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

Targeted Screening for Cancer: Learnings and Applicability to Melanoma: A Scoping Review

This scoping review aims to systematically gather evidence from personalized cancer-screening studies across various cancers, summarize key components and outcomes, and provide implications for a future personalized melanoma-screening strategy. Peer-reviewed articles and clinical trial databases were searched for, with restrictions on language and publication date. Sixteen distinct studies were identified and included in this review. The studies' results were synthesized according to key components, including risk assessment, risk thresholds, screening pathways, and primary outcomes of interest. Studies most frequently reported about breast cancers (n = 7), followed by colorectal (n = 5), prostate (n = 2), lung (n = 1), and ovarian cancers (n = 1). The identified screening programs were evaluated predominately in Europe (n = 6) and North America (n = 4). The studies employed multiple different risk assessment tools, screening schedules, and outcome measurements, with few consistent approaches identified across the studies. The benefit-harm assessment of each proposed personalized screening program indicated that the majority were feasible and effective. The establishment of a personalized screening program is complex, but results of the reviewed studies indicate that it is feasible, can improve participation rates, and screening outcomes. While the review primarily examines screening programs for cancers other than melanoma, the insights can be used to inform the development of a personalized melanoma screening strategy.

The acceptability and clinical impact of using polygenic scores for risk-estimation of common cancers in primary care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Polygenic scores (PGS) have been developed for cancer risk-estimation and show potential as tools to prompt earlier referral for high-risk individuals and aid risk-stratification within cancer screening programmes. This review explores the potential for using PGS to identify individuals at risk of the most common cancers seen in primary care.

METHODS

Two electronic databases were searched up until November 2023 to identify quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies that reported on the acceptability and clinical impact of using PGS to identify individuals at highest risk of breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer in primary care. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of included studies and a narrative synthesis was used to analyse data.

RESULTS

A total of 190 papers were identified, 18 of which were eligible for inclusion. A cancer risk-assessment tool incorporating PGS was acceptable to the general practice population and their healthcare providers but major challenges to implementation were identified, including lack of evidence for PGS in non-European ancestry and a need for healthcare provider education in genomic medicine. A PGS cancer risk-assessment had relatively limited impact on psychosocial outcomes and health behaviours. However, for prostate cancer, potential applications for its use in primary care were shown.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer risk assessment incorporating PGS in primary care is acceptable to patients and healthcare providers but there is a paucity of research exploring clinical impact. Few studies were identified, and more research is required before clinical implementation of PGS can be recommended.

Danish Prostate Cancer Consortium Study 1 (DPCC-1) protocol: Multicentre prospective validation of the urine-based three-microRNA biomarker model uCaP

INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of the Danish Prostate Cancer Consortium Study 1 (DPCC-1) is to provide validation for a novel urine-based microRNA biomarker, called uCaP, for a diagnosis of prostate cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Eligible participants are biopsy naïve men aged ≥18 years with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels ≥3 ng/mL, who are referred to prostate MRI due to suspicion of PC at one of the following three major urology/uroradiology centers: Aarhus University Hospital, Herlev & Gentofte University Hospital, or Odense University Hospital, where MRI and targeted biopsy are implemented in clinical use. Exclusion criteria include previous diagnosis of urogenital cancer, contraindication to MRI, gender reassignment treatment or PSA level >20 ng/mL. The participants will be asked to donate a urine sample in connection with their MRI. The study is observational, uses a diagnostic accuracy testing setup and will integrate into the current diagnostic pathway.We will measure the levels of the three microRNAs in the uCaP model (miR-222-3 p, miR-24-3 p and miR-30c-5p) in extracellular vesicle-enriched cell-free urine samples, to assess if uCaP can improve specificity and retain sensitivity for International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥2 PC, when used as a reflex test to PSA ≥3 ng/mL. We hypothesise that uCaP can improve selection for prostate MRI and reduce the number of unnecessary scans and biopsies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by the Central Denmark Region Committee on Health Research Ethics (reference number: 1-10-72-85-22). All participants will provide written informed consent. Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented in scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05767307 at clinicaltrials.gov.

Results from the PRIMA Trial: Comparison of the STHLM3 Test and Prostate-specific Antigen in General Practice for Detection of Prostate Cancer in a Biopsy-naïve Population

BACKGROUND

Current management of prostate cancer (PC) lacks biomarker tests and diagnostic procedures that can accurately distinguish clinically significant and clinically insignificant PCs at an early stage of the disease.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the Stockholm 3 (STHLM3) test and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as entry tests for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a prospective study of PC diagnosis in general practice.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Participants were biopsy-naïve men aged 50-69 yr who had a PSA test in general practice. Participants with PSA 1-10 ng/ml also had an STHLM3 test and were referred for MRI if the STHLM311 test was positive (risk ≥11%) and/or PSA ≥3 ng/ml, and to targeted MRI-guided biopsy (MRGB) if their Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score was ≥3.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was the number of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2 (GG ≥2) cases detected with a positive STHLM311 test versus PSA ≥3 ng/ml. Post hoc analysis was performed using a higher STHLM3 test cutoff (risk ≥15%; positive STHLM315 test).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Between January 2018 and December 2021, we recruited 1905 men. The STHLM3 test was performed in 1134 participants. Of these, 437 underwent MRI and 117 underwent MRGB, which detected 38 (32.5%) GG ≥2 and 52 (44.4%) with GG 1 cases. In comparison to PSA ≥3 ng/ml, a positive STHLM311 test increased detection of GG ≥2 from 30 to 37 cases (23.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.6-52.2%) and detection of GG 1 from 37 to 50 cases (35.1%, 95%CI 11.6-66.7%). STHLM315 positivity did not differ from PSA ≥3 ng/ml regarding detection of GG ≥2 PC (30 vs 32; 6.6%, 95% CI -8.1% to 25.9%), GG 1 PC (37 vs 37; 0.0%, 95% CI -19.6% to 25.0%), or MRGB use (88 vs 83; -5.7%, 95% CI -17.9% to 7.4%), but reduced MRI scans from 320 to 236 (-26.2%, 95% CI -33.1% to -18.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The STHLM311 test improved sensitivity but not specificity for detection of GG ≥2 PC in the clinical setting of nonsystematic PC testing in general practice. Further studies are needed to validate a possible benefit of using a higher cutoff for STHLM3 positivity as an entry test for MRI.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We used a test called STHLM3 for detection of prostate cancer in general practice and compared its performance to the conventional PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test. We found that STHLM3 test results of 11% or above were not better at selecting men for MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scans than the PSA test with a cutoff of 3 ng/ml or above. Analysis suggested that a higher cutoff for a positive STHLM3 test may improve selection of men for MRI scans, but further validation is needed.

Blood and urine biomarkers in prostate cancer: Are we ready for reflex testing in men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen?

Objective

There is no consensus on the role of biomarkers in determining the utility of prostate biopsy in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA). There are numerous biomarkers such as prostate health index, 4Kscore, prostate cancer antigen 3, ExoDX, SelectMDx, and Mi-Prostate Score that may be useful in this decision-making process. However, it is unclear whether any of these tests are accurate and cost-effective enough to warrant being a widespread reflex test following an elevated PSA. Our goal was to report on the clinical utility of these blood and urine biomarkers in prostate cancer screening.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of studies published between January 2000 and October 2020 to report the available parameters and cost-effectiveness of the aforementioned diagnostic tests. We focus on the negative predictive value, the area under the curve, and the decision curve analysis in comparing reflexive tests due to their relevance in evaluating diagnostic screening tests.

Results

Overall, the biomarkers are roughly equivalent in predictive accuracy. Each test has additional clinical utility to the current diagnostic standard of care, but the added benefit is not substantial to justify using the test reflexively after an elevated PSA.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest these biomarkers should not be used in binary fashion and should be understood in the context of pre-existing risk predictors, patient's ethnicity, cost of the test, patient life-expectancy, and patient goals. There are more recent diagnostic tools such as multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging, polygenic single-nucleotide panels, IsoPSA, and miR Sentinel tests that are promising in the realm of prostate cancer screening and need to be investigated further to be considered a consensus reflexive test in the setting of prostate cancer screening.

Risk stratification in men with a negative prostate biopsy: an interim analysis of a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether a risk score for prostate cancer (PCa) lifetime risk can be used to optimise triaging of patients with a negative prostate biopsy, but under sustained suspicion of PCa.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective clinical study, we included, and risk scored patients who had a PCa-negative transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy, but elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a suspicious prostate digital rectal examination and/or a positive family history (FH) of PCa. The risk score estimated individual lifetime risk of PCa, based on a polygenic risk score (33 single nucleotide polymorphisms), age, and FH of PCa. Patients were followed, under urological supervision, for up to 4 years with annual controls, always including PSA measurements. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and/or prostate biopsy was performed at selected annual controls depending on risk score and at the urologist's/patient's discretion, which means that the follow-up differed based on the risk score.

RESULTS

We included 429 patients. After risk scoring, 376/429 (88%) patients were allocated to a normal-risk group (<30% PCa lifetime risk) and 53/429 (12%) to a high-risk group (≥30% PCa lifetime risk). The high-risk group had significantly different follow-up, with more biopsy and mpMRI sessions compared to the normal-risk group. PCa was detected in 89/429 (21%) patients, with 67/376 (18%) patients diagnosed in the normal-risk group and 22/53 (42%) in the high-risk group. There was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of PCa between the normal-risk group and the high-risk group after 4 years of follow-up. Currently, 67/429 (16%) patients are still being followed in this ongoing study.

CONCLUSION

In a 4-year perspective, our PCa lifetime risk score did not demonstrate significant prognostic value for triaging patients, with a negative TRUS-guided biopsy and sustained suspicion of PCa.

[Risk-adapted prostate cancer screening-update 2021]

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in men in industrialized countries. There is no commonly accepted prostate cancer screening strategy. Based on the experience of various international screening studies, the German Prostate Cancer Early Detection Study Based on a Baseline PSA Value in Young Men (PROBASE) was established in 2014.

OBJECTIVE

Based on the positive results of retrospective cohort analyses, the PROBASE study is designed to demonstrate that a screening strategy based on risk stratification by a baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at age 45 or 50 years may be an alternative to population-based screening. PROBASE is presented in the context of other risk-adapted screening studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

There are basically several approaches to improve the population-based screening of PCa. Known risk factors for prostate cancer are age, a certain genetic predisposition (BRCA 1/2) and other germline mutations as well as individual somatic mutations.

RESULTS

A total of 23,301 participants were randomized to study arm A. Baseline PSA testing in study arm A categorized 89.18% of participants into the low-risk group, 9.32% into the intermediate-risk group, and 1.48% into the high-risk group. Thus, the risk assignment exactly matched the previously reported distribution.

DISCUSSION

Baseline PSA-dependent, risk-adapted PSA screening has the potential to reduce the high incidence of overdiagnosis and ultimately overtreatment of insignificant prostate cancers of population-based screening through extended testing intervals in the low-risk group. In parallel with PROBASE, several risk-adapted screening strategies are currently being tested worldwide; the evaluation of which is also awaited in several years.

A genetic risk assessment for prostate cancer influences patients' risk perception and use of repeat PSA testing: a cross-sectional study in Danish general practice

Background

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common cancer among men in the western world. Genetic lifetime risk assessment could alleviate controversies about prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for early diagnosis.

Aim

To determine how men interpret information about their lifetime risk for PC and how this can affect their choice of having a repeated PSA test.

Design & setting

A genetic test was offered for assessment of individual PC lifetime risk in general practices in Denmark, with the purpose of promoting appropriate use of PSA testing.

Method

Participants had a genetic lifetime risk assessment for PC diagnosis (either high or normal risk). A month after receiving the result, participants answered a questionnaire about their perceived risk of getting or dying from PC compared with other men, as well as their intentions for repeated PSA testing.

Results

Nearly half (44.7%) of 555 participants who received the genetic risk assessment were not aware they had a genetic test. Nevertheless, compared with men with a normal genetic risk, those with high genetic risk reported higher perceived risk for PC (mean difference of 0.74 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.56 to 0.96] on a 5-point scale), higher perceived risk of dying from PC (mean difference of 0.48 [95% CI = 0.29 to 0.66] on a 5-point scale), and increased intention for repeated PSA testing (mean difference of 0.48 [95% CI = 0.30 to 0.65] on a 4-point scale).

Conclusion

Despite low awareness and/or understanding of the test result, a high genetic risk for PC made participants more aware of their risk, and it increased their intention and probability for repeated PSA testing.