Associations Between Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Genomic Testing, and Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Although prostate MRI and tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests improve staging and estimates of prostate cancer prognosis, their association with the intensity of treatment patients receive is not well understood. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer in 2013 through 2017 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The primary study outcome was the receipt of treatment intensification in the first 12 months after diagnosis (defined as the addition of androgen deprivation therapy among patients receiving radiation or pelvic lymphadenectomy among those undergoing radical prostatectomy). We assessed associations between the receipt of prostate MRI and genomic testing and treatment intensification, adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors and further stratifying the analyses by risk status. RESULTS: We identified 37,064 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer, including 6,398, 22,011, and 5976 with low, intermediate, and high D'Amico-risk disease, respectively. Among all treated patients, receipt of prostate MRI was associated with increased odds of treatment intensification (odds ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.65-1.88, P < .001). In contrast, genomic testing was not significantly associated. Among treated patients with high-risk disease, genomic testing was associated with decreased odds of intensified treatment (odds ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-1.00, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Prostate MRI was associated with intensified treatment across risk strata, while genomic testing was associated with lower intensity of treatment among high-risk disease. Additional study is needed to determine whether use of imaging and risk stratification tools leads to improved long-term patient outcomes.

'It Just Makes Sense to Me': A qualitative study exploring patient decision-making and experiences with prostate MRI during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Introduction: Although prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used in the diagnosis, staging and active surveillance of prostate cancer, little is known about patient perspectives on MRI. Methods: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Interviews focused on experiences with and knowledge of prostate MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy during active surveillance. We purposively sampled patients who received prostate MRI as part of their clinical care, conducted interviews until reaching thematic saturation and performed conventional content analysis to analyse data. Results: Twenty patients aged 51-79 years (mean = 68 years) participated in the study. At diagnosis, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and three (15%) had a grade group 2 tumour. Overall, participants viewed prostate MRI as a valuable tool that accurately localizes and monitors prostate cancer over time, and they considered prostate MRI central to active surveillance monitoring. We identified five thematic categories related to MRI use: (1) the experiential aspects of undergoing an MRI scan; (2) the experience of visualizing one's own prostate and prostate cancer; (3) adequacy of provider explanations of MRI results; (4) confidence in prostate MRI in decision-making; and (5) the role of prostate MRI in longitudinal follow-up, including an interest in using MRI to modify the timing of, or replace, prostate biopsy. Conclusion: Patients value prostate MRI as a tool that enhances their confidence in the initial diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer. This work can inform future studies to optimize patient experience, education and counselling during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Patient experiences with tissue-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Background: Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making. Methods: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients' decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data. Results: Participants' (n = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51-79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians' recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians' explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail. Conclusion: Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

Germline Sequencing Analysis to Inform Clinical Gene Panel Testing for Aggressive Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Germline gene panel testing is recommended for men with advanced prostate cancer (PCa) or a family history of cancer. While evidence is limited for some genes currently included in panel testing, gene panels are also likely to be incomplete and missing genes that influence PCa risk and aggressive disease. Objective: To identify genes associated with aggressive PCa. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 2-stage exome sequencing case-only genetic association study was conducted including men of European ancestry from 18 international studies. Data analysis was performed from January 2021 to March 2023. Participants were 9185 men with aggressive PCa (including 6033 who died of PCa and 2397 with confirmed metastasis) and 8361 men with nonaggressive PCa. Exposure: Sequencing data were evaluated exome-wide and in a focused investigation of 29 DNA repair pathway and cancer susceptibility genes, many of which are included on gene panels. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcomes were aggressive (category T4 or both T3 and Gleason score ≥8 tumors, metastatic PCa, or PCa death) vs nonaggressive PCa (category T1 or T2 and Gleason score ≤6 tumors without known recurrence), and metastatic vs nonaggressive PCa. Results: A total of 17 546 men of European ancestry were included in the analyses; mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 65.1 (9.2) years in patients with aggressive PCa and 63.7 (8.0) years in those with nonaggressive disease. The strongest evidence of association with aggressive or metastatic PCa was noted for rare deleterious variants in known PCa risk genes BRCA2 and ATM (P ≤ 1.9 × 10-6), followed by NBN (P = 1.7 × 10-4). This study found nominal evidence (P < .05) of association with rare deleterious variants in MSH2, XRCC2, and MRE11A. Five other genes had evidence of greater risk (OR≥2) but carrier frequency differences between aggressive and nonaggressive PCa were not statistically significant: TP53, RAD51D, BARD1, GEN1, and SLX4. Deleterious variants in these 11 candidate genes were carried by 2.3% of patients with nonaggressive, 5.6% with aggressive, and 7.0% with metastatic PCa. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study provide further support for DNA repair and cancer susceptibility genes to better inform disease management in men with PCa and for extending testing to men with nonaggressive disease, as men carrying deleterious alleles in these genes are likely to develop more advanced disease.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide recommendations for individuals with a prostate who opt to participate in an early detection program after receiving the appropriate counseling on the pros and cons. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines with regard to the testing protocol, use of multiparametric MRI, and management of negative biopsy results to optimize the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and minimize the detection of indolent disease.

Time Trends and Variation in the Use of Active Surveillance for Management of Low-risk Prostate Cancer in the US.

Importance: Active surveillance (AS) is endorsed by clinical guidelines as the preferred management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer, but its use in contemporary clinical practice remains incompletely defined. Objective: To characterize trends over time and practice- and practitioner-level variation in the use of AS in a large, national disease registry. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort study included men with low-risk prostate cancer, defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 10 ng/mL, Gleason grade group 1, and clinical stage T1c or T2a, newly diagnosed between January 1, 2014, and June 1, 2021. Patients were identified in the American Urological Association (AUA) Quality (AQUA) Registry, a large quality reporting registry including data from 1945 urology practitioners at 349 practices across 48 US states and territories, comprising more than 8.5 million unique patients. Data are collected automatically from electronic health record systems at participating practices. Exposures: Exposures of interest included patient age, race, and PSA level, as well as urology practice and individual urology practitioners. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome of interest was the use of AS as primary treatment. Treatment was determined through analysis of electronic health record structured and unstructured clinical data and determination of surveillance based on follow-up testing with at least 1 PSA level remaining greater than 1.0 ng/mL. Results: A total of 20 809 patients in AQUA were diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer and had known primary treatment. The median age was 65 (IQR, 59-70) years; 31 (0.1%) were American Indian or Alaska Native; 148 (0.7%) were Asian or Pacific Islander; 1855 (8.9%) were Black; 8351 (40.1%) were White; 169 (0.8%) were of other race or ethnicity; and 10 255 (49.3%) were missing information on race or ethnicity. Rates of AS increased sharply and consistently from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, use of AS varied from 4.0% to 78.0% at the urology practice level and from 0% to 100% at the practitioner level. On multivariable analysis, year of diagnosis was the variable most strongly associated with AS; age, race, and PSA value at diagnosis were all also associated with odds of surveillance. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of AS rates in the AQUA Registry found that national, community-based rates of AS have increased but remain suboptimal, and wide variation persists across practices and practitioners. Continued progress on this critical quality indicator is essential to minimize overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer and by extension to improve the benefit-to-harm ratio of national prostate cancer early detection efforts.

Use of Monitoring Tests Among Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Managed With Observation.

PURPOSE: It is unknown whether compliance with recommended monitoring tests during observation of localized prostate cancer has changed over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer in 2004-2016 who were initially managed with observation for a minimum of 12 months. The primary objective was to examine rates of PSA testing, prostate biopsy, and prostate MRI. We used multivariable mixed effects Poisson regression to determine whether rates of PSA testing and prostate biopsy increased over time. In addition, we identified clinical, sociodemographic, and provider factors associated with the frequency of monitoring tests during observation. RESULTS: We identified 10,639 patients diagnosed at a median age of 73 (IQR 69-77) years. The median follow-up time was 4.3 (IQR 2.7-6.6) years after diagnosis. Among patients managed without treatment for 5 years, 98% received at ≥1 PSA test, 48.0% ≥1 additional prostate biopsy, and 31.0% ≥1 prostate MRI. Among patients managed with observation for ≥12 months, mixed effects Poisson regression revealed that rates of PSA testing and biopsy increased over time (per calendar year: RR 1.02, 95% CI: 1.02-1.03 and RR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.08-1.11, respectively). Clinical and sociodemographic factors including age, clinical risk, race/ethnicity, census tract poverty, and region were associated with rates of biopsy and PSA testing. CONCLUSIONS: Use of recommended monitoring tests including repeat prostate biopsy remains low among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing observation for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Clonal hematopoiesis and risk of prostate cancer in large samples of European ancestry men.

Little is known regarding the potential relationship between clonal hematopoiesis (CH) of indeterminate potential (CHIP), which is the expansion of hematopoietic stem cells with somatic mutations, and risk of prostate cancer, the fifth leading cause of cancer death of men worldwide. We evaluated the association of age-related CHIP with overall and aggressive prostate cancer risk in two large whole-exome sequencing studies of 75 047 European ancestry men, including 7663 prostate cancer cases, 2770 of which had aggressive disease, and 3266 men carrying CHIP variants. We found that CHIP, defined by over 50 CHIP genes individually and in aggregate, was not significantly associated with overall (aggregate HR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.76-1.13, P = 0.46) or aggressive (aggregate OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.92-1.41, P = 0.22) prostate cancer risk. CHIP was weakly associated with genetic risk of overall prostate cancer, measured using a polygenic risk score (OR = 1.05 per unit increase, 95% CI = 1.01-1.10, P = 0.01). CHIP was not significantly associated with carrying pathogenic/likely pathogenic/deleterious variants in DNA repair genes, which have previously been found to be associated with aggressive prostate cancer. While findings from this study suggest that CHIP is likely not a risk factor for prostate cancer, it will be important to investigate other types of CH in association with prostate cancer risk.

HOXB13 suppresses de novo lipogenesis through HDAC3-mediated epigenetic reprogramming in prostate cancer.

HOXB13, a homeodomain transcription factor, critically regulates androgen receptor (AR) activities and androgen-dependent prostate cancer (PCa) growth. However, its functions in AR-independent contexts remain elusive. Here we report HOXB13 interaction with histone deacetylase HDAC3, which is disrupted by the HOXB13 G84E mutation that has been associated with early-onset PCa. Independently of AR, HOXB13 recruits HDAC3 to lipogenic enhancers to catalyze histone deacetylation and suppress lipogenic regulators such as fatty acid synthase. Analysis of human tissues reveals that the HOXB13 gene is hypermethylated and downregulated in approximately 30% of metastatic castration-resistant PCa. HOXB13 loss or G84E mutation leads to lipid accumulation in PCa cells, thereby promoting cell motility and xenograft tumor metastasis, which is mitigated by pharmaceutical inhibition of fatty acid synthase. In summary, we present evidence that HOXB13 recruits HDAC3 to suppress de novo lipogenesis and inhibit tumor metastasis and that lipogenic pathway inhibitors may be useful to treat HOXB13-low PCa.

Association Between a 22-feature Genomic Classifier and Biopsy Gleason Upgrade During Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although the Decipher genomic classifier has been validated as a prognostic tool for several prostate cancer endpoints, little is known about its role in assessing the risk of biopsy reclassification for patients on active surveillance, a key event that often triggers treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between Decipher genomic classifier scores and biopsy Gleason upgrading among patients on active surveillance. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective cohort study among patients with low- and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance who underwent biopsy-based Decipher testing as part of their clinical care. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We evaluated the association between the Decipher score and any increase in biopsy Gleason grade group (GG) using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. We compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for models comprising baseline clinical variables with or without the Decipher score. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 133 patients for inclusion with a median age of 67.7 yr and median prostate-specific of 5.6 ng/ml. At enrollment, 75.9% had GG1 and 24.1% had GG2 disease. Forty-three patients experienced biopsy upgrading. On multivariable logistic regression, the Decipher score was significantly associated with biopsy upgrading (odds ratio 1.37 per 0.10 unit increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.79; p = 0.02). The Decipher score was associated with upgrading among patients with biopsy GG 1 disease, but not GG2 disease. The discriminative ability of a clinical model (AUC 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.74) was improved by integration of the Decipher score (AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.58-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The Decipher genomic classifier score was associated with short-term biopsy Gleason upgrading among patients on active surveillance. PATIENT SUMMARY: The results from this study indicate that among patients with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance, those with higher Decipher scores were more likely to have higher-grade disease found over time. These findings indicate that the Decipher test might be useful for guiding the intensity of monitoring during active surveillance, such as more frequent biopsy for patients with higher scores.

The association of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors with the biochemical recurrence-free and overall survival of patients with prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: To determine whether phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor documentation is associated with biochemical relapse-free and overall survival of patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We undertook a retrospective cohort analysis of 3,100 patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy between 2003 and 2015. The patients were categorized as a phosphodiesterase- 5- inhibitor user or non-user. The biochemical relapse-free and overall survival at 5-years and 10-years were determined. RESULTS: Of the patients, 1,372 reported phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor documentation, and 1,728 did not. The biochemical recurrence-free survival for non-users at 5- and 10-years follow-up was 87.6% and 85.3%, respectively, and the overall survival at these time intervals was 97.9% and 94.5%. The biochemical recurrence-free survival for phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor users was 94.3% and 93.2% at 5- and 10-years follow-up, respectively, and overall survival was 99.2% and 95.8% at these intervals. The hazard ratio for biochemical recurrence-free survival was 0.44 (CI 0.34-0.56) and for overall survival was 0.65 (CI 0.45-0.94). On the multivariate analysis, phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor documentation was associated with a lower risk of biochemical recurrence and death when corrected for the other variables. Age at surgery and Gleason scores >8 was associated with a higher risk of death. Higher pathological stage, higher Gleason score, presence of lymph node metastases, and nonwhite race were associated with a higher risk of recurrence. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis revealed a significant association of postoperative phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor documentation with biochemical recurrence-free- and overall survival in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Larger scale studies are warranted to investigate the clinical significance of this association.

Factors Associated with Time to Conversion from Active Surveillance to Treatment for Prostate Cancer in a Multi-Institutional Cohort.

PURPOSE: We examined the demographic and clinicopathological parameters associated with the time to convert from active surveillance to treatment among men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-institutional cohort of 7,279 patients managed with active surveillance had data and biospecimens collected for germline genetic analyses. RESULTS: Of 6,775 men included in the analysis, 2,260 (33.4%) converted to treatment at a median followup of 6.7 years. Earlier conversion was associated with higher Gleason grade groups (GG2 vs GG1 adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.57, 95% CI 1.36-1.82; ≥GG3 vs GG1 aHR 1.77, 95% CI 1.29-2.43), serum prostate specific antigen concentrations (aHR per 5 ng/ml increment 1.18, 95% CI 1.11-1.25), tumor stages (cT2 vs cT1 aHR 1.58, 95% CI 1.41-1.77; ≥cT3 vs cT1 aHR 4.36, 95% CI 3.19-5.96) and number of cancerous biopsy cores (3 vs 1-2 cores aHR 1.59, 95% CI 1.37-1.84; ≥4 vs 1-2 cores aHR 3.29, 95% CI 2.94-3.69), and younger age (age continuous per 5-year increase aHR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99). Patients with high-volume GG1 tumors had a shorter interval to conversion than those with low-volume GG1 tumors and behaved like the higher-risk patients. We found no significant association between the time to conversion and self-reported race or genetic ancestry. CONCLUSIONS: A shorter time to conversion from active surveillance to treatment was associated with higher-risk clinicopathological tumor features. Furthermore, patients with high-volume GG1 tumors behaved similarly to those with intermediate and high-risk tumors. An exploratory analysis of self-reported race and genetic ancestry revealed no association with the time to conversion.

Implementing Continuous Quality Improvement in an Integrated Community Urology Practice: Lessons Learned.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of 2 different continuous quality improvement interventions in an integrated community urology practice. We specifically assessed the impact of audited physician feedback on improving physicians' adoption of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer (CaP) and adherence to a prostate biopsy time-out intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The electronic medical records of Genesis Healthcare Partners were analyzed between August 24, 2011 and September 30, 2020 to evaluate the performance of 2 quality interventions: audited physician feedback to improve active surveillance adoption in low-risk CaP patients, and audited physician feedback to promote adherence to an electronic medical records embedded prostate biopsy time-out template. Physician and Genesis Healthcare Partners group adherence to each quality initiative was compared before and after each intervention type using ANOVA testing. RESULTS: For active surveillance, we consistently saw an increase in active surveillance adoption for low risk CaP patients in association with continuous audited feedback (P < .001). Adherence to the prostate biopsy time-out template improved when audited feedback was provided (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The implementation of clinical guidelines into routine clinical practice remains challenging and poses an obstacle to the improvement of United States healthcare quality. Continuous quality improvement should be a dynamic process, and in our experience, audited feedback coupled with education is most effective.

Statin use and risk of prostate cancer biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have investigated the role of statins in prostate cancer (CaP), the leading cause of cancer related death in men. Retrospective cohort studies investigating the correlation between statin use and biochemical recurrence free (BCRF) survival in men with CaP have been inconclusive. OBJECTIVES: In the largest reported surgical cohort to date, we investigated the effect of statin therapy on BCRF and overall survival in patients with CaP who have undergone radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of men (n = 3,088) participating in the NCI funded Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in CaP at Northwestern University (NM) in Chicago, Illinois. Patients were treated with RP between 2002 and 2015. Patients in the statin users group received treatment within 2 years prior to or subsequent to RP. Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare age, race, Gleason score, clinical staging, and pathological stage between statin users and nonstatin users. RESULTS: The analysis identified 1,222 statin users and 1,865 nonusers (mean age 71 years, 92% Caucasian). After a median follow-up time of 49.0 months, the 5-year BCRF survival rate was 93.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.9-94.8%) among statin users and 88.6% (95% CI: 87.1%-90%) among nonusers (log-rank P< 0.001). After 10 years, the progression-free survival (PFS) was 91.7% (95% CI: 90.1%-93.3%) among statin users and 86.5% (95% CI: 84.4%-88.2%) among nonusers (log-rank P< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Extended follow-up data in this large surgical cohort show statin use improves BCRF but not overall survival in RP patients.

Two-stage Study of Familial Prostate Cancer by Whole-exome Sequencing and Custom Capture Identifies 10 Novel Genes Associated with the Risk of Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Family history of prostate cancer (PCa) is a well-known risk factor, and both common and rare genetic variants are associated with the disease. OBJECTIVE: To detect new genetic variants associated with PCa, capitalizing on the role of family history and more aggressive PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A two-stage design was used. In stage one, whole-exome sequencing was used to identify potential risk alleles among affected men with a strong family history of disease or with more aggressive disease (491 cases and 429 controls). Aggressive disease was based on a sum of scores for Gleason score, node status, metastasis, tumor stage, prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis, systemic recurrence, and time to PCa death. Genes identified in stage one were screened in stage two using a custom-capture design in an independent set of 2917 cases and 1899 controls. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Frequencies of genetic variants (singly or jointly in a gene) were compared between cases and controls. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Eleven genes previously reported to be associated with PCa were detected (ATM, BRCA2, HOXB13, FAM111A, EMSY, HNF1B, KLK3, MSMB, PCAT1, PRSS3, and TERT), as well as an additional 10 novel genes (PABPC1, QK1, FAM114A1, MUC6, MYCBP2, RAPGEF4, RNASEH2B, ULK4, XPO7, and THAP3). Of these 10 novel genes, all but PABPC1 and ULK4 were primarily associated with the risk of aggressive PCa. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach demonstrates the advantage of gene sequencing in the search for genetic variants associated with PCa and the benefits of sampling patients with a strong family history of disease or an aggressive form of disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: Multiple genes are associated with prostate cancer (PCa) among men with a strong family history of this disease or among men with an aggressive form of PCa.