2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Prostate Cancer Screening With PSA, Kallikrein Panel, and MRI : The ProScreen Randomized Trial

      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 2 , 11 , 12 , 2 , 13 , 2 , 14 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 15 , 13 , 16 , 3 , 17 , 17 , 5 , 17 , 7 , 17 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 17 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , 18 , ProScreen Trial Investigators
      JAMA
      American Medical Association (AMA)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has potential to reduce prostate cancer mortality but frequently detects prostate cancer that is not clinically important.

          Objective

          To describe rates of low-grade (grade group 1) and high-grade (grade groups 2-5) prostate cancer identified among men invited to participate in a prostate cancer screening protocol consisting of a PSA test, a 4-kallikrein panel, and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          The ProScreen trial is a clinical trial conducted in Helsinki and Tampere, Finland, that randomized 61 193 men aged 50 through 63 years who were free of prostate cancer in a 1:3 ratio to either be invited or not be invited to undergo screening for prostate cancer between February 2018 and July 2020.

          Interventions

          Participating men randomized to the intervention underwent PSA testing. Those with a PSA level of 3.0 ng/mL or higher underwent additional testing for high-grade prostate cancer with a 4-kallikrein panel risk score. Those with a kallikrein panel score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland, followed by targeted biopsies for those with abnormal prostate gland MRI findings. Final data collection occurred through June 31, 2023.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          In descriptive exploratory analyses, the cumulative incidence of low-grade and high-grade prostate cancer after the first screening round were compared between the group invited to undergo prostate cancer screening and the control group.

          Results

          Of 60 745 eligible men (mean [SD] age, 57.2 [4.0] years), 15 201 were randomized to be invited and 45 544 were randomized not to be invited to undergo prostate cancer screening. Of 15 201 eligible males invited to undergo screening, 7744 (51%) participated. Among them, 32 low-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.41%) and 128 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.65%) were detected, with 1 cancer grade group result missing. Among the 7457 invited men (49%) who refused participation, 7 low-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.1%) and 44 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.6%) were detected, with 7 cancer grade groups missing. For the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected. During a median follow-up of 3.2 years, in the group not invited to undergo screening, 65 low-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.14%) and 282 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.62%) were detected. The risk difference for the entire group randomized to the screening invitation vs the control group was 0.11% (95% CI, 0.03%-0.20%) for low-grade and 0.51% (95% CI, 0.33%-0.70%) for high-grade cancer.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this preliminary descriptive report from an ongoing randomized clinical trial, 1 additional high-grade cancer per 196 men and 1 low-grade cancer per 909 men were detected among those randomized to be invited to undergo a single prostate cancer screening intervention compared with those not invited to undergo screening. These preliminary findings from a single round of screening should be interpreted cautiously, pending results of the study’s primary mortality outcome.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03423303

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis

          Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2

            The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) was developed with a consensus-based process using a combination of published data, and expert observations and opinions. In the short time since its release, numerous studies have validated the value of PI-RADS v2 but, as expected, have also identified a number of ambiguities and limitations, some of which have been documented in the literature with potential solutions offered. To address these issues, the PI-RADS Steering Committee, again using a consensus-based process, has recommended several modifications to PI-RADS v2, maintaining the framework of assigning scores to individual sequences and using these scores to derive an overall assessment category. This updated version, described in this article, is termed PI-RADS v2.1. It is anticipated that the adoption of these PI-RADS v2.1 modifications will improve inter-reader variability and simplify PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging even further. Research on the value and limitations on all components of PI-RADS v2.1 is strongly encouraged.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis

              Abstract Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, OpenGrey, LILACS, and Medline, and search of scientific meeting abstracts and trial registers to April 2018. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing PSA screening with usual care in men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer. Data extraction At least two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of eligible studies. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. We used a random effects model to obtain pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) and, when feasible, conducted subgroup analyses (defined a priori) based on age, frequency of screening, family history, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level, as well as a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach. Results Five randomised controlled trials, enrolling 721 718 men, were included. Studies varied with respect to screening frequency and intervals, PSA thresholds for biopsy, and risk of bias. When considering the whole body of evidence, screening probably has no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.96, 0.85 to 1.08; low certainty). Sensitivity analysis of studies at lower risk of bias (n=1) also demonstrates that screening seems to have no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 1.0, 0.98 to 1.02; moderate certainty) but may have a small effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.79, 0.69 to 0.91; moderate certainty). This corresponds to one less death from prostate cancer per 1000 men screened over 10 years. Direct comparative data on biopsy and treatment related complications from the included trials were limited. Using modelling, we estimated that for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalised for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively. Conclusions At best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but has does not affect overall mortality. Clinicians and patients considering PSA based screening need to weigh these benefits against the potential short and long term harms of screening, including complications from biopsies and subsequent treatment, as well as the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42016042347.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA
                JAMA
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                0098-7484
                April 06 2024
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Tampere University, Unit of Health Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere, Finland
                [2 ]Tampere University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere, Finland
                [3 ]Department of Urology, Tays Cancer Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
                [4 ]Helsinki University Hospital, Department of Pathology, Helsinki, Finland
                [5 ]University of Helsinki, Faculty of Medicine, Helsinki, Finland
                [6 ]iCAN-Digital Precision Cancer Medicine Flagship, Helsinki, Finland
                [7 ]Research Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
                [8 ]Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
                [9 ]Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
                [10 ]Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Surgery, and Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
                [11 ]Department of Pathology, FimLab Laboratories, Tampere, Finland
                [12 ]Department of Radiology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
                [13 ]Department of Radiology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
                [14 ]Department of Clinical Chemistry, FimLab Laboratories, Tampere, Finland
                [15 ]UKK-Institute for Health Promotion Research, Tampere, Finland
                [16 ]Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
                [17 ]Department of Urology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
                [18 ]for the ProScreen Trial Investigators
                Article
                10.1001/jama.2024.3841
                23b0eb1a-4c5d-47a6-8f20-420be9ed1651
                © 2024
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article