Change of tumour characteristics and treatment over time in both arms of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

From Screening to Mortality Reduction: An Overview of Empirical Data on the Patient Journey in European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam After 21 Years of Follow-up and a Reflection on Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Previous research quantified the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer (PCa) screening on quality-adjusted life years using 11-yr follow-up data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) extrapolated by the Microsimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN). ERSPC data now matured to 21 yr of follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of the effect of PSA-based screening on tumour characteristics and PCa treatment using long-term, detailed, empirical ERSPC data.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Men were included from the ERSPC Rotterdam who were randomised to a PSA-based screening (S) or control (C) arm.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We assessed the effects of PSA-based screening on the number of PCa diagnoses, tumour characteristics, treatments, and cumulative incidence of disease progression. We also evaluated the changes in tumour characteristics and treatments over time for both study arms.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among PCa patients in the S-arm, fewer patients were diagnosed with advanced tumour stages (T3/T4: 12% vs 23%; relative risk [RR] = 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.57), less disease progression was observed, and less secondary treatment (30% vs 48%; RR = 0.61; 95% CI 0.57-0.66; p < 0.001) and less palliative treatment were needed (21% vs 55%; RR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.35-0.42) than among those in the C-arm. This was at the cost of overdiagnosis and increased local treatments (eg, radical prostatectomy: 32% vs 14%; RR = 2.18; 95% CI 1.92-2.48). Over time, the number of local treatments decreased, whereas expectant management strategies increased. The RRs of treatments were slightly different from those of the MISCAN.

CONCLUSIONS

After 21 yr of follow-up, empirical data of the ERSPC showed that PSA-based screening reduces advanced PCa stages, disease progression, and extensive treatments at the cost of more overdiagnosis and probably more overtreatment. Our data showed reduced local treatments and increased expectant management strategies over time.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Prostate-specific antigen-based screening reduces the number of invasive prostate cancer treatments needed, however, at the cost of more overdiagnosis and probably more overtreatment. Limiting these costs remains crucial to benefit optimally from prostate cancer screening.

Younger Men With Prostate Cancer Have Lower Risk of Upgrading While on Active Surveillance: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature

Active surveillance has become a popular option for patients with low risk prostate cancer. Our objective was to examine the correlation between age and the risk of Gleason upgrading and biopsy progression. A systematic search was conducted. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria including 6522 patients with a median age of 65.8 (41-86) years. Per decade decrease in age, the pooled odds ratio and hazard ratio (CI 95%) for Gleason upgrading were 0.83 (0.73-0.94) and 0.87 (0.82-0.92), and for biopsy progression were 0.80 (0.74-0.86) and 0.88 (0.79-0.99), respectively. Overall, younger patients have a lower risk of GS upgrading and biopsy progression.

Impact of Early Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer on Survival Outcomes

CONTEXT

The relationship between early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and disease-specific mortality is still the subject of much debate.

OBJECTIVE

This review describes developments in PCa mortality rates and disease-stage shift on a population level. The main findings from the randomised screening trials are also discussed. Finally, we consider the expected consequences for the individual man interested in screening.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The PubMed database was searched for trials of screening for PCa from inception through October 11, 2014. Supplementary information was collected by cross-referencing the reference lists.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Since the introduction of prostate-specific antigen testing, PCa incidence has risen, and a stage shift towards more favourable disease at diagnosis has been observed. PCa mortality rates are gradually decreasing. Although screening trials show conflicting results, the largest randomised trial of screening for PCa shows a 21% decrease in PCa-specific mortality. After correction for noncompliance and contamination, a risk reduction in PCa-specific mortality of up to 49% has been reported. The main side effect of screening is that some studies have estimated that approximately 50% of detected cases may represent overdiagnosis, which may be reduced by stopping screening in older men and using an individual risk-based approach.

CONCLUSIONS

To maximise the benefits while minimising the risk of overdiagnosis, future screening should follow an individual risk-based approach.

PATIENT SUMMARY

On a population level, the introduction of screening for prostate cancer (PCa) is associated with more men diagnosed but with more favourable disease. The largest screening study confirmed the reduction in death due to PCa. Individual risk estimation is important to best balance the benefits and potential harms of early detection.

Gleason drift in the NIHR ProtecT study

AIMS

There is increasing evidence of Gleason score (GS) drift in prostatic core biopsies during the last two decades. The ProtecT study is a randomized controlled study and provides an excellent cohort to study the effect of time, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, perineural invasion, tumour length and age on GS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The ProtecT study recruited men in the United Kingdom between 1999 and 2010. The Gleason scores were grouped into four categories ≤ 3 + 3, 3 + 4, 4 + 3 and ≥ 4 + 4 for analysis. Data from England between 2000 and 2012 were also available. A total of 3282 biopsies containing cancer were analysed. For each year of the ProtecT study, the odds of being diagnosed with a higher GS category increased by 4.9%. Higher GS was also associated with perineural invasion, increasing tumour length, age and PSA level. While biopsy GS from England was incomplete, it also showed a marked decrease in GS five and six tumours during the same period.

CONCLUSION

There was GS drift from 3 + 3 to 3 + 4 with time in the ProtecT study, but there appeared to be no significant change in percentage of GS 4 + 3 or higher. This drift was less dramatic when compared to GS in the rest of England.

Prostate cancer: a review of active surveillance

The objective of this paper is to review the current recommendations for active surveillance in prostate cancer from the present prospective studies. Worldwide, there are increasing numbers of men with prostate cancer. It is now accepted as standard care that a number of men with favorable-risk disease can be followed with active surveillance. In 1995, the first prospective studies were initiated to assess the feasibility of active surveillance, in which the decision to intervene was determined by prostate-specific antigen and/or histological progression. The strategy was to provide therapy individualized to the biological behavior of the cancer. Clinical trials assessing active surveillance have usually included patients younger than 70 years of age, although the guidelines have changed over time for Gleason score and prostate-specific antigen, eg, doubling time, thereby changing the indication for active treatment. The present review focuses on patient selection, prospective studies reported in the literature, and future directions.

External validation of a Brazilian predictive nomogram for pathologic outcomes following radical prostatectomy in tertiary teaching institutions: the USP nomograms

PURPOSES

(a) To externally validate the Crippa and colleagues' nomograms combining PSA, percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC) and biopsy Gleason score to predict organ-confined disease (OCD) in a contemporary sample of patients treated at a tertiary teaching institution. (b) To adjust such variables, resulting in predictive nomograms for OCD and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI): the USP nomograms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The accuracy of Crippa and colleagues' nomograms for OCD prediction was examined in 1002 men submitted to radical prostatectomy between 2005 and 2010 at the University of São Paulo (USP). ROC-derived area under the curve (AUC) and Brier scores were used to assess the discriminant properties of nomograms for OCD. Nomograms performance was explored graphically with LOESS smoothing plots. Furthermore, univariate analysis and logistic regression models targeted OCD and SVI. Variables consisted of PSA, PPBC, biopsy Gleason score and clinical stage. The resulted predictive nomograms for OCD and SVI were internally validated with bootstrapping and the same abovementioned procedures.

RESULTS

Crippa and colleagues' nomograms for OCD showed ROC AUC = 0.68 (CI: 0.65-0.70), Brier score = 0.17 and overestimation in LOESS plots. USP nomograms for OCDand SVI showed ROC AUC of 0.73 (CI: 0.70-0.76) and 0.77 (CI: 0.73-0.79), respectively, and Brier scores of 0.16 and 0.08, respectively. The LOESS plots showed excellent calibration for OCD and underestimation for SVI.

CONCLUSIONS

Crippa and colleagues' nomograms showed moderate discrimination and considerable OCD overestimation. USP nomograms showed good discrimination for OCD and SVI, as well as excellent calibration for OCD and SVI underestimation.

Five-year downstream outcomes following prostate-specific antigen screening in older men

IMPORTANCE

Despite ongoing controversies surrounding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, many men 65 years or older undergo screening. However, few data exist that quantify the chain of events following screening in clinical practice to better inform decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify 5-year downstream outcomes following a PSA screening result exceeding 4.0 ng/mL in older men.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Longitudinal cohort study in the national Veterans Affairs health care system.

PARTICIPANTS

In total, 295,645 men 65 years or older who underwent PSA screening in the Veterans Affairs health care system in 2003 and were followed up for 5 years using national Veterans Affairs and Medicare data.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Among men whose index screening PSA level exceeded 4.0 ng/mL, we determined the number who underwent prostate biopsy, were diagnosed as having prostate cancer, were treated for prostate cancer, and were treated for prostate cancer and were alive at 5 years according to baseline characteristics. Biopsy and treatment complications were also assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 25,208 men (8.5%) had an index PSA level exceeding 4.0 ng/mL. During the 5-year follow-up period, 8313 men (33.0%) underwent at least 1 prostate biopsy, and 5220 men (62.8%) who underwent prostate biopsy were diagnosed as having prostate cancer, of whom 4284 (82.1%) were treated for prostate cancer. Performance of prostate biopsy decreased with advancing age and worsening comorbidity (P < .001), whereas the percentage treated for biopsy-detected cancer exceeded 75% even among men 85 years or older, those with a Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index of 3 or higher, and those having low-risk cancer. Among men with biopsy-detected cancer, the risk of death from non-prostate cancer causes increased with advancing age and worsening comorbidity (P < .001). In total, 468 men (5.6%) had complications within 7 days after prostate biopsy. Complications of prostate cancer treatment included new urinary incontinence in 584 men (13.6%) and new erectile dysfunction 588 men (13.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Performance of prostate biopsy is uncommon in older men with abnormal screening PSA levels and decreases with advancing age and worsening comorbidity. However, once cancer is detected on biopsy, most men undergo immediate treatment regardless of advancing age, worsening comorbidity, or low-risk cancer. Understanding downstream outcomes in clinical practice should better inform individualized decisions among older men considering PSA screening.

Efficacy versus effectiveness study design within the European screening trial for prostate cancer: consequences for cancer incidence, overall mortality and cancer-specific mortality

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of different study designs on outcome data within the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).

METHODS

Observed data from the Gothenburg centre (effectiveness trial with upfront randomization before informed consent) and the Rotterdam centre (efficacy trial with randomization after informed consent) were compared with expected data, which were retrieved from national cancer registries and life tables. Endpoints were 11-year cumulative prostate cancer (PC) incidence, overall mortality and PC-specific mortality.

RESULTS

In Gothenburg, the 11-year PC incidence was higher than predicted (5.8%) in both the intervention (12.4%) and control arms (7.3%). The observed overall mortality was higher than predicted (15.9%) in both the intervention (17.8%) and control arms (18.5%). The observed PC-specific mortality in the intervention arm was 0.56% versus 0.83% in the control arm, while the expected mortality was 0.83%. In Rotterdam, the observed PC incidence in the intervention arm (10.4%) was higher than expected (4.4%). The incidence in the control arm was 4.6%. The observed overall mortality was lower than expected: 13.6% in the intervention arm and 14.0% in the control arm versus an expected mortality of 16.1%. The observed PC-specific mortality was lower than expected (0.65%) in both the intervention (0.27%) and control arms (0.41%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that an efficacy trial with informed consent prior to randomization may have introduced a 'healthy screenee bias'. Therefore, an effectiveness trial with consent after randomization may more accurately estimate the PC-specific mortality reduction if population-based screening is introduced.

Screening for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Any form of screening aims to reduce disease-specific and overall mortality, and to improve a person's future quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical and broader community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. To better inform individual patient decision-making and health policy decisions, we need to consider the entire body of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on prostate cancer screening summarised in a systematic review. In 2006, our Cochrane review identified insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of routine mass, selective, or opportunistic screening for prostate cancer. An update of the review in 2010 included three additional trials. Meta-analysis of the five studies included in the 2010 review concluded that screening did not significantly reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality. In the past two years, several updates to studies included in the 2010 review have been published thereby providing the rationale for this update of the 2010 systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality or all-cause mortality and to assess its impact on quality of life and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

An updated search of electronic databases (PROSTATE register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, and the NHS EED) was performed, in addition to handsearching of specific journals and bibliographies, in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of screening versus no screening for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The original search (2006) identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full-text review. From these citations, two RCTs were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The search for the 2010 version of the review identified a further 106 potentially relevant articles, from which three new RCTs were included in the review. A total of 31 articles were retrieved for full-text examination based on the updated search in 2012. Updated data on three studies were included in this review. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs with a total of 341,342 participants were included in this review. All involved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, with or without digital rectal examination (DRE), though the interval and threshold for further evaluation varied across trials. The age of participants ranged from 45 to 80 years and duration of follow-up from 7 to 20 years. Our meta-analysis of the five included studies indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between men randomised to the screening and control groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.17). The methodological quality of three of the studies was assessed as posing a high risk of bias. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial were assessed as posing a low risk of bias, but provided contradicting results. The ERSPC study reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95), whilst the PLCO study concluded no significant benefit (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.54). The ERSPC was the only study of the five included in this review that reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality, in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years of age. Sensitivity analysis for overall risk of bias indicated no significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality when referring to the meta analysis of only the ERSPC and PLCO trial data (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30). Subgroup analyses indicated that prostate cancer-specific mortality was not affected by the age at which participants were screened. Meta-analysis of four studies investigating all-cause mortality did not determine any significant differences between men randomised to screening or control (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03). A diagnosis of prostate cancer was significantly greater in men randomised to screening compared to those randomised to control (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.65). Localised prostate cancer was more commonly diagnosed in men randomised to screening (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.70), whilst the proportion of men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer was significantly lower in the screening group compared to the men serving as controls (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87). Screening resulted in a range of harms that can be considered minor to major in severity and duration. Common minor harms from screening include bleeding, bruising and short-term anxiety. Common major harms include overdiagnosis and overtreatment, including infection, blood loss requiring transfusion, pneumonia, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence. Harms of screening included false-positive results for the PSA test and overdiagnosis (up to 50% in the ERSPC study). Adverse events associated with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies included infection, bleeding and pain. No deaths were attributed to any biopsy procedure. None of the studies provided detailed assessment of the effect of screening on quality of life or provided a comprehensive assessment of resource utilization associated with screening (although preliminary analyses were reported).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer screening did not significantly decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality in a combined meta-analysis of five RCTs. Only one study (ERSPC) reported a 21% significant reduction of prostate cancer-specific mortality in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years. Pooled data currently demonstrates no significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific and overall mortality. Harms associated with PSA-based screening and subsequent diagnostic evaluations are frequent, and moderate in severity. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common and are associated with treatment-related harms. Men should be informed of this and the demonstrated adverse effects when they are deciding whether or not to undertake screening for prostate cancer. Any reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality may take up to 10 years to accrue; therefore, men who have a life expectancy less than 10 to 15 years should be informed that screening for prostate cancer is unlikely to be beneficial. No studies examined the independent role of screening by DRE.

Positive predictive value of prostate biopsy indicated by prostate-specific-antigen-based prostate cancer screening: trends over time in a European randomized trial*

Study Type--Diagnosis (validating cohort) Level of Evidence 1b. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) showed a reduction in prostate cancer mortality of 21% for PSA-based screening at a median follow-up of 11 years. In the ERSPC, men are screened at 4-year intervals. A prostate biopsy is recommended for men with a PSA level ≥ 3.0 ng/mL. The study shows that the positive predictive value (PPV) of a prostate biopsy indicated by PSA-based screening remains equal throughout consecutive screening rounds in men without a previous biopsy. In men who have previously had a benign biopsy, the PPV drops considerably, but 20% of the cancers detected still show aggressive characteristics.

OBJECTIVE

• To assess the positive predictive value (PPV) of prostate biopsy, indicated by a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) threshold of ≥ 3.0 ng/mL, over time, in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• In the Rotterdam section of the ERSPC, a total of 42,376 participants, aged 55-74 years, identified from population registries were randomly assigned to a screening or control arm. • For the ERSPC men undergo PSA screening at 4-year intervals. A total of three screening rounds were evaluated; therefore, only men aged 55-69 years at the first screening were eligible for the present study.

RESULTS

• PPVs for men without previous biopsy remained equal throughout the three subsequent screenings (25.5, 22.3 and 24.8% respectively). • Conversely, PPVs for men with a previous negative biopsy dropped significantly (12.0 and 15.2% at the second and third screening, respectively). • Additionally, in men with and without previous biopsy, the percentage of aggressive prostate cancers (clinical stage >T2b, Gleason score ≥ 7) decreased after the first round of screening from 44.4 to 23.8% in the second (P < 0.001) and 18.6% in the third round (P < 0.001). • Repeat biopsies accounted for 24.6% of all biopsies, but yielded only 8.6% of all aggressive cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

• In consecutive screening rounds the PPV of PSA-based screening remains equal in previously unbiopsied men. • In men with a previous negative biopsy the PPV drops considerably, but 20% of cancers detected still show aggressive characteristics. • Individualized screening algorithms should incorporate previous biopsy status in the decision to perform a repeat biopsy with the aim of further reducing unnecessary biopsies.

Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up

BACKGROUND

Several trials evaluating the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing on prostate-cancer mortality have shown conflicting results. We updated prostate-cancer mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer with 2 additional years of follow-up.

METHODS

The study involved 182,160 men between the ages of 50 and 74 years at entry, with a predefined core age group of 162,388 men 55 to 69 years of age. The trial was conducted in eight European countries. Men who were randomly assigned to the screening group were offered PSA-based screening, whereas those in the control group were not offered such screening. The primary outcome was mortality from prostate cancer.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 11 years in the core age group, the relative reduction in the risk of death from prostate cancer in the screening group was 21% (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.91; P=0.001), and 29% after adjustment for noncompliance. The absolute reduction in mortality in the screening group was 0.10 deaths per 1000 person-years or 1.07 deaths per 1000 men who underwent randomization. The rate ratio for death from prostate cancer during follow-up years 10 and 11 was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.85; P=0.003). To prevent one death from prostate cancer at 11 years of follow-up, 1055 men would need to be invited for screening and 37 cancers would need to be detected. There was no significant between-group difference in all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses after 2 additional years of follow-up consolidated our previous finding that PSA-based screening significantly reduced mortality from prostate cancer but did not affect all-cause mortality. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN49127736.).

Selecting men diagnosed with prostate cancer for active surveillance using a risk calculator: a prospective impact study

Study Type - Prognosis (cohort series). Level of Evidence 2a. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The present study is one of the first to investigate urologists' and patients' compliance with recommendations based on a risk calculator that calculates the probability of indolent prostate cancer. A threshold was set for a recommendation of active surveillance vs active treatment. Active surveillance recommendations based on a prostate cancer risk calculator were followed by most patients, but 30% with active treatment recommendations chose active surveillance instead. This indicates that the threshold may be too high for urologists and patients.

OBJECTIVES

• To assess urologists' and patients' compliance with treatment recommendations based on a prostate cancer risk calculator (RC) and the reasons for non-compliance. • To assess the difference between patients who were compliant and non-compliant with recommendations based on this RC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• Eight urologists from five Dutch hospitals included 240 patients with prostate cancer (PCa), aged 55-75 years, from December 2008 to February 2011. • The urologists used the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer RC which predicts the probability of potentially indolent PCa (P[indolent]), using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume and pathological findings on biopsy. • Inclusion criteria were PSA <20 ng/mL, clinical stage T1 or T2a-c disease, <50% positive sextant biopsy cores, ≤ 20 mm cancer tissue, ≥ 40 mm benign tissue and Gleason ≤ 3 + 3. If the P(indolent) was >70%, active surveillance (AS) was recommended, and active treatment (AT) otherwise. • After the treatment decision, patients completed a questionnaire about their treatment choice, related (dis)advantages, and validated measurements of other factors, e.g. anxiety.

RESULTS

• Most patients (45/55, 82%) were compliant with an AS recommendation. Another 54 chose AS despite an AT recommendation (54/185, 29%). • The most common reason for non-compliance with AT recommendations by urologists was the patient's preference for AS (n= 30). These patients most often reported the delay of physical side effects of AT as the main advantage (n= 19). • Those who complied with AT recommendations had higher mean PSA levels (8 vs 7 ng/mL, P= 0.02), higher mean amount of cancer tissue (7 vs 3 mm, P < 0.001), lower mean P(indolent) (36% vs 55%, P < 0.001), and higher mean generic anxiety scores (42 vs 38, P= 0.03) than those who did not comply.

CONCLUSIONS

• AS recommendations were followed by most patients, while 29% with AT recommendations chose AS instead. • Although further research is needed to validate the RC threshold, the current version is already useful in treatment decision-making in men with localized PCa.

Compliance with biopsy recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator

Study Type - Diagnostic (cohort) Level of Evidence 2b What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? So far, few publications have shown that a prediction model influences the behaviour of both physicians and patients. To our knowledge, it was unknown whether urologists and patients are compliant with the recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator and their reasons for non-compliance. Recommendations of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator (ERSPC RC) about the need of a prostate biopsy were followed in most patients. In most cases of non-compliance with 'no biopsy' recommendations, a PSA level ≥ 3 ng/mL was decisive to opt for biopsy. Before implementation of the ERSPC RC in urological practices at a large scale, it is important to obtain insight into the use of guidelines that might counteract the adoption of the use of the RC as a result of opposing recommendations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess both urologist and patient compliance with a 'no biopsy' or 'biopsy' recommendation of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Risk Calculator (RC), as well as their reasons for non-compliance. To assess determinants of patient compliance.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The ERSPC RC calculates the probability on a positive sextant prostate biopsy (P(posb) ) using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, outcomes of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography, and ultrasonographically assessed prostate volume. A biopsy was recommended if P(posb) ≥20%. Between 2008 and 2011, eight urologists from five Dutch hospitals included 443 patients (aged 55-75 years) after a PSA test with no previous biopsy. Urologists calculated the P(posb) using the RC in the presence of patients and completed a questionnaire about compliance. Patients completed a questionnaire about prostate cancer knowledge, attitude towards prostate biopsy, self-rated health (12-Item Short Form Health Survey), anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory-6, Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer) and decision-making measures (Decisional Conflict Scale).

RESULTS

Both urologists and patients complied with the RC recommendation in 368 of 443 (83%) cases. If a biopsy was recommended, almost all patients (96%; 257/269) complied, although 63 of the 174 (36%) patients were biopsied against the recommendation of the RC. Compliers with a 'no biopsy' recommendation had a lower mean P(posb) than non-compliers (9% vs 14%; P < 0.001). Urologists opted for biopsies against the recommendations of the RC because of an elevated PSA level (≥ 3 ng/mL) (78%; 49/63) and patients because they wanted certainty (60%; 38/63).

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations of the ERSPC RC on prostate biopsy were followed in most patients. The RC hence may be a promising tool for supporting clinical decision-making.