The Japanese guideline for prostate cancer screening

Cancer screening programs in Japan: Progress and challenges

National screening programs for gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and cervical cancers are offered in Japan. The initial introduction of cancer screening programs was decided based on experts' opinions. Since 2003, the research groups funded by the National Cancer Center have published screening guidelines for gastric, colorectal, lung, prostate, cervical, and breast cancers. Although such guidelines have increasingly contributed to promoting evidence-based screening, it is still insufficient. Cancer screenings have mainly been provided in communities and workplaces. Compared with the average of OECD countries, participation rates in breast and cervical cancer screening are lower. Participation rates cannot be accurately calculated due to a lack of comprehensive cancer screening registries at the national level. Alternatively, estimates are derived from questionnaire surveys conducted on randomly selected samples from the national population. The quality assurance system has been limited to community-based screening and was not adapted to workplace screening until 2018. While there is a long history of cancer screening, the complex program delivery system might be a barrier to increasing the participation rate. Continued efforts are necessary to offer evidence-based cancer screening and establish an effective quality assurance system.

Prostate Cancer Knowledge and Attitude Toward Screening Practices Among Men 40 and Over in the Jazan Region, Saudi Arabia

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most prevalent malignancy among males and ranks as the fifth primary cause of mortality worldwide, underscoring its substantial impact on public health. Notably, there is a lack of research focused on PCa within the context of Saudi Arabia. Consequently, this study endeavours to elucidate the knowledge, attitudes, and screening practices related to PCa among males in Jazan, Saudi Arabia. Methodology: A cross-sectional survey was carried out on males over 40 years old in the Jazan region of Saudi Arabia between December 2022 and March 2023. The survey used a web-based questionnaire containing questions about sociodemographic characteristics, PCa knowledge, and attitudes toward screening practices. Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis evaluated the participants' knowledge and attitudes toward PCa screening. Results: Out of the 468 male participants aged over 40 years, approximately 44% demonstrated limited awareness about PCa. Intriguingly, 60.3% of participants showed a positive attitude toward PCa screening. Moreover, 35.7% reported consulting a urologist for screening purposes. Furthermore, 25.6% had undergone a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, with the predominant rationale (25.8%) being medical advice. Multivariate analysis revealed that being married (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 4.5, p = 0.011) and having a family history of PCa (AOR = 4.6, p = 0.001) were significant predictors of heightened PCa awareness. Concurrently, a history of PCa (AOR = 6.8, p = 0.001) and holding a postgraduate qualification (AOR = 5.5, p = 0.024) emerged as significant determinants of proactive practices toward PCa. Conclusion: The results revealed a significant lack of knowledge regarding PCa and the screening practices associated with it among the study participants. These results emphasize the urgent need to provide men with comprehensive information about the benefits and limitations of PCa screening in order to enable them to make more informed decisions.

Two conflicting guidelines on prostate specific antigen screening in Japan

Japanese urologists need to listen seriously to the opinions of public health physicians and it is necessary to properly inform people of prostate specific antigen screening.

Significance of PSA Screening in Niigata, Japan: Survey of Actual Status of New Cases of Prostate Cancer

Purpose

This study aims to investigate the utility of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening by conducting an all-case survey of newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients at Niigata Prefecture, Japan.

Patients and Methods

Depending on whether patients were subjected to screening, information was prospectively collected on all prostate cancer patients newly diagnosed between October 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020, at all institutions in Niigata Prefecture where urologists performing prostate biopsy routinely work and differences in clinical parameters were investigated.

Results

PSA was measured in 478 out of 1332 patients (35.8%) as part of a community health screening. The rate of metastatic carcinoma (M1) in all patients was 14.9%. When patients were divided into three categories of population-based screening (community health screening and workplace health screening), opportunistic screening (PSA measurements at complete medical check-ups or on patient request), and testing triggered by clinical symptoms or findings, the proportion of metastatic cancer was 4.5%, 3.7%, and 30.6%, respectively, demonstrating that the number of distant metastases was significantly lesser in all patients who underwent screening.

Conclusion

The one-year all-case survey of newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients demonstrated that PSA screening significantly contributed to the early diagnosis of current prostate cancer in Japan.

Impact of prostate-specific antigen screening on tumor size in patients with prostate cancer in a super-aging district in Kyoto, Japan

BACKGROUND

Population-based prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is effective for reducing prostate cancer (PCa)-related mortality rates. In this study, we assessed biopsy-proven maximum cancer core length (MCCL) and maximum cancer diameter on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; MCDM) in prostate biopsy and multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) by PCa detection.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed 214 male PCa patients and 187 PCa patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS) category 3-5 lesions in pre-biopsy mp-MRI and targeted biopsy characteristics. The mean biopsy-proven MCCL and MCDM were compared among three PSA screening groups, namely the population-based PSA screening (PBS), opportunistic PSA screening (OPS), and symptomatic outpatient PSA examination (SOP) groups.

RESULTS

The median age and PSA value of the 214 participants were 75 years and 7.9 ng/mL, respectively. In the PBS, OPS, and SOP groups, the median ages were 73, 76, and 76 years, respectively (p = 0.046); PSA values were 7.2, 9.5, and 11.5 ng/mL, respectively (p < 0.001); and biopsy-proven MCCL and MCDM were significantly increased to 7, 10, and 14 mm (p < 0.001) and to 11, 15, and 17 mm (p < 0.001), respectively. In the 187 PCa patients with PI-RADS category 3-5 lesions on mp-MRI, MCDM were 11, 14, and 17 mm (p < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The biopsy-proven MCCL and MCDM were significantly smaller in the PBS and OPS groups than in the SOP group, which suggests that PSA screening detected PCa earlier than in symptomatic patients. PSA screening with MRI could objectively lead to earlier diagnosis based on tumor size.

Prostate cancer screening: guidelines review and laboratory issues

Background Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains as the most used biomarker in the detection of early prostate cancer (PCa). Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are produced to facilitate incorporation of evidence into clinical practice. This is particularly useful when PCa screening remains controversial and guidelines diverge among different medical institutions, although opportunistic screening is not recommended. Methods We performed a systematic review of guidelines about PCa screening using PSA. Guidelines published since 2008 were included in this study. The most updated version of these CPGs was used for the evaluation. Results Twenty-two guidelines were selected for review. In 59% of these guidelines, recommendations were graded according to level of evidence (n = 13), but only 18% of the guidelines provided clear algorithms (n = 4). Each CPG was assessed using a checklist of laboratory issues, including pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical factors. We found that laboratory medicine specialists participate in 9% of the guidelines reviewed (n = 2) and laboratory issues were frequently omitted. We remarked that information concerning the consequences of World Health Organization (WHO) standard in PSA testing was considered by only two of 22 CPGs evaluated in this study. Conclusions We concluded that the quality of PCa early detection guidelines could be improved properly considering the laboratory issues in their development.

Screening for prostate cancer: History, evidence, controversies and future perspectives toward individualized screening

Differences in the incidence and mortality rate of prostate cancer between the USA and Japan have been decreasing over time, and were only twofold in 2017. Therefore, countermeasures against prostate cancer could be very important not only in Western countries, but also in developed Asian countries. Screening for prostate cancer in the general population using transrectal ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and/or prostate acid phosphatase began in Japan in the early 1980s, and screening with prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination has been widespread in the USA since the late 1980s. Large- and mid-scale randomized controlled trials on screening for prostate cancer began around 1990 in the USA, Canada and Europe. However, most of these studies failed as randomized controlled trials because of high contamination in the control arm, low compliance in the screening arm or insufficient screening setting about screening frequency and/or biopsy indication. The best available level 1 evidence is data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer and the Göteborg screening study. However, several non-urological organizations and lay media around the world have mischaracterized the efficacy of prostate-specific antigen screening. To avoid long-term confusion about screening for prostate cancer, leading professional urological organizations, including the Japanese Urological Association, are moving toward the establishment of an optimal screening system that minimizes the drawbacks of overdetection, overtreatment and loss of quality of life due to treatment, and maximizes reductions in the risk of death as a result of prostate cancer and the development of metastatic prostate cancer.

Cancer screening guidelines and policy making: 15 years of experience in cancer screening guideline development in Japan

Cancer deaths have remained a heavy burden in Japan, thus cancer screening has been anticipated to be a practical strategy for reducing mortality from cancers. The Basic Plan to Promote Cancer Control Program published in 2006 stated that evidence-based cancer screening is required. At the conception of national cancer screening programs, there were no cancer screening assessments. From 1998 to 2001, Hisamichi formed committees for the assessment of cancer screening and published three reports. These reports were the cornerstone in assessing primary studies of cancer screening in Japan which served as a stimulus for the development of cancer screening guidelines. Since 2003, research groups funded by the National Cancer Center have developed cancer screening guidelines based on established methods in reference to international standards. Screening guidelines for the following cancers have been published: gastric, colorectal, lung, prostate, cervical and breast cancers. Recommendations for screening are made following assessment of the balance of benefits and harms. The recommendation has been divided for population-based screening and opportunistic screening. New screening techniques with insufficient evidence have been suggested to further undergo research. The national committee has continued to appraise their evidence for cancer screening based on established guidelines and has discussed implementation problems. The screening methods for breast and gastric cancers have been revised based on cancer screening guidelines. Cancer screening guidelines have increasingly contributed to the promotion of evidence-based cancer screening for national programs. To provide appropriate cancer screening evidence, additional studies to further improve the methodology for guideline development are warranted.

Discoveries and application of prostate-specific antigen, and some proposals to optimize prostate cancer screening

The discoveries and application of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) have been much appreciated because PSA-based screening has saved millions of lives of prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Historically speaking, Flocks et al first identified antigenic properties in prostate tissue in 1960. Then, Barnes et al detected immunologic characteristics in prostatic fluid in 1963. Hara et al characterized γ-semino-protein in semen in 1966, and it has been proven to be identical to PSA. Subsequently, Ablin et al independently reported the presence of precipitation antigens in the prostate in 1970. Wang et al purified the PSA in 1979, and Kuriyama et al first applied an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for PSA in 1980. However, the positive predictive value with a cutoff figure of 4.0 ng/mL appeared substantially low (∼30%). There are overdiagnoses and overtreatments for latent/low-risk PCa. Controversies exist in the PCa mortality-reducing effects of PSA screening between the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. For optimizing PCa screening, PSA-related items may require the following: 1) adjustment of the cutoff values according to age, as well as setting limits to age and screening intervals; 2) improving test performance using doubling time, density, and ratio of free: total PSA; and 3) fostering active surveillance for low-risk PCa with monitoring by PSA value. Other items needing consideration may include the following: 1) examinations of cell proliferation and cell cycle markers in biopsy specimens; 2) independent quantification of Gleason grading; 3) developing ethnicity-specific staging nomograms based on tumor stage, PSA value, and Gleason score; 4) delineation of the natural history; 5) revisiting the significance of the androgen/testosterone hypothesis; and 6) devoting special attention to individuals with a certain genetic predisposition. Finally, considering the uncertainty that exists in medicine, risk communication on PSA-based screening is indeed due.

Prevalence and management of prostate cancer among East Asian men: Current trends and future perspectives

OBJECTIVES

Previously East Asian men had been considered less likely to develop or die of prostate cancer. Emerging research and the onset of prostate-specific antigen screening in East Asian countries suggests that this may not be the case. We sought to analyze epidemiology and molecular genetic data and recent trends in the management of prostate cancer among East Asian men.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We performed literature searches using PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar to examine current literature on prostate cancer in East Asian men. Additionally, articles were searched for further references related to the topic.

RESULTS

Recent studies have reported increasing incidence of prostate cancer identified in East Asian men. Prostate cancer mortality has increased and is currently the fourth leading cause of death among men in Shanghai, China. Although prostate cancer was considered less aggressive among East Asian men, studies suggest that it is similarly aggressive to prostate cancer in Western populations. Molecular markers such as the TEMPRESS:ERG fusion gene and PTEN loss may provide novel methods of screening East Asian men for prostate cancer. National-level guidelines for prostate cancer screening and management are only available in Japan.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of prostate cancer in East Asian men is likely similar to that in Western male populations. East Asian men present at higher stages of prostate cancer, likely because of a lack of standardized screening protocols. Urologists in Western countries should screen East Asian men for prostate cancer using the same standards as used for Western men.

Associations of body mass index, smoking, and alcohol consumption with prostate cancer mortality in the Asia Cohort Consortium

Many potentially modifiable risk factors for prostate cancer are also associated with prostate cancer screening, which may induce a bias in epidemiologic studies. We investigated the associations of body mass index (weight (kg)/height (m)(2)), smoking, and alcohol consumption with risk of fatal prostate cancer in Asian countries where prostate cancer screening is not widely utilized. Analysis included 18 prospective cohort studies conducted during 1963-2006 across 6 countries in southern and eastern Asia that are part of the Asia Cohort Consortium. Body mass index, smoking, and alcohol intake were determined by questionnaire at baseline, and cause of death was ascertained through death certificates. Analysis included 522,736 men aged 54 years, on average, at baseline. During 4.8 million person-years of follow-up, there were 634 prostate cancer deaths (367 prostate cancer deaths across the 11 cohorts with alcohol data). In Cox proportional hazards analyses of all cohorts in the Asia Cohort Consortium, prostate cancer mortality was not significantly associated with obesity (body mass index >25: hazard ratio (HR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85, 1.36), ever smoking (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.84, 1.21), or heavy alcohol intake (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.74, 1.35). Differences in prostate cancer screening and detection probably contribute to differences in the association of obesity, smoking, or alcohol intake with prostate cancer risk and mortality between Asian and Western populations and thus require further investigation.

Knowledge and attitude of the population toward cancer prostate Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Aims:

The aim of the following study is to assess the knowledge and attitude of men, in our region, regarding cancer prostate and its screening practices.

Subjects and Methods:

The field work was conducted in Riyadh City, during the period February through July 2011. It was a population - based cross-sectional study comprising 400 men over 40 years. In addition to socio-demographic data, history of the present and past medical illness, history of prostatic diseases and examination, family history of cancer prostate; participants were inquired about their knowledge and attitude toward prostate cancer (PC) and screening behavior using through two different Likert scales.

Results:

Only 10% of the respondents had practiced a regular PC examination checkup. Their knowledge about PC was poor and their attitude toward examination and screening was fair, where the mean of total correct knowledge score was 10.25 ± 2.5 (51.25%), while the mean of total attitude score was 18.3 ± 4.08 (65.3%). The respondents identified the physicians as the main sources of this information (62.4%), though they were not the main motives for a regular checkup. Knowledge represented the only significant predictor for participants’ attitude.

Conclusion:

Beliefs and attitudes have a great impact, at every stage of the cancer continuum, this attitudes depends mainly on level of knowledge and quantity of information provided to patients and their families. Such attitudes should rely on a solid background of proper information and motivation from physicians to enhance and empower attitudes toward PC screening behavior.

Determinants of participation in prostate cancer screening: a simple analytical framework to account for healthy-user bias

In Japan at present, fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is recommended for cancer screening while routine population-based prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is not. In future it may be necessary to increase participation in the former and decrease it in the latter. Our objectives were to explore determinants of PSA-screening participation while simultaneously taking into account factors associated with FOBT. Data were gathered from a cross-sectional study conducted with random sampling of 6191 adults in Osaka city in 2011. Of 3244 subjects (return rate 52.4%), 936 men aged 40-64 years were analyzed using log-binomial regression to explore factors related to PSA-screening participation within 1 year. Only responders for cancer screening, defined as men who participated in either FOBT or PSA-testing, were used as main study subjects. Men who were older (prevalence ratio [PR] [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 2.17 [1.43, 3.28] for 60-64 years compared with 40-49 years), had technical or junior college education (PR [95% CI] = 1.76 [1.19, 2.59] compared with men with high school or less) and followed doctors' recommendations (PR [95% CI] = 1.50 [1.00, 2.26]) were significantly more likely to have PSA-screening after multiple variable adjustment among cancer-screening responders. Attenuation in PR of hypothesized common factors was observed among cancer-screening responders compared with the usual approach (among total subjects). Using the analytical framework to account for healthy-user bias, we found three factors related to participation in PSA-screening with attenuated association of common factors. This approach may provide a more sophisticated interpretation of participation in various screenings with different levels of recommendation.

Diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals: use of record linkage from the Osaka Cancer Registry

BACKGROUND

Whole-body cancer screening with multimodalities including [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) detects a wide range of tumors. This program has been recognized as an option for opportunistic screening, particularly in Japan. However, reports on diagnostic accuracy have been limited. We aimed to evaluate the detectability and related properties of this screening program among asymptomatic individuals in a community setting.

METHODS

The study participants were 1,762 residents of Osaka Prefecture, Japan, who underwent opportunistic cancer screening at Higashitemma Clinic for the first time between November 2004 and December 2005. FDG-PET cancer screening was performed with several imaging modalities (e.g., FDG-PET, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography) and fecal occult blood test. Screening records were linked to the Osaka cancer registry within 1 year after the screening to determine sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values.

RESULTS

After excluding 12 participants with cancer detected before the screening, 33 were identified by the cancer registry to have primary cancers. Of these, the present screening program found that 28 were positive (6 prostate, 5 lung, 5 colorectal, 5 thyroid, 3 liver and 4 others). Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values were 84.8 % (28/33, 95 % confidence interval 69.1-93.3), 86.8 % (1,491/1,718, 85.1-88.3) and 10.1 % (28/277, 6.4-12.9), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

FDG-PET cancer screening with multimodalities reasonably and accurately detects existing asymptomatic cancer. However, the numbers of false negatives and false positives were not insignificant. Facilities that provide the screening should inform participants of relevant information, including the limitations of this program.

Is prostate-specific antigen effective for population screening of prostate cancer? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The 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.

METHODS

The 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.

RESULTS

Prostate-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.

CONCLUSIONS

Differently 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.

Awareness of general public towards cancer prostate and screening practice in Arabic communities: a comparative multi-center study

The current study aimed at exploring the knowledge and beliefs of men aged forty years and over towards prostate cancer screening and early detection in three Arab countries. The field work was conducted in three countries; Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, during the period February through December 2011. Our target population were men aged 40 years and over. It was a population-based cross sectional study comprising 400 subjects at each site. In addition to socio-demographic data, history of the present and past medical illness, practice history of prostatic cancer examination, family history of cancer prostate; participants were inquired about their knowledge and attitude towards prostate cancer and screening behavior using two different likert scales. The percentage of participants who practiced regular prostate check up ranged from 8-30%. They had poor knowledge and fair attitude towards prostate cancer screening behavior, where the mean total knowledge score was 10.25±2.5, 10.76±3.39 and 11.24±3.39 whereas the mean total attitude score was 18.3±4.08, 20.68±6.4 and 17.96±5.3 for Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan respectively. The respondents identified the physicians as the main sources of this information (62.4%), though they were not the main motives for regular checkup. Knowledge was the only significant predictor for participants' attitude in the multiple regression models. Participants' attitudes depends mainly on level of knowledge and quantity of information provided to the patients and their families. Such attitudes should rely on a solid background of proper information and motivation from physicians to enhance and empower behaviors towards prostate cancer screening practices.

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.

Evaluation of prostate cancer prevalence in Iranian male population with increased PSA level, a one center experience

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to evaluate the incidence of prostate cancer (PCa) in Iranian male patients with increased prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and normal or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) that underwent prostate biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From March 2006 to April 2009, a total of 346 consecutive males suspected of having PCa due to increased PSA levels underwent transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided sextant biopsy of the prostate. The total PSA (tPSA), demographic data, incidence of PCa, benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), and prostatitis were assessed.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into two groups according to their PSA values (group A serum tPSA level, 4-10 ng/mL; group B serum tPSA level, 10.1-20.0 ng/mL). Of the 346 biopsied cases, 193 cases (56%) had PCa, 80 cases (23%) had BPH, and 73 cases (21%) had prostatitis. The mean PSA and the age of the carcinoma group were significantly higher than those of the benign group (P < 0.01). The biopsy results were grouped as PCa, BPH, and prostatitis. Incidence of PCa for group A and group B cases were 115 cases (51%), and 78 cases (65%), respectively. In the case of PCa, BPH, and prostatitis, the mean PSAs were 10.02 ng/mL, 8.76 ng/mL, and 8.41 ng/mL, respectively (P < 0.40).

CONCLUSION

TRUS-guided prostate biopsy and interpretation by a skilled team is highly recommended for early detection of PCa or its ruling-out. It seems that a PSA cutoff value of 4 ng/mL may be applied to the Iranian population. Although the chance of PCa is high in the PSA levels of 4-10 ng/mL, the combination of some data, like age and prostate volume, can decrease the rate of unnecessary prostate biopsies. We recommend prostate biopsy when PSA and/or DRE is elevated in symptomatic patients with obstructive and/or irritative lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) such as dysuria, frequency, or nocturia. Due to the very high incidence of PCa in the patients with PSA greater than 10 ng/mL, TRUS-guided biopsy is indicated, whatever the findings on DRE and/or LUTS, since the PCa detection rate is high.

A novel approach to assessing changes in prostate stiffness with age using virtual touch tissue quantification

OBJECTIVES

Virtual touch tissue quantification is a promising new implementation of the acoustic radiation force impulse ultrasound technique. The purposes of this study were to describe the normal shear wave velocity values of the prostate by virtual touch tissue quantification and to examine the clinical usefulness of this procedure in evaluation of age-related shear wave velocity changes in the prostate.

METHODS

One hundred twenty healthy volunteers were involved in this study. They were divided into 3 groups (40 participants per group): young (<30 years), middle aged (30-60 years), and old (>60 years). The shear wave velocity was measured at the inner and outer glands of the prostate at the maximum depth (~5.5 cm) in each participant.

RESULTS

The mean shear wave velocities ± SD at the inner gland of the prostate in the young, middle-aged, and old groups were 0.86 ± 0.21, 1.17 ± 0.42, and 1.82 ± 0.61 m/s, respectively, whereas the velocities at the outer gland in the respective groups were 0.85 ± 0.32, 1.15 ± 0.49, and 1.87 ± 0.75 m/s. The shear wave velocities did not differ between the inner and outer glands in any age group. They were all significantly greater in the old group than in the young and middle-aged groups (P < .05). Moreover, the shear wave velocities at the inner and outer glands all correlated significantly with age.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual touch tissue quantification can provide numerical measurements of prostate stiffness and can effectively and objectively indicate age-related changes in prostate stiffness by measuring shear wave velocity values.

Screening for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Any form of screening aims to reduce mortality and increase a person's quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. Much of this debate is due to the limited availability of high quality research and the influence of false-positive or false-negative results generated by use of the diagnostic techniques such as the digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer mortality and has an impact on quality of life.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases (PROSTATE register, CENTRAL the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT and the NHS EED) were searched electronically in addition to hand searching of specific journals and bibliographies in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of screening versus no screening or routine care for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The search identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full text review. From these 99 citations, two randomised controlled trials were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials with a total of 55,512 participants were included; however, both trials had methodological weaknesses. Re-analysis using intention-to-screen and meta-analysis of results from the two randomised controlled trials indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer mortality between men randomised for prostate cancer screening and controls (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.80-1.29). Neither study assessed the effect of prostate cancer screening on quality of life, all-cause mortality or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given that only two randomised controlled trials were included, and the high risk of bias of both trials, there is insufficient evidence to either support or refute the routine use of mass, selective or opportunistic screening compared to no screening for reducing prostate cancer mortality. Currently, no robust evidence from randomised controlled trials is available regarding the impact of screening on quality of life, harms of screening, or its economic value. Results from two ongoing large scale multicentre randomised controlled trials that will be available in the next several years are required to make evidence-based decisions regarding prostate cancer screening.