an algorithmic audit of an AI-based Side-specific Extra-Prostatic Extension Risk Assessment tool (SEPERA). METHODS: Each prostatic lobe was treated as an individual case such that each patient contributed two cases to the overall cohort. SEPERA was trained on 1022 cases from a community hospital network (Trillium Health Partners; Mississauga, ON, Canada) between 2010 and 2020. Subsequently, SEPERA was externally validated on 3914 cases across three academic centres: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (Toronto, ON, Canada) from 2008 to 2020; L'Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (Paris, France) from 2010 to 2020; and Jules Bordet Institute (Brussels, Belgium) from 2015 to 2020. Model performance was characterised by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), area under the precision recall curve (AUPRC), calibration, and net benefit. SEPERA was compared against contemporary nomograms (ie, Sayyid nomogram, Soeterik nomogram [non-MRI and MRI]), as well as a separate logistic regression model using the same variables included in SEPERA. An algorithmic audit was performed to assess model bias and identify common patient characteristics among predictive errors. FINDINGS: Overall, 2468 patients comprising 4936 cases (ie, prostatic lobes) were included in this study. SEPERA was well calibrated and had the best performance across all validation cohorts (pooled AUROC of 0·77 [95% CI 0·75-0·78] and pooled AUPRC of 0·61 [0·58-0·63]). In patients with pathological ssEPE despite benign ipsilateral biopsies, SEPERA correctly predicted ssEPE in 72 (68%) of 106 cases compared with the other models (47 [44%] in the logistic regression model, none in the Sayyid model, 13 [12%] in the Soeterik non-MRI model, and five [5%] in the Soeterik MRI model). SEPERA had higher net benefit than the other models to predict ssEPE, enabling more patients to safely undergo nerve-sparing. In the algorithmic audit, no evidence of model bias was observed, with no significant difference in AUROC when stratified by race, biopsy year, age, biopsy type (systematic only vs systematic and MRI-targeted biopsy), biopsy location (academic vs community), and D'Amico risk group. According to the audit, the most common errors were false positives, particularly for older patients with high-risk disease. No aggressive tumours (ie, grade >2 or high-risk disease) were found among false negatives. INTERPRETATION: We demonstrated the accuracy, safety, and generalisability of using SEPERA to personalise nerve-sparing approaches during radical prostatectomy. FUNDING: None.

Side effects of low-dose tamoxifen: results from a six-armed randomised controlled trial in healthy women.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to adjuvant tamoxifen therapy is suboptimal, and acceptance of tamoxifen for primary prevention is poor. Published results indicate effect of low-dose tamoxifen therapy. Using questionnaire data from a randomised controlled trial, we describe side effects of standard and low-dose tamoxifen in healthy women. METHODS: In the KARISMA trial, 1440 healthy women were randomised to 6 months of daily intake of 20, 10, 5, 2.5, 1 mg of tamoxifen or placebo. Participants completed a 48-item, five-graded Likert score symptom questionnaire at baseline and follow-up. Linear regression models were used to identify significant changes in severity levels across doses and by menopausal status. RESULTS: Out of 48 predefined symptoms, five were associated with tamoxifen exposure (hot flashes, night sweats, cold sweats, vaginal discharge and muscle cramps). When comparing these side effects in premenopausal women randomised to low doses (2.5, 5 mg) versus high doses (10, 20 mg), the mean change was 34% lower in the low-dose group. No dose-dependent difference was seen in postmenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms related to tamoxifen therapy are influenced by menopausal status. Low-dose tamoxifen, in contrast to high-dose, was associated with less pronounced side effects, a finding restricted to premenopausal women. Our findings give new insights which may influence future dosing strategies of tamoxifen in both the adjuvant and preventive settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03346200.

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

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

Implications for downstream workload based on calibrating an artificial intelligence detection algorithm by standalone-reader or combined-reader sensitivity matching.

Purpose: In double-reading of screening mammograms, artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms hold promise as a potential replacement for one of the two readers. The choice of operating point, or abnormality threshold, for the AI algorithm will affect cancer detection and workload. In our retrospective study, the baseline approach was based on matching stand-alone reader sensitivity, while the alternative approach was based on matching the combined-reader sensitivity of two humans and of AI plus human. Approach: Full-field digital screening mammograms within the Stockholm County area between February 1, 2012, and December 30, 2015, acquired on Philips equipment, were collected. All exams of women with breast cancer within 23 months of screening and a random selection of healthy controls were included. An exam-level continuous AI abnormality score was generated (Insight MMG from Lunit Inc). Sensitivity and abnormal interpretation rates were estimated for operating points defined by the standalone-reader approach and the combined-reader approach. Results: The study population included 1684 exams of women with breast cancer and 5024 exams of healthy women. Observations of healthy women were up-sampled to attain a realistic proportion of cancer. The observed sensitivity for reader 1, 2 and 1+2 was 69.7%, 75.6%, and 78.6%, respectively, at an abnormal interpretation rate of 4.4%, 4.6%, and 6.1%, respectively. For the combination of reader 1 + AI we estimated a sensitivity of 82.4% for standalone-reader matching and 78.6% for combined-reader matching, at an abnormal interpretation rate of 12.6% and 7.0%, respectively. Conclusions: Setting the operating point by matching stand-alone AI stand-alone with a radiologist will nearly double the downstream workload compared to a modest increase of 15% for the alternative method of matching sensitivity between the combination of AI and a radiologist with two radiologists.

Interobserver reproducibility of cribriform cancer in prostate needle biopsies and validation of International Society of Urological Pathology criteria.

AIMS: There is strong evidence that cribriform morphology indicates a worse prognosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Our aim was to investigate its interobserver reproducibility in prostate needle biopsies. METHODS AND RESULTS: A panel of nine prostate pathology experts from five continents independently reviewed 304 digitised biopsies for cribriform cancer according to recent International Society of Urological Pathology criteria. The biopsies were collected from a series of 702 biopsies that were reviewed by one of the panellists for enrichment of high-grade cancer and potentially cribriform structures. A 2/3 consensus diagnosis of cribriform and noncribriform cancer was reached in 90% (272/304) of the biopsies with a mean kappa value of 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.52-0.61). The prevalence of consensus cribriform cancers was estimated to 4%, 12%, 21%, and 20% of Gleason scores 7 (3 + 4), 7 (4 + 3), 8, and 9-10, respectively. More than two cribriform structures per level or a largest cribriform mass with ≥9 lumina or a diameter of ≥0.5 mm predicted a consensus diagnosis of cribriform cancer in 88% (70/80), 84% (87/103), and 90% (56/62), respectively, and noncribriform cancer in 3% (2/80), 5% (5/103), and 2% (1/62), respectively (all P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Cribriform prostate cancer was seen in a minority of needle biopsies with high-grade cancer. Stringent diagnostic criteria enabled the identification of cribriform patterns and the generation of a large set of consensus cases for standardisation.

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

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

Use of the ISUP e-learning module improves interrater reliability in prostate cancer grading.

AIMS: Prostate cancer (PCa) grading is an important prognostic parameter, but is subject to considerable observer variation. Previous studies have shown that interobserver variability decreases after participants were trained using an e-learning module. However, since the publication of these studies, grading of PCa has been enhanced by adopting the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2014 grading classification. This study investigates the effect of training on interobserver variability of PCa grading, using the ISUP Education web e-learning on Gleason grading. METHODS: The ISUP Education Prostate Test B Module was distributed among Dutch pathologists. The module uses images graded by the ISUP consensus panel consisting of 24 expert uropathologists. Participants graded the same 10 images before and after e-learning. We included those who completed the tests before and after training. We evaluated variation in PCa grading in a fully crossed study design, using linearly weighted kappa values for each pathologist, comparing them to other pathologists and to the ISUP consensus panel. We analysed the improvement in median weighted kappas before and after training, using Wilcoxon's signed rank-test. RESULTS: We included 42 pathologists. Inter-rater reliability between pathologists improved from 0.70 before training to 0.74 after training (p=0.01). When compared with the ISUP consensus panel, five pathologists improved significantly, whereas the kappa of one pathologist was significantly lower after training. All pathologists who improved significantly, graded with less than substantial agreement before training. CONCLUSIONS: ISUP Prostate Test B e-learning reduces variability in PCa grading. E-learning is a cost-effective method for standardisation of pathology.