Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and Recent Increases in Advanced Prostate Cancer
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nyame Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7791607 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionFor many men, the net benefit of prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests may be small. Many major medical organizations have issued recommendations for prostate cancer screening, stressing the need for shared decision making before ordering a test. The purpose of this study is to better understand associations between discussions about benefits and harms of PSA testing and uptake of the test among men aged ≥40 years.MethodsAssociations between pre-screening discussions and PSA testing were examined using self-reported data from the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Unadjusted prevalence of PSA testing was estimated and AORs were calculated using logistic regression in 2014.ResultsThe multivariate analysis showed that men who had ever discussed advantages of PSA testing only or discussed both advantages and disadvantages were more likely, respectively, to report having had a test within the past year than men who had no discussions (p<0.001). In addition, men who had only discussed the disadvantages of PSA testing with their healthcare providers were more likely (AOR=2.75, 95% CI=2.00, 3.79) to report getting tested than men who had no discussions.ConclusionsDiscussions of the benefits or harms of PSA testing are positively associated with increased uptake of the test. Given the conflicting recommendations for prostate cancer screening and increasing importance of shared decision making, this study points to the need for understanding how pre-screening discussions are being conducted in clinical practice and the role played by patients' values and preferences in decisions about PSA testing.
| S-EPMC4536805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: A simulation approach for prostate cancer (PrCa) with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test incorporating genetic information provides a new avenue for the development of personalized screening for PrCa. Going by the evidence-based principle, we use the simulation method to evaluate the effectiveness of mortality reduction resulting from PSA screening and its utilization using a personalized screening regime as opposed to a universal screening program. (2) Methods: A six-state (normal, over-detected, low-grade, and high-grade PrCa in pre-clinical phase, and low-grade and high-grade PrCa in clinical phase) Markov model with genetic and PSA information was developed after a systematic review of genetic variant studies and dose-dependent PSA studies. This gene‒PSA-guided model was used for personalized risk assessment and risk stratification. A computer-based simulated randomized controlled trial was designed to estimate the reduction of mortality achieved by three different screening methods, personalized screening, universal screening, and a non-screening group. (3) Results: The effectiveness of PrCa mortality reduction for a personalized screening program compared to a non-screening group (22% (9%‒33%)) was similar to that noted in the universal screening group (20% (7%‒21%). However, a personalized screening program could dispense with 26% of unnecessary PSA testing, and avoid over-detection by 2%. (4) Conclusions: Gene‒PSA-guided personalized screening for PrCa leads to fewer unnecessary PSA tests without compromising the benefits of mortality reduction (as happens with the universal screening program).
| S-EPMC6770934 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4216256 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To evaluate the association between serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration from a screening test and prostate cancer mortality in an Asian population.We included 118,665 men in the Korean Heart Study, a large prospective cohort study of participants who voluntarily underwent private health examinations that included PSA-based prostate cancer screening. The baseline visit occurred between January 1994 and December 2004, and follow-up was through December 2011. Deaths from prostate cancer were ascertained from the underlying cause of death from a computerized search of death certificate data from the National Statistical Office in Korea. We used the Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the association between serum PSA and risk of prostate cancer death adjusting the baseline age, cigarette smoking status, and body mass index.During 1,381,901 person-years of follow-up, 6036 men died of any cause, and of these, 56 men died of prostate cancer. The multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio for prostate cancer death statistically significantly increased across PSA concentrations (P trend <.0001). The hazard ratio increased 7% per 1-ng/mL increase in PSA. The association between PSA concentration and death from prostate cancer was stronger in younger than in older men and in heavier than leaner men.In conclusion, an increased screening PSA level is associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer death in Korean men. Our findings may have implications for the development of targeted PSA cutpoints for biopsy recommendation.
| S-EPMC4659382 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Specificity constitutes a component of validity for a screening test. The number of false-positive (FP) results has been regarded as one of major shortcomings in prostate cancer screening. We estimated the specificity of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) determination in prostate cancer screening using data from a randomised, controlled screening trial conducted in Finland with 32 000 men in the screening arm. We calculated the specificity as the proportion of men with negative findings (screen negatives, SN) relative to those with negative and FP results (SN/(SN+FP)). A SN finding was defined as either PSA</=4 ng ml(-1) or PSA 3.0-3.9 ng ml(-1) combined with a negative ancillary test (digital rectal examination, DRE or free/total, F/T PSA ratio). False positives were those with positive screening test followed by a negative diagnostic examination. Of the 30 194 eligible men, 20 794 (69%) attended the first screening round and 1968 (9.5%) had a screen-positive finding. A total of 508 prostate cancers were detected at screening (2.4%). Hence, the number of SN findings was 18 825 and the number of FP results 1358. Specificity was estimated as 0.933 (18 825 out of 20 183) with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.929-0.936. Specificity decreased with age. Digital rectal examination as ancillary examination had similar or higher specificity than F/T PSA. In the second screening round, specificity was slightly lower (0.912, 95% CI 0.908-0.916). The specificity of PSA screening in the Finnish screening trial is acceptable. Further improvement in specificity could, however, improve acceptability of screening and decrease screening costs.
| S-EPMC2360217 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for population screening has presented controversial results in large trials and prior reviews. We investigated the effectiveness of PSA population screening in a systematic review.MethodsThe study was conducted using existing systematic reviews. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library, and the major Korean databases. The quality of the systematic reviews was assessed by two reviewers independently using AMSTAR. Randomized controlled trials were assessed using the risk of bias tool in the Cochrane group. Meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager. The level of evidence of each outcome was assessed using GRADE.ResultsProstate-cancer-specific mortality was not reduced based on similar prior reviews (relative risk [RR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.07, P=0.31). The detection rate of stage 1 prostate cancer was not greater, with a RR of 1.67 (95% CI, 0.95-2.94) and high heterogeneity. The detection rate of all cancer stages in the screening group was high, with a RR of 1.45 (95% CI, 1.13-1.85). No difference in all-cause mortality was observed between the screening and control groups (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.01, P=0.50). Prostate-cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and diagnosis of prostate cancer at stages 3-4 showed moderate levels of evidence.ConclusionsDifferently from prior studies, our review included updated Norrköping data and assessed the sole effect of PSA testing for prostate cancer screening. PSA screening alone did not increase early stage prostate cancer detection and did not lower mortality.
| S-EPMC3698300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendation against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for all men has been controversial, with data documenting a shift to a higher stage of disease at diagnosis. The association between the Grade D recommendation and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) among contemporary cohorts, however, is unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate PCSM rates between 1999 and 2019, comparing trends in rates before and after the change in the 2012 USPSTF screening guideline to assess its association with PCSM.ExposureThe 2012 USPSTF Grade D recommendation against PSA screening for all men.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research maintained by the National Center for Health Statistics to collect data on cause of death for all individuals who died of prostate cancer in the US from 1999 to 2019. Analysis was performed from January to August 2021.Main outcomes and measuresTrends in PCSM rates were calculated from 1999 to 2012 and from 2014 to 2019, with a washout year of 2013, using linear regression, with year and binary indicator of pre-2013 and post-2013 status as interaction terms. Trends were further analyzed by age, race and ethnicity, urbanization category, and US Census region. Other measures included diagnosis of localized or metastatic prostate cancer and overall cancer mortality.ResultsA total of 618 095 patients died of prostate cancer in the US from 1999 to 2019. Age-adjusted PCSM decreased linearly at a rate of -0.273 per 100 000 population per year from 1999 to 2012 and stalled at a rate of -0.009 per 100 000 per year from 2014 to 2019 (P < .001). This finding was significant among men aged 60 years or older, especially among men aged 60 to 69 years, men aged 80 years or older, and among Black men. Men aged 60 to 64 years had a decreasing, age-adjusted PCSM rate of -0.0088 per 100 000 population per year prior to 2013 followed by an increasing rate of 0.0014 per 100 000 per year. Men aged 65 to 69 years had a decreasing, age-adjusted PCSM rate of -0.024 per 100 000 population per year prior to 2013 followed by an increasing rate of 0.0011 per 100 000 population per year. Men aged 80 years or older had the largest absolute difference between rates before and after 2013 compared with all other age groups, with a difference of 0.06 for men aged 80 to 84 years and 0.07 for men 85 aged years or older. Black men had a decreasing, age-adjusted PCSM rate of -0.700 per 100 000 population per year prior to 2013 followed by a flattened rate of -0.091 per 100 000 population per year. Changes were observed across races and ethnicities, urbanization categories, and US Census regions and were accompanied by increased diagnoses of metastatic disease, which are inconsistent with mortality trends across all malignant neoplasms.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study using comprehensive PCSM data through 2019 demonstrated decreasing PCSM rates that flattened or increased after the 2012 USPSTF Grade D recommendation, suggesting that decreased PSA screening may be a factor associated with this change. This change was seen across ages, races and ethnicities, urbanization categories, and US Census regions. The updated 2018 USPSTF guideline supporting shared decision-making may reverse these trends in the coming years.
| S-EPMC9112070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We defined prostate-specific antigen (PSA) thresholds from a well calibrated risk prediction model for identifying and excluding advanced prostate cancer (PCa). We retrieved 902 biopsied patients with a pre-biopsy PSA determination (Roche assay). A logistic regression model predictive for PCa including the main effects [i.e., PSA, age, histological evidence of glandular inflammation (GI)] was built after testing the accuracy by calibration plots and Hosmer-Lemeshow test for goodness of fit. PSA thresholds were derived by assuming a diagnostic sensitivity of 95% (rule-out) and 80% (rule-in) for overall and advanced/poorly differentiated PCa. In patients without GI, serum PSA concentrations ≤ 4.1 (<65 years old) and ≤3.7 μg/L (≥65 years old) excluded an advanced PCa (defined as Gleason score ≥ 7 at biopsy), with a negative predictive value of 95.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 83.0-98.7] and 88.8% (CI: 80.2-93.9), respectively, while PSA > 5.7 (<65) and >6.1 μg/L (≥65) should address biopsy referral. In presence of GI, PSA did not provide a valid estimate for risk of advanced cancer because of its higher variability and the low pre-test probability of PCa. The proposed PSA thresholds may support biopsy decision except for patients with asymptomatic prostatitis who cannot be pre-biopsy identified.
| S-EPMC8305281 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite higher risks associated with prostate cancer, young African American men are poorly represented in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) trials, which limits proper evidence-based guidance. We evaluated the impact of PSA screening, alongside primary care provider utilization, on prostate cancer outcomes for these patients.MethodsWe identified African American men aged 40-55 years, diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2017 within the Veterans Health Administration. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted propensity scores were used in multivariable models to assess PSA screening on PSA levels higher than 20, Gleason score of 8 or higher, and metastatic disease at diagnosis. Lead-time adjusted Fine-Gray regression evaluated PSA screening on prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), with noncancer death as competing events. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsThe cohort included 4726 patients. Mean age was 51.8 years, with 84-month median follow-up. There were 1057 (22.4%) with no PSA screening prior to diagnosis. Compared with no screening, PSA screening was associated with statistically significantly reduced odds of PSA levels higher than 20 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.63; P < .001), Gleason score of 8 or higher (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.88; P < .001), and metastatic disease at diagnosis (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.64; P < .001), and decreased PCSM (subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.76; P < .001). Primary care provider visits displayed similar effects.ConclusionsAmong young African American men diagnosed with prostate cancer, PSA screening was associated with statistically significantly lower risk of PSA levels higher than 20, Gleason score of 8 or higher, and metastatic disease at diagnosis and statistically significantly reduced risk of PCSM. However, the retrospective design limits precise estimation of screening effects. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.
| S-EPMC9002290 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesElectronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, OpenGrey, LILACS, and Medline, and search of scientific meeting abstracts and trial registers to April 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing PSA screening with usual care in men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer.Data extractionAt least two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of eligible studies. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. We used a random effects model to obtain pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) and, when feasible, conducted subgroup analyses (defined a priori) based on age, frequency of screening, family history, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level, as well as a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach.ResultsFive randomised controlled trials, enrolling 721?718 men, were included. Studies varied with respect to screening frequency and intervals, PSA thresholds for biopsy, and risk of bias. When considering the whole body of evidence, screening probably has no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.96, 0.85 to 1.08; low certainty). Sensitivity analysis of studies at lower risk of bias (n=1) also demonstrates that screening seems to have no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 1.0, 0.98 to 1.02; moderate certainty) but may have a small effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.79, 0.69 to 0.91; moderate certainty). This corresponds to one less death from prostate cancer per 1000 men screened over 10 years. Direct comparative data on biopsy and treatment related complications from the included trials were limited. Using modelling, we estimated that for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalised for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively.ConclusionsAt best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but has does not affect overall mortality. Clinicians and patients considering PSA based screening need to weigh these benefits against the potential short and long term harms of screening, including complications from biopsies and subsequent treatment, as well as the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42016042347.
| S-EPMC6283370 | biostudies-literature