|INVITED RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT
|Year : 2015 | Volume
| Issue : 1 | Page : 44-45
To screen or nor to screen: the prostate cancer dilemma
Nelson N Stone1, E David Crawford2
1 Department of Urology and Radiation Oncology, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
2 Department of Surgery, Division of Urology and Radiation Oncology, The Anschutz Cancer Center, The University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CO, USA
|Date of Web Publication||03-Oct-2014|
Nelson N Stone
Department of Urology and Radiation Oncology, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate (ERSPC) has updated their previous seminal report on prostate cancer mortality comparing screened men to controls. Now with 13 years follow-up, the rate ratio of prostate cancer mortality was 0.79 favoring the screened population. The authors concluded that there was a "substantial reduction in prostate cancer mortality attributable to testing with prostate-specific antigen (PSA)" but they also stated that a "quantification of harms" needed to be addressed. The issue of harms was not addressed by the ERSPC (at least not in this report) and hence this additional statement most likely reflects the controversy currently surrounding the risks associated with over-diagnosis and treatment of indolent diseases inadvertently detected by a screening protocol.  In addition, the positive results from this trial conflict with those of the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO)  study and require further elaboration.
|How to cite this article:|
Stone NN, Crawford E D. To screen or nor to screen: the prostate cancer dilemma. Asian J Androl 2015;17:44-5
Part of the challenge with interpreting the ERSPC is a result of the study design. France entered the study late (2 years), the screening intervals varied from 2 to 4 years, the biopsy indication by PSA varied, and screening was discontinued at different time points in several of the countries. Despite these limitations, screening detected substantially more prostate cancers than in the control group, 10.2% of the population versus 6.8%. However, even though the intervention arm experienced a 21% decrease in prostate cancer mortality, the absolute decrease was only 0.6% (545 per 89 352) to 0.5% (355 per 72 891); and this came at a burden of potential overtreatment in the patients with low-risk disease. The majority of the prostate cancers detected in the PSA arm had low-risk features (59.9%), whereas many fewer men in the control group were diagnosed with similar disease (41.6%). Unnecessary surgery or radiation has become a significant problem in the management of these men. Many clinicians chose to offer low-risk patients active surveillance (AS) rather than definitive therapy. However, this also creates an additional burden, as transrectal ultrasound biopsies are often repeated yearly, and PSA testing frequency is increased. Thirty to fifty percents of the men on AS eventually have surgery or radiation, and many have advanced disease at the time of treatment. , The problem created by screening is that too many patients are identified with low-risk disease. Approximately, 50% have disease that can be safely managed by AS, while the other half would be best managed by definitive or focal therapy. Unfortunately, the procedure used to make a diagnosis, the TRUS biopsy, cannot differentiate between these two groups.
The ERSPC study is often compared to the updated PLCO trial.  The latter trial, with similar 13 years follow-up offered PSA and digital rectal examination (DRE) screening to about half as many men. The major difference between the two was about 50% of the control arm previously had a PSA or DRE test, and this "contamination" may have influenced the overall results. The PLCO trial failed to find a difference in prostate cancer detection (11.1% vs 9.9%, screened vs not screened) and no improvement in cancer mortality. It is also worthwhile noting that prostate cancer deaths were not that dissimilar between the two studies with 0.41% versus 0.38% of the study population dying from the disease, respectively.
Where does that leave the physician who is trying to decide whether to offer early detection with PSA/DRE testing and how can our patients make an informed decision given these data? First it is important to recognize the patient populations were different in the American and European trials. Men in the USA have been exposed to prostate cancer "screening" since 1989 , and it is estimated that over 75% of the population have had PSA testing. Early diagnosis came later to the Europeans, and PSA testing is not universally done in all countries. It should, therefore, not be surprising that the studies were positive in Europe and negative in America. Where does that leave the Asian patients? PSA testing is not routinely performed in Japan, where penetration is estimated at 5%-10%.  In addition, more cancers are diagnosed at higher stage, and the death rate from the disease continues to increase.  The situation is probably not dissimilar in other Asian countries. These data would be an argument in favor of routine testing.
Nonetheless, a strategy needs to be developed to manage the majority of patients who are diagnosed by TRUS biopsy with low-risk disease. The danger in ignoring this problem is men may refuse testing putting them at risk for increased morbidity and death. The ERSPC study briefly mentioned multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a technology to decrease over-diagnosis. Centers in Europe and the USA are utilizing mpMRI combined with targeted biopsies to identify high-grade disease. Men with elevated PSA get scanned and only biopsied when suspicious regions suggest high-grade disease. mpMRI is more likely to identify lethal cancers (Gleason score 8 and above) than low-grade disease. , The men with a nonsuspicious mpMRI study would then not be biopsied at all. The available evidence on this issue needs to be confirmed by large, preferably multicenter studies. Another strategy employs genetic and epigenetic assays of biopsy material whereby apparent low-risk disease is reassigned into a more aggressive category and only these patients are offered definitive therapy. Studies are underway to see if either of these two strategies can improve treatment decisions in the AS group.
One additional strategy should be mentioned. Several investigators have turned to saturation or mapping biopsies using a transperineal approach. Fifty to seventy-five percents of men on an AS protocol are found with multifocal or higher grade disease after a transperineal mapping biopsy (TPMB). ,, Crawford has investigated TPMB using a mapping software program whereby disease sites within the gland can be precisely localized affording a large number of patients a targeted focal therapy (TFT) option. , As more data is collected with mpMRI, genetic testing and TPMB, better selection of candidates for AS, TFT and definitive therapy should increase our confidence that PSA testing is the right choice for our patients.
| Competing Interests|| |
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
| References|| |
Heijnsdijk EA, Wever EM, Auvinen A, Hugosson J, Ciatto S, et al.
Quality-of-life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening. N Engl J Med
2012; 367: 595-605.
Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3 rd
, Buys SS, Chia D, et al.
Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst
2012; 104: 125-32.
Dall'Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, Carroll PR, Carter HB, et al.
Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol
2012; 62: 976-83.
Ramirez-Backhaus M, Iborra I, Gomez-Ferrer A, Rubio-Briones J. Prostatectomy pathology findings in an active surveillance population. Arch Esp Urol
2014; 67: 431-9.
Stone NN, Crawford ED, DeAntoni EP and the Prostate Cancer Education Council. Screening for prostate cancer by digital rectal exam and prostate specific antigen: results of prostate cancer awareness week, 1989-1992. Urology
1994; 44: 18-25.
Catalona WJ. Prostate-cancer screening. N Engl J Med
2009; 361: 202.
Onozawa M, Hinotsu S, Tsukamoto T, Oya M, Ogawa O, et al.
Recent trends in the initial therapy for newly diagnosed prostate cancer in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol
Iwamoto M, Nakamura F, Higashi T. Estimated life expectancy and risk of death from cancer by quartiles in the older Japanese population: 2010 vital statistics. Cancer Epidemiol
Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA Jr, Kruecker J, et al
. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol
2011; 186: 1281-5.
Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J, Simpfendörfer T, Boxler S, et al
. Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol
2013; 190: 1380-6.
Merrick GS, Delatore A, Butler WM, Bennett A, Fiano R, et al.
Transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy identifies pathologic differences between very-low-risk and low-risk prostate cancer: implications for active surveillance. Am J Clin Oncol
Barzell WE, Melamed MR. Appropriate patient selection in the focal treatment of prostate cancer: the role of transperineal 3-dimensional pathologic mapping of the prostate - a 4-year experience. Urology
2007; 70 6 Suppl: 27-35.
Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, et al.
Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol
2011; 186: 458-64.
Crawford ED, Rove KO, Barqawi AB, Maroni PD, Werahera PN, et al.
Clinical-pathologic correlation between transperineal mapping biopsies of the prostate and three-dimensional reconstruction of prostatectomy specimens. Prostate
2013; 73: 778-87.
Crawford ED, Rove KO, Stone NN, Lucia MS, LaRosa FG. Moving forward the state of the art in prostate cancer treatment: focal therapy. Urol Pract
. [In Press].
|This article has been cited by|
||Physician Characteristics and Decisions Regarding Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review
| ||Alfred I. Neugut,Sarah A. MacLean,Wei F. Dai,Judith S. Jacobson |
| ||Population Health Management. 2018; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Prostate cancer characteristics and outcome in renal transplant recipients: results from a contemporary single center study
| ||Caroline Pettenati,Anne-Sophie Jannot,Sophie Hurel,Virginie Verkarre,Henri Kreis,Martin Housset,Christophe Legendre,Arnaud Méjean,Marc-Olivier Timsit |
| ||Clinical Transplantation. 2016; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Prostatakrebsscreening – wo stehen wir?
| ||P. Hammerer |
| ||Forum. 2015; 30(1): 46 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|