Topic: Prevention and Screening

Screening and Prevention of Prostate Cancer 2021 (Part 3): Incorporating MRI for Early Detection

In the final part of a 3-part series, Sigrid V. Carlsson, MD, PhD, MPH, Assistant Attending Epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, considers the current role of MRI in early detection of prostate cancer. She explains that while MRI is a useful screening tool, it is not foolproof, and its accuracy varies widely depending on user expertise. For this reason, using a negative MRI to justify not getting a biopsy is not always strongly advised. However, many studies are underway that may identify combinations of MRI and biomarker tests that will ultimately help patients avoid more unnecessary biopsies.

Read More

Screening and Prevention of Prostate Cancer 2021 (Part 2): Who Needs a Biopsy?

In part 2 of a 3-part series, Sigrid V. Carlsson, MD, PhD, MPH, Assistant Attending Epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, goes over her 5 Golden Rules for prostate cancer testing, which are intended to minimize overdiagnosis and overtreatment while also making sure that significant disease is not missed. Rule 1 is to get consent and engage in shared decision-making with patients. Dr. Carlsson notes that this can sometimes be difficult since the numerous decision aids available are often difficult to use and understand. The second rule is not to screen men who will not benefit, for instance, older men with multiple comorbidities and short life expectancies. Dr. Carlsson does observe, however, that instituting an age cutoff does not necessarily make sense, and that physiologic assessment of life expectancy may be a more useful metric. In rule 3, Dr. Carlsson advises clinicians not to biopsy patients without a compelling reason, since prostate biopsies may lead to infectious complications and hospitalization. She then lays out the options for risk stratification, such as risk calculators, biomarker tests, and MRI. Rule 4 recommends against treating low-risk disease since, as Dr. Carlsson explains, active surveillance is a safe strategy over longer follow-up for appropriately selected patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer when following a well-defined monitoring plan. Finally, rule 5 exhorts clinicians to send patients who require treatment to a high-volume provider. This is key, Dr. Carlsson argues, since evidence shows that there is a large degree of heterogeneity among surgeons regarding functional and oncological outcomes after prostatectomy, and it takes approximately 250 surgeries for a surgeon to really master the procedure.

Read More

Screening and Prevention of Prostate Cancer 2021 (Part 1): Evidence for PSA Screening

In part 1 of a 3-part series, Sigrid V. Carlsson, MD, PhD, MPH, Assistant Attending Epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, looks at the evidence supporting widespread prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening. She looks at a range of large studies with long follow-up that demonstrate a reduction in prostate cancer mortality of approximately 30% as a result of widespread PSA screening. Dr. Carlsson also looks at how PSA screening decisions can be made by taking other risk factors into account in order to minimize unnecessary testing. She also notes that the loss in quality-adjusted life years somewhat offsets the benefits of widespread screening. She concludes by introducing her 5 Golden Rules of testing to keep the benefits and reduce the harms.

Read More

Changes in Prostate Cancer Presentation Following the 2012 USPSTF Screening Statement

Joseph C. Presti, Jr., MD, FACS, urologist at Kaiser Oakland and Regional Leader of Urologic Oncology Surgery for Kaiser Permanente California, reviews data compiled by Kaiser Permanente Northern California in order to discuss how the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening statement, which includes the claim that “the harms of screening outweigh the benefits,” has impacted prostate cancer screening practices. Dr. Presti outlines the research process used, which included looking at screening-eligible men and assessing the annual rates of PSA testing, prostate biopsy, cancer incidence, and metastatic disease incidence over the course of a pre-guideline period (2010-2011) and a post-guideline period (2014-2017). The researchers found that although the eligible screening population grew from 404,000 to 524,000, screening rates decreased from 42% to 29%, biopsy rates went from 1.2% to .5%, and prostate cancer detection decreased from 2063 diagnoses to 994 in 2014 but increased to 1528 in 2017. Concerningly, metastatic prostate cancer incidence increased significantly post-statement. Dr. Presti concludes by summarizing the data and discussing the strengths (ability to define a screening-eligible population and a large, diverse sample size) and weaknesses (inability to access family history or look for indolent cancers) of the study.

Read More

Improving Specificity of PSA Screening with Serum and Urine Markers – Who Doesn’t Need a Prostate Biopsy?

Daniel W. Lin, MD, Chief of Urologic Oncology at the University of Washington, discusses improving the specificity of PSA screening using serum and urine markers to determine which patients do not need a prostate biopsy. He lists the ideal biomarker characteristics, including sensitivity and specificity, correlation with disease outcome, reproducibility, low cost, quick and easy assay, and high negative predictive value. He then discusses some of the major studies done on pre-diagnosis biomarkers for prostate cancer, highlighting how PHI score, 4Kscore, and PCA3, among other markers, all significantly reduce the biopsy rate compared with older diagnostics like percent free PSA. Dr. Lin concludes by noting how urologists can further reduce unnecessary biopsies through smart screening strategies, including biennial rather than annual PSA screenings and considering not biopsying men with low early PSA scores.

Read More

Prostate Cancer Screening and Early Detection: Should We Follow the NCCN Guidelines? Con Argument

Robert E. Donohue, MD, argues against urologists adhering to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Prostate Cancer Screening and Early Detection Guidelines. He proposes his own definitive answers to controversial questions relating to the use of digital rectal exams and PSA tests in baseline evaluation, indications for biopsy and biopsy technique, the age for initiation and discontinuation of testing, the frequency of testing, screening in high-risk populations, and which biomarkers to use. 

Read More

Prostate Cancer Screening and Early Detection: Should We Follow the NCCN Guidelines? Pro Argument

A. Karim Kader, MD, PhD, argues that although PSA-based prostate cancer screening is flawed, urologists should adhere to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Prostate Cancer Screening and Early Detection Guidelines. He outlines how, in order to avoid overdiagnosis and other issues, urologists can be more judicious as to which patients are offered screening, biopsy, and treatment, while not abandoning the use of PSA as a marker for prostate cancer altogether.

Read More

State of the Art in “Smart” Prostate Cancer Screening: Defining the Need for Precision Diagnostics

Sigrid V. Carlsson, MD, PhD, MPH, discusses the evolution of attitudes toward PSA screening for prostate cancer over time, and the importance of implementing the PSA test in a way that will truly benefit patients. She details how risk-stratifying algorithms and calculators, biomarkers, and MRI can play a role in refining prostate cancer screening.

Read More

The Staggering Benefit of PSA Screening in Potentially Lethal Prostate Cancer

Patrick W. McLaughlin, MD, discusses the limitations of evidence that provide the basis for the United States Preventive Services Task Force’s (USPSTF’s) negative gradings for PSA screening. He argues that in the modern era, with the currently-available curative therapy for most lethal prostate cancers, intensive screening can allow early enough detection to provide patients opportunities for a cure. 

Read More

Screening for Prostate Cancer: PSA: Why 1.5 is the New 4.0

E. David Crawford, MD, argues for using PSA levels of 1.5 ng/mL as the cutoff point for determining prostate cancer risk in routine screening. He discusses the need for utilizing better risk-assessment methods for detecting prostate cancer, such as genomic markers, in order to reduce unnecessary biopsies, over-detection of indolent disease, and reliance on PSA testing alone.

Read More

TRUS Biopsy, MRI, and PROMIS Trial

John W. Davis, MD, discusses the lack of consensus regarding the definitions and benefits of focal therapy for prostate cancer. He defines the patients who would benefit most from focal therapy, as well as overcoming current challenges in this approach.

Read More
Loading

Join the GRU Community

- Why Join? -

CARDEN JENNINGS PUBLISHING CO., LTD.

Find Us:
375 Greenbrier Drive, Suite 100
Charlottesville, VA 22901

Call Us:
434-817-2000

Email Us:
Send Message

INFO

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions

Exercise & Wellness

Associate Editors


Fred Bartlit, Esq.
StrongPath


Mark A. Moyad, MD, MPH
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan