Relationship Between Baseline Prostate-specific Antigen on Cancer Detection and Prostate Cancer Death: Long-term Follow-up from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.


Journal

European urology
ISSN: 1873-7560
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 7512719

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 2023
Historique:
received: 18 10 2022
revised: 01 03 2023
accepted: 28 03 2023
medline: 23 10 2023
pubmed: 24 4 2023
entrez: 23 04 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The European Association of Urology guidelines recommend a risk-based strategy for prostate cancer screening based on the first prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and age. To analyze the impact of the first PSA level on prostate cancer (PCa) detection and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) in a population-based screening trial (repeat screening every 2-4 yr). We evaluated 25589 men aged 55-59 yr, 16898 men aged 60-64 yr, and 12936 men aged 65-69 yr who attended at least one screening visit in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial (screening arm: repeat PSA testing every 2-4 yr and biopsy in cases with elevated PSA; control arm: no active screening offered) during 16-yr follow-up (FU). We assessed the actuarial probability for any PCa and for clinically significant (cs)PCa (Gleason ≥7). Cox proportional-hazards regression was performed to assess whether the association between baseline PSA and PCSM was comparable for all age groups. A Lorenz curve was computed to assess the association between baseline PSA and PCSM for men aged 60-61 yr. The overall actuarial probability at 16 yr ranged from 12% to 16% for any PCa and from 3.7% to 5.7% for csPCa across the age groups. The actuarial probability of csPCa at 16 yr ranged from 1.2-1.5% for men with PSA <1.0 ng/ml to 13.3-13.8% for men with PSA ≥3.0 ng/ml. The association between baseline PSA and PCSM differed marginally among the three age groups. A Lorenz curve for men aged 60-61 yr showed that 92% of lethal PCa cases occurred among those with PSA above the median (1.21 ng/ml). In addition, for men initially screened at age 60-61 yr with baseline PSA <2 ng/ml, further continuation of screening is unlikely to be beneficial after the age of 68-70 yr if PSA is still <2 ng/ml. No case of PCSM emerged in the subsequent 8 yr (up to age 76-78 yr). A limitation is that these results may not be generalizable to an opportunistic screening setting or to contemporary clinical practice. In all age groups, baseline PSA can guide decisions on the repeat screening interval. Baseline PSA of <1.0 ng/ml for men aged 55-69 yr is a strong indicator to delay or stop further screening. In prostate cancer screening, the patient's baseline PSA (prostate-specific antigen) level can be used to guide decisions on when to repeat screening. The PSA test when used according to current knowledge is valuable in helping to reduce the burden of prostate cancer.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The European Association of Urology guidelines recommend a risk-based strategy for prostate cancer screening based on the first prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and age.
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the impact of the first PSA level on prostate cancer (PCa) detection and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) in a population-based screening trial (repeat screening every 2-4 yr).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
We evaluated 25589 men aged 55-59 yr, 16898 men aged 60-64 yr, and 12936 men aged 65-69 yr who attended at least one screening visit in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial (screening arm: repeat PSA testing every 2-4 yr and biopsy in cases with elevated PSA; control arm: no active screening offered) during 16-yr follow-up (FU).
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
We assessed the actuarial probability for any PCa and for clinically significant (cs)PCa (Gleason ≥7). Cox proportional-hazards regression was performed to assess whether the association between baseline PSA and PCSM was comparable for all age groups. A Lorenz curve was computed to assess the association between baseline PSA and PCSM for men aged 60-61 yr.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
The overall actuarial probability at 16 yr ranged from 12% to 16% for any PCa and from 3.7% to 5.7% for csPCa across the age groups. The actuarial probability of csPCa at 16 yr ranged from 1.2-1.5% for men with PSA <1.0 ng/ml to 13.3-13.8% for men with PSA ≥3.0 ng/ml. The association between baseline PSA and PCSM differed marginally among the three age groups. A Lorenz curve for men aged 60-61 yr showed that 92% of lethal PCa cases occurred among those with PSA above the median (1.21 ng/ml). In addition, for men initially screened at age 60-61 yr with baseline PSA <2 ng/ml, further continuation of screening is unlikely to be beneficial after the age of 68-70 yr if PSA is still <2 ng/ml. No case of PCSM emerged in the subsequent 8 yr (up to age 76-78 yr). A limitation is that these results may not be generalizable to an opportunistic screening setting or to contemporary clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS
In all age groups, baseline PSA can guide decisions on the repeat screening interval. Baseline PSA of <1.0 ng/ml for men aged 55-69 yr is a strong indicator to delay or stop further screening.
PATIENT SUMMARY
In prostate cancer screening, the patient's baseline PSA (prostate-specific antigen) level can be used to guide decisions on when to repeat screening. The PSA test when used according to current knowledge is valuable in helping to reduce the burden of prostate cancer.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37088597
pii: S0302-2838(23)02709-4
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.03.031
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Prostate-Specific Antigen EC 3.4.21.77

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

503-509

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Sebastiaan Remmers (S)

Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.remmers@erasmusmc.nl.

Chris H Bangma (CH)

Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Rebecka A Godtman (RA)

Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden.

Sigrid V Carlsson (SV)

Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden; Departments of Surgery (Urology Service) and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.

Anssi Auvinen (A)

School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.

Teuvo L J Tammela (TLJ)

Department of Urology, Tampere University and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.

Louis J Denis (LJ)

Department of Urology, Meeting Centre Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.

Vera Nelen (V)

Provincial Institute for Hygiene, Antwerp, Belgium.

Arnauld Villers (A)

Department of Urology, Université Lille Nord de France, Lille, France.

Xavier Rebillard (X)

Department of Urology, Clinique Beau Soleil, Montpellier, France.

Maciej Kwiatkowski (M)

Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Medical Faculty, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.

Franz Recker (F)

PolyClinic St. Moritz/Scuol, Switzerland.

Stephen Wyler (S)

Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Medical Faculty, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Marco Zappa (M)

Oncologic Network, Prevention and Research Institute (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.

Donella Puliti (D)

Oncologic Network, Prevention and Research Institute (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.

Giuseppe Gorini (G)

Oncologic Network, Prevention and Research Institute (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.

Alvaro Paez (A)

Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain.

Marcos Lujan (M)

Department of Urology, Hospital Infanta Cristina, Madrid, Spain.

Daan Nieboer (D)

Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Fritz H Schröder (FH)

Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Monique J Roobol (MJ)

Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH