Optimal prostate-specific antigen screening interval for prostate cancer

The Impact of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening on Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality in China: 13-Year Prospective Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The status of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is unclear in China. Evidence regarding the optimal frequency and interval of serial screening for prostate cancer (PCa) is disputable.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to depict the status of PSA screening and to explore the optimal screening frequency for PCa in China.

METHODS

A 13-year prospective cohort study was conducted using the Chinese Electronic Health Records Research in Yinzhou study's data set. A total of 420,941 male participants aged ≥45 years were included between January 2009 and June 2022. Diagnosis of PCa, cancer-specific death, and all-cause death were obtained from the electronic health records and vital statistic system. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were estimated using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

The cumulative rate of ever PSA testing was 17.9% with an average annual percent change (AAPC) of 8.7% (95% CI 3.6%-14.0%) in the past decade in China. People with an older age, a higher BMI, higher waist circumference, tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking behaviors, higher level of physical activity, medication use, and comorbidities were more likely to receive PSA screening, whereas those with a lower education level and a widowed status were less likely to receive the test. People receiving serial screening ≥3 times were at a 67% higher risk of PCa detection (HR 1.67; 95% CI 1.48-1.88) but a 64% lower risk of PCa-specific mortality (HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.18-0.70) and a 28% lower risk of overall mortality (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.67-0.77). People following a serial screening strategy at least once every 4 years were at a 25% higher risk of PCa detection (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.13-1.36) but 70% (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.16-0.57) and 23% (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.73-0.82) lower risks of PCa-specific and all-cause mortality, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals a low coverage of PSA screening in China and provides the first evidence of its benefits in the general Chinese population. The findings of this study indicate that receiving serial screening at least once every 4 years is beneficial for overall and PCa-specific survival. Further studies based on a nationwide population and with long-term follow-up are warranted to identify the optimal screening interval in China.

Implications of the United States Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations on Prostate Cancer Stage Migration

BACKGROUND

Prostate-specific antigen screening is controversial. In 2008, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended against screening men aged ≥ 75 years, and in 2012, expanded this to include all men. The impact of these changes continues to unfold. We hypothesized that these screening changes could delay the diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used to identify men (age, 55-69 years) diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2004 to 2008 (group 1), 2009 to 2012 (group 2), and 2013 to 2015 (group 3). Groups reflect United States Preventive Services Task Force guideline changes. Descriptive statistics were used to present baseline statistics and the number of patients diagnosed in aforementioned groups. Data was adjusted for population growth.

RESULTS

A total of 328,586 men were identified (group 1, 135,625; group 2, 117,979; group 3, 74,982). The average number of men diagnosed annually with N1M0 (group 1, 381; group 2, 477; group 3, 660) and M1 (group 1, 523; group 2, 761; group 3, 1037) disease increased. With group 1 as control, there was a decrease in the incidence of localized disease (group 2, 9.2%; group 3, 33.2%). However, the incidence of N1M0 (group 2, 5.3%; group 3, 30.1%) and M1 disease (group 2, 22.6%; group 3, 49.2%) increased. Separate analyses of patients (age 50-75 years) and African Americans showed similar trends.

CONCLUSION

With each recommendation, there was increased incidence of de novo metastatic prostate cancer. The sequelae of advanced disease include financial, emotional, and physical burden. Future studies are needed to identify screening strategies that reduce the risk of developing metastatic disease without over-diagnosing indolent cancers.

The effect of assessing genetic risk of prostate cancer on the use of PSA tests in primary care: A cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Assessing genetic lifetime risk for prostate cancer has been proposed as a means of risk stratification to identify those for whom prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is likely to be most valuable. This project aimed to test the effect of introducing a genetic test for lifetime risk of prostate cancer in general practice on future PSA testing.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial with randomization at the level of general practices (73 in each of two arms) in the Central Region (Region Midtjylland) of Denmark. In intervention practices, men were offered a genetic test (based on genotyping of 33 risk-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms) in addition to the standard PSA test that informed them about lifetime genetic risk of prostate cancer and distinguished between "normal" and "high" risk. The primary outcome was the proportion of men having a repeated PSA test within 2 years. A multilevel logistic regression model was used to test the association. After applying the exclusion criteria, 3,558 men were recruited in intervention practices, with 1,235 (34.7%) receiving the genetic test, and 4,242 men were recruited in control practices. Men with high genetic risk had a higher propensity for repeated PSA testing within 2 years than men with normal genetic risk (odds ratio [OR] = 8.94, p < 0.01). The study was conducted in routine practice and had some selection bias, which is evidenced by the relatively large proportion of younger and higher income participants taking the genetic test.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing general practitioners (GPs) with access to a genetic test to assess lifetime risk of prostate cancer did not reduce the overall number of future PSA tests. However, among men who had a genetic test, knowledge of genetic risk significantly influenced future PSA testing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01739062.

Cabozantinib for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Introduction: The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III CELESTIAL trial demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in overall survival with cabozantinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. Most frequently reported adverse events included palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypertension, increased aspartate aminotransferase, fatigue, and diarrhea. Areas covered: In this review we analyze and discuss preclinical and clinical data of cabozantinib. We summarize efficacy and safety results of phase II and III trials of cabozantinib in the treatment of patients with advanced HCC and we present ongoing trials of cabozantinib in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. Expert opinion: Cabozantinib is a new second-line and the only third-line treatment for patients with advanced HCC, nevertheless some data are still missing to better inform clinical decisions on how to treat specific patient populations. Next trials designs will have to incorporate heavy efforts in terms of translational research to maximize the benefits of such treatments.

Cabozantinib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma failing previous treatment with sorafenib

Over the past 10 years, sorafenib has been the only systemic agent approved for the treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Recently, lenvatinib was demonstrated noninferior to sorafenib, and regorafenib and ramucirumab were demonstrated superior to placebo in patients progressing on sorafenib and in patients with elevated α-fetoprotein-failing sorafenib, respectively. Phase I–II trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors reported promising efficacy signals. Recently, the randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase III CELESTIAL trial demonstrated statistically and clinically significant increase in overall survival from 8 months with placebo to 10.2 months with cabozantinib in patients failing sorafenib. Furthermore, the study showed a significant improvement in all the efficacy end points. Main adverse events were palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypertension, increased aspartate aminotransferase, fatigue and diarrhea.

The optimal screening interval for gastric cancer using esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy in Japan

Background

Gastric cancer is one of the most significant diseases, and esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) is one of screening methods for gastric cancer. This study was conducted to identify the optimal screening interval for gastric cancer using EGD in healthy adults.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 3,723 healthy participants without a known diagnosis of gastric cancer at baseline from January 2005 to December 2010. Participants underwent annual health screenings, including EGD, at the Center for Preventive Medicine at St Luke’s International Hospital, a community teaching hospital in Japan. Participants with cytological abnormalities underwent further examination. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) was used to analyze the longitudinal data. We decided 0.5% of incidence of gastric cancer as a cutoff point for interval.

Results

The mean age (SD) of the participants was 55 (11) years, and 1,879 (50.5%) were male. During the study period, gastric cancer was detected in 35 participants. However, the incidence varied based on their ages. In the age groups <40, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69 and ≥70 years old, the 5-year cumulative incidences (95%CI) of gastric cancer were 0% (0-0%), 0.3% (0.1-1.0%), 1.0% (0.5-1.8%), 1.4% (0.8-2.4%) and 1.9% (0.8-3.8%), respectively. The odds ratios of the incidence of gastric cancer per year, which were evaluated using GEE models for the age groups 40–49, 50–59, 60–69 and ≥70 years old, were 1.51 (95%CI: 0.91-2.49), 1.94 (95%CI: 1.31-2.86), 1.59 (95%CI: 1.23-2.06) and 1.46 (95%CI: 1.06-2.02), respectively.

Conclusions

A screening for gastric cancer using EGD may be appropriate annually for healthy people over 70 years old, every two or three years for people 60–69 years old and every four years for people 50–59 years old. People younger than 50 years old may only need repeat screenings every five years or more.