Is additional testing necessary in men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 1.0 ng/mL or less in a population-based screening setting? (ERSPC, section Rotterdam).
ABSTRACT Currently, several prostate cancer rescreening intervals are in use in different countries worldwide, varying from 1 to 4 years. Recently, it has been proposed to determine the rescreening interval relative to the initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and possibly to extend the rescreening interval up to 5 years.
We evaluated the screening results of two subsequent screening visits (4-year interval) of 1703 men aged 55 to 65 years with an initial PSA level of 1.0 ng/mL or less within a randomized screening trial. We assessed the PSA values, numbers of men biopsied (biopsy indication: PSA level of 3.0 ng/mL or greater), and numbers of cancers detected at the second and third screening visits.
A total of 1327 men (79.3%) attended the second screening visit. Of these men, 13 (0.98%) had a PSA level of 3.0 ng/mL or greater, and three cancers were detected (cancer detection rate 0.23%). At the third screening visit, 1017 men (76.8%) attended, 34 men (3.3%) had a PSA level of 3.0 ng/mL or greater, and five cancers were detected (cancer detection rate 0.49%). The 2344 subsequent PSA determinations in an 8-year period after the initial screening resulted in eight cancers detected, for an overall cancer detection rate of 0.47%. Through linkage of all men with the cancer registry, no additional cancers were found.
A strategy of PSA screening every 8 years for men with a PSA level of 1.0 ng/mL or less will lead to a considerable decrease in the number of screening visits (with the associated costs and stress), with a minimal risk of missing aggressive cancer at a curable stage.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: While the benefit of prostate specific antigen (PSA) based screening is uncertain, a significant proportion of screen-detected cases is overdiagnosed. In order to make screening worthwhile, it is necessary to find policies that minimize overdiagnosis, without significantly increasing prostate cancer mortality (PCM). Using a microsimulation model (MISCAN) we project the outcomes of 83 screening policies in the US population, with different start and stop ages, screening frequencies, strategies where the PSA value changes the screening frequency, and strategies in which the PSA threshold (PSAt) increases with age. In the basecase strategy, yearly screening 50-74 with a PSAt of 3, the lifetime risk of PCM and overdiagnosis equals respectively, 2.4% and 3.8%. The policies that reduce overdiagnosis the most (for maximum PCM increases relative to basecase of 1%, 3% and 5%, respectively) are with a PSAt of 3, (1) yearly screening 50-74 where, if PSA <1 at age 65 or older, frequency becomes 4 years, with 3.6% (5.9% reduction), (2) 2-year screening 50-72, with 2.9% (24.3% reduction) and (3) yearly screening 50-70 (PSAt of 4 after age 66), with 2.2% (43.4% reduction). Stopping screening at age 70 is a reasonable way to reduce the harms and keep the benefit. Decreasing the stopping age has a larger effect on overdiagnosis reduction than reducing the screen frequency. Screening policies where the frequency of screening depends on PSA result or in which the PSAt changes with age did not substantially improve the balance of harms and benefits relative to simple yearly screening. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.International Journal of Cancer 08/2014; 136(7). DOI:10.1002/ijc.29136 · 5.01 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a glycoprotein produced by the prostate gland and its production can be enhanced in benign and malignant diseases. The introduction of PSA testing has greatly increased the detection of prostate cancer. However there is continuing controversy and confusion over the most appropriate application of the PSA test.Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia 10/2014; DOI:10.5507/bp.2014.046 · 1.66 Impact Factor
European Urology 05/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.05.002 · 12.48 Impact Factor