Repeated, prostate-specific antigen–based screening with a 4-yr interval in men aged 55–69 yr reduces prostate cancer–specific mortality and metastatic prostate cancer after a median follow-up of 21 ...yr. Additionally, coinciding overdiagnosis is lower than previously suggested.
Considering the long natural history of prostate cancer (PCa), long-term results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for PCa (ERSPC) are crucial.
To provide an update on the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening on PCa-specific mortality (PCSM), metastatic disease, and overdiagnosis in the Dutch arm of the ERSPC.
Between 1993 and 2000, a total of 42376 men, aged 55–74 yr, were randomised to a screening or a control arm. The main analysis was performed with men aged 55–69 yr (n = 34831). Men in the screening arm were offered PSA-based screening with an interval of 4 yr.
Intention-to-screen analyses with Poisson regression were used to calculate rate ratios (RRs) of PCSM and metastatic PCa.
After a median follow-up of 21 yr, the RR of PCSM was 0.73 (95% confidence interval CI: 0.61–0.88) favouring screening. The numbers of men needed to invite (NNI) and needed to diagnose (NND) to prevent one PCa death were 246 and 14, respectively. For metastatic PCa, the RR was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.58–0.78) favouring screening. The NNI and NND to prevent one metastasis were 121 and 7, respectively. No statistical difference in PCSM (RR of 1.18 95% CI: 0.87–1.62) was observed in men aged ≥70 yr at the time of randomisation. In the screening arm, higher rates of PCSM and metastatic disease were observed in men who were screened only once and in a selected group of men above the screening age cut-off of 74 yr.
The current analysis illustrates that with a follow-up of 21 yr, both absolute metastasis and mortality reduction continue to increase, resulting in a more favourable harm-benefit ratio than demonstrated previously. These data do not support starting screening at the age of 70–74 yr and show that repeated screening is essential.
Prostate-specific antigen–based prostate cancer screening reduces metastasis and mortality. Longer follow-up shows fewer invitations and diagnoses needed to prevent one death, a positive note towards the issue of overdiagnosis.
The optimal timing for discontinuing screening of prostate cancer (PCa) in elderly men is currently not known and remains debated.
To assess prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in elderly men ...who previously underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening and to identify those who may benefit from continued screening.
A total of 7052 men, who participated in the screening arm of the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer and were aged 70-74 yr at their last screening visit after undergoing a maximum of three screening rounds without being diagnosed with PCa, were included.
The cumulative incidence of PCSM by the age of 85 yr was assessed. Additionally, a competing risk regression was performed to assess the potential predictors of PCSM.
The median follow-up was 16 yr. The cumulative incidence of PCSM by the age of 85 yr was 0.54% (95% confidence interval CI: 0.40-0.70) in all men, 0.11% (95% CI: 0.05-0.27) in men with PSA <2 ng/ml, 0.85% (95% CI: 0.47-1.5) in men with PSA 2-3 ng/ml, and 6.8% (95% CI: 3.1-15) in men with PSA ≥6.5 ng/ml and no previous benign biopsy. PSA (subdistribution hazard ratio sHR: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.7-2.3), previous benign prostate biopsy (sHR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23-0.72), and hypertension (sHR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.25-0.91) were significantly associated with PCSM.
Men aged 70-74 yr who have previously undergone PSA-based screening without receiving a PCa diagnosis have a very low risk of dying from PCa by the age of 85 yr. These data suggest that screening may be discontinued in men with PSA <3.0 ng/ml or previous benign prostate biopsies. Those with higher PSA levels and no prior biopsies may consider continued screening if life expectancy exceeds 10 yr.
This study shows that men who participated in a prostate cancer screening trial have a very low risk of dying from prostate cancer if they have not been diagnosed with prostate cancer by the age of 74 yr.
Abstract Background The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) has shown a 21% reduction in prostate cancer (PCa) mortality and a 1.6-fold increase in PCa incidence with ...prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening (at 13 yr of follow-up). We evaluated PCa incidence by risk category at diagnosis across the study arms to assess the potential impact on PCa mortality. Design, setting, and participants Information on arm, centre, T and M stage, Gleason score, serum PSA at diagnosis, age at randomisation, follow-up time, and vital status were extracted from the ERSPC database. Four risk categories at diagnosis were defined: 1, low; 2, intermediate; 3, high; 4, metastatic disease. PSA (≤100 or >100 ng/ml) was used as the indicator of metastasis. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for screening versus control arm by risk category at diagnosis and follow-up time were calculated using Poisson regression analysis for seven centres. Follow-up was truncated at 13 yr. Missing data were imputed using chained equations. The analyses were carried out on an intention-to-treat basis. Results and limitations In the screening arm, 7408 PCa cases were diagnosed and 6107 in the control arm. The proportion of missing stage, Gleason score, or PSA value was comparable in the two arms (8% vs 10%), but differed among centres. The IRRs were elevated in the screening arm for the low-risk (IRR: 2.14; 95% CI, 2.03–2.25) and intermediate-risk (IRR: 1.24; 95% CI, 1.16–1.34) categories at diagnosis, equal to unity for the high-risk category at diagnosis (IRR: 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89–1.13), and reduced for metastatic disease at diagnosis (IRR: 0.60; 95% CI, 0.52–0.70). The IRR of metastatic disease had temporal pattern similar to mortality, shifted forwards an average of almost 3 yr, although the mortality reduction was smaller. Conclusions The results confirm a reduction in metastatic disease at diagnosis in the screening arm, preceding mortality reduction by almost 3 yr. Patient summary The findings of this study indicate that the decrease in metastatic disease at diagnosis is the major determinant of the prostate cancer mortality reduction in the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.
Abstract Background Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is increasingly used in men with suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) after negative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided random ...biopsy. Risk-based patient selection for mpMRI could help to avoid unnecessary mpMRIs. Objective To study the rate of potentially avoided mpMRIs after negative TRUS-guided random biopsy by risk-based patient selection using the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC). Design, setting, and participants One hundred and twenty two consecutive men received a mpMRI scan and subsequent MRI-TRUS fusion targeted biopsy in case of suspicious lesion(s) (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System ≥ 3) after negative TRUS-guided random biopsy. Men were retrospectively stratified according to the RPCRC biopsy advice to compare targeted biopsy outcomes after risk-based patient selection with standard (prostate specific antigen and/or digital rectal examination-driven) patient selection. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The rate of potentially avoided mpMRIs by RPCRC-based patient selection in relation to the rate of missed high-grade (Gleason ≥ 3+4) PCa. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to determine the area under the curve of the RPCRC for (high-grade) PCa. Results and limitations Of the 60 men with a positive biopsy advice, six (10%) had low-grade PCa and 28 (47%) had high-grade PCa in targeted biopsy. Of the 62 men with a negative advice, two (3%) had low-grade PCa and three (5%) had high-grade PCa. Upfront RPCRC-based patient selection would have avoided 62 (51%) of 122 mpMRIs and two (25%) of eight low-grade PCa diagnoses, missing three (10%) of 31 high-grade PCa. The area under the curve of the RPCRC for PCa and high-grade PCa was respectively 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.67–0.85) and 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.76–0.93). Conclusions Risk-based patient selection with the RPCRC can avoid half of mpMRIs after a negative prostate specific antigen and/or digital rectal examination-driven TRUS-guided random biopsy. Further improvement in risk-based patient selection for mpMRI could be made by adjusting the RPCRC for MRI-targeted biopsy outcome prediction. Patient summary The suspicion of prostate cancer remains in many men after a negative ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. These men increasingly receive an often unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. We found that patient selection for MRI based on the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator biopsy advice could avoid half of the MRIs.
The burden of prostate cancer is increasing. Therefore, we need to implement a contemporary, organized, risk-stratified program for early detection to reduce both the harm from the disease and ...potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment, while avoiding underdiagnosis to considerably improve the harm-to-benefit ratio.
To compare the performance of currently available biopsy decision support tools incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).
...We retrospectively included men who underwent prostate MRI and subsequent targeted and/or systematic prostate biopsies in two large European centres. Available decision support tools were identified by a PubMed search. Performance was assessed by calibration, discrimination, decision curve analysis (DCA) and numbers of biopsies avoided vs csPCa cases missed, before and after recalibration, at risk thresholds of 5%-20%.
A total of 940 men were included, 507 (54%) had csPCa. The median (interquartile range) age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and PSA density (PSAD) were 68 (63-72) years, 9 (7-15) ng/mL, and 0.20 (0.13-0.32) ng/mL
, respectively. In all, 18 multivariable risk calculators (MRI-RCs) and dichotomous biopsy decision strategies based on MRI findings and PSAD thresholds were assessed. The Van Leeuwen model and the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) had the best discriminative ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.86) of the MRI-RCs that could be assessed in the whole cohort. DCA showed the highest clinical utility for the Van Leeuwen model, followed by the RPCRC. At the 10% threshold the Van Leeuwen model would avoid 22% of biopsies, missing 1.8% of csPCa, whilst the RPCRC would avoid 20% of biopsies, missing 2.6% of csPCas. These multivariable models outperformed all dichotomous decision strategies based only on MRI-findings and PSAD.
Even in this high-risk cohort, biopsy decision support tools would avoid many prostate biopsies, whilst missing very few csPCa cases. The Van Leeuwen model had the highest clinical utility, followed by the RPCRC. These multivariable MRI-RCs outperformed and should be favoured over decision strategies based only on MRI and PSAD.
PURPOSESimilar to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, multiparametric ultrasound represents a promising approach to prostate cancer imaging. We determined the diagnostic performance of ...B-mode, shear wave elastography and contrast enhanced ultrasound with quantification software as well as the combination, multiparametric ultrasound, for clinically significant prostate cancer localization using radical prostatectomy histopathology as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODSFrom May 2017 to July 2017, 50 men with biopsy proven prostate cancer underwent multiparametric ultrasound before radical prostatectomy at 1 center. Three readers independently evaluated 12 anatomical regions of interest for the likelihood of clinically significant prostate cancer on a 5-point Likert scale for all separate ultrasound modalities and multiparametric ultrasound. A logistic linear mixed model was used to estimate diagnostic performance for the localization of clinically significant prostate cancer (any tumor with Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 or greater, tumor volume 0.5 ml or greater, extraprostatic extension or stage pN1) using a Likert score of 3 or greater and 4 or greater as the threshold. To detect the index lesion the readers selected the 2 most suspicious regions of interest. RESULTSA total of 48 men were included in the final analysis. The region of interest specific sensitivity of multiparametric ultrasound (Likert 3 or greater) for clinically significant prostate cancer was 74% (95% CI 67-80) compared to 55% (95% CI 47-63), 55% (95% CI 47-63) and 59% (95% CI 51-67) for B-mode, shear wave elastography and contrast enhanced ultrasound, respectively. Multiparametric ultrasound sensitivity was significantly higher for Likert thresholds and all different clinically significant prostate cancer definitions (all p <0.05). Multiparametric ultrasound improved the detection of index lesion prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONSMultiparametric ultrasound of the prostate, consisting of B-mode, shear wave elastography and contrast enhanced ultrasound with parametric maps, improved localization and index lesion detection of clinically significant prostate cancer compared to single ultrasound modalities, yielding good sensitivity.
The Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculators (ERSPC-RCs) help to avoid unnecessary transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsies (TRUS-Bx). ...Multivariable risk stratification could also avoid unnecessary biopsies following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).
To construct MRI-ERSPC-RCs for the prediction of any- and high-grade (Gleason score ≥3 + 4) prostate cancer (PCa) in 12-core TRUS-Bx±MRI-targeted biopsy (MRI-TBx) by adding Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and age as parameters to the ERSPC-RC3 (biopsy-naïve men) and ERSPC-RC4 (previously biopsied men).
A total of 961 men received mpMRI and 12-core TRUS-Bx±MRI-TBx (in case of PI-RADS ≥3) in five institutions. Data of 504 biopsy-naïve and 457 previously biopsied men were used to adjust the ERSPC-RC3 and ERSPC-RC4.
Logistic regression models were constructed. The areas under the curve (AUCs) of the original ERSPC-RCs and MRI-ERSPC-RCs (including PI-RADS and age) for any- and high-grade PCa were compared. Decision curve analysis was performed to assess the clinical utility of the MRI-ERSPC-RCs.
MRI-ERSPC-RC3 had a significantly higher AUC for high-grade PCa compared with the ERSPC-RC3: 0.84 (95% confidence interval CI 0.81–0.88) versus 0.76 (95% CI 0.71–0.80, p<0.01). Similarly, MRI-ERSPC-RC4 had a higher AUC for high-grade PCa compared with the ERSPC-RC4: 0.85 (95% CI 0.81–0.89) versus 0.74 (95% CI 0.69–0.79, p<0.01). Unlike for the MRI-ERSPC-RC3, decision curve analysis showed clear net benefit of the MRI-ERSPC-RC4 at a high-grade PCa risk threshold of ≥5%. Using a ≥10% high-grade PCa risk threshold to biopsy for the MRI-ERSPC-RC4, 36% biopsies are saved, missing low- and high-grade PCa, respectively, in 15% and 4% of men who are not biopsied.
We adjusted the ERSPC-RCs for the prediction of any- and high-grade PCa in 12-core TRUS-Bx±MRI-TBx. Although the ability of the MRI-ERSPC-RC3 for biopsy-naïve men to avoid biopsies remains questionable, application of the MRI-ERSPC-RC4 in previously biopsied men in our cohort would have avoided 36% of biopsies, missing high-grade PCa in 4% of men who would not have received a biopsy.
We have constructed magnetic resonance imaging-based Rotterdam European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (MRI-ERSPC) risk calculators for prostate cancer prediction in transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy by incorporating age and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score into the original ERSPC risk calculators. The MRI-ERSPC risk calculator for previously biopsied men could be used to avoid one-third of biopsies following MRI.
The magnetic resonance imaging-based Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (MRI-ERSPC) risk calculators include age and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System as parameters, and predict (Gleason ≥3+4) prostate cancer in transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy. The MRI-ERSPC risk calculator could help avoid one-third of biopsies following MRI in previously biopsied men.
Prostate cancer screening depends on a careful balance of benefits, in terms of reduced prostate cancer mortality, and harms, in terms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. We aimed to estimate the ...effect on overdiagnosis of restricting prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing by age and baseline PSA.
Estimates of the effects of age on overdiagnosis were based on population based incidence data from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. To investigate the relationship between PSA and overdiagnosis, we used two separate cohorts subject to PSA testing in clinical trials (n = 1,577 and n = 1,197) and a population-based cohort of Swedish men not subject to PSA-screening followed for 25 years (n = 1,162).
If PSA testing had been restricted to younger men, the number of excess cases associated with the introduction of PSA in the US would have been reduced by 85%, 68% and 42% for age cut-offs of 60, 65 and 70, respectively. The risk that a man with screen-detected cancer at age 60 would not subsequently lead to prostate cancer morbidity or mortality decreased exponentially as PSA approached conventional biopsy thresholds. For PSAs below 1 ng/ml, the risk of a positive biopsy is 65 (95% CI 18.2, 72.9) times greater than subsequent prostate cancer mortality.
Prostate cancer overdiagnosis has a strong relationship to age and PSA level. Restricting screening in men over 60 to those with PSA above median (>1 ng/ml) and screening men over 70 only in selected circumstances would importantly reduce overdiagnosis and change the ratio of benefits to harms of PSA-screening.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Objectives
To develop an automatic method for identification and segmentation of clinically significant prostate cancer in low-risk patients and to evaluate the performance in a routine clinical ...setting.
Methods
A consecutive cohort (
n
= 292) from a prospective database of low-risk patients eligible for the active surveillance was selected. A 3-T multi-parametric MRI at 3 months after inclusion was performed. Histopathology from biopsies was used as reference standard. MRI positivity was defined as PI-RADS score ≥ 3, histopathology positivity was defined as ISUP grade ≥ 2. The selected cohort contained four patient groups: (1) MRI-positive targeted biopsy-positive (
n
= 116), (2) MRI-negative systematic biopsy-negative (
n
= 55), (3) MRI-positive targeted biopsy-negative (
n
= 113), (4) MRI-negative systematic biopsy-positive (
n
= 8). Group 1 was further divided into three sets and a 3D convolutional neural network was trained using different combinations of these sets. Two MRI sequences (T2w,
b
= 800 DWI) and the ADC map were used as separate input channels for the model. After training, the model was evaluated on the remaining group 1 patients together with the patients of groups 2 and 3 to identify and segment clinically significant prostate cancer.
Results
The average sensitivity achieved was 82–92% at an average specificity of 43–76% with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.65 to 0.89 for different lesion volumes ranging from > 0.03 to > 0.5 cc.
Conclusions
The proposed deep learning computer-aided method yields promising results in identification and segmentation of clinically significant prostate cancer and in confirming low-risk cancer (ISUP grade ≤ 1) in patients on active surveillance.
Key Points
• Clinically significant prostate cancer identification and segmentation on multi-parametric MRI is feasible in low-risk patients using a deep neural network.
• The deep neural network for significant prostate cancer localization performs better for lesions with larger volumes sizes (> 0.5 cc) as compared to small lesions (> 0.03 cc).
• For the evaluation of automatic prostate cancer segmentation methods in the active surveillance cohort, the large discordance group (MRI positive, targeted biopsy negative) should be included.
PDF
