Page 8 - Canadian Urological Association recommendations on prostate cancer screening and early diagnosis

Guideline: PSA screening and early diagnosis

Additionally, a single PSA measurement should not be used References
to guide biopsy decision-making. Numerous studies have
documented the measured changes and fluctuations in PSA 1. Canadian Cancer Statistics 2015. Canadian Cancer Society. 2015.
levels over time. 101,102 In a Canadian study that evaluated 2. Abrams P, Khoury S. International Consultation on Urological Diseases: Evidence-based medicine overview of
over 1000 men with elevated PSA (>4 ng/ml), it was dem- the main steps for developing and grading guideline recommendations. Neurourol Urodyn 2010;29:116-8.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20845
onstrated that by repeating PSA testing, 25% of the cohort 3. Carter HB, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol
had resolution to low levels that did not require further 2013;190:419-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.119
investigation. 102 For these reasons, it is recommended that 4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2016; April 28,
PSA should be repeated and confirmed before proceeding 2016. Available at https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate_detection.pdf.
to prostate biopsy. 5. Accessed May 9, 2017.
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diag-
The decision to proceed with prostate biopsy should take nosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017;71:618-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
into account several factors, including PSA level, results from eururo.2016.08.003
adjunct tests or risk calculators, competing comorbidities, 6. Qaseem A, Barry MJ, Denberg TD, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: A guidance statement from the
and patient preferences. In addition, a suspicious finding on Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Annals Int Med 2013;158:761-9.
DRE may warrant consideration of prostate biopsy in healthy 7. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-10-201305210-00633
United States Preventative Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement on prostate can -
men. Although the added utility of DRE in addition to PSA cer screening. Available at https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/
is controversial, DRE may increase the detection of clini- RecommendationStatementDraft/prostate-cancer-screening1. Accessed May 9, 2017.
cally significant disease 103-105 and men undergoing prostate 8. Bell N, Connor Gorber S, Shane A, et al. Recommendations on screening for prostate cancer with the
cancer screening should have DRE performed at the same prostate-specific antigen test. Can Med Assoc J 2014;186:1225-34. https://doi.org/10.1503/
interval as PSA testing. 9. cmaj.140703
Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening
The CUA acknowledges that the implementation of a trial. N Eng J Med 2009;360:1310-9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0810696
successful screening program must also consider individual 10. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized
variations in patient preferences. Men undergoing screen- European study. N Eng J Med 2009;360:1320-8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0810084
ing should be involved in the decision-making regarding 11. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, et al. Mortality results from the Goteborg randomized, population-based
prostate biopsy. The decision to pursue biopsy should be prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:725-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-
2045(10)70146-7
based upon a discussion of the best evidence for estimating 12. Kjellman A, Akre O, Norming U, et al. 15-year followup of a population-based prostate cancer screen-
the risk for aggressive prostate cancer (Expert opinion). ing study. J Urol 2009;181:1615-21; discussion 21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.11.115
13. Labrie F, Candas B, Cusan L, et al. Screening decreases prostate cancer mortality: 11-year fol -
Conclusion lowup of the 1988 Quebec prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Prostate 2004;59:311-8.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.20017
14. Sandblom G, Varenhorst E, Rosell J, et al. Randomized prostate cancer screening trial: 20-year followup.
Population-based screening has demonstrated benefits in BMJ 2011;342:d1539. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d1539
reducing prostate cancer mortality; however, decisions 15. Pinsky PF, Prorok PC, Yu K, et al. Extended mortality results for prostate cancer screening in the PLCO trial
to proceed with screening should be based upon shared with median followup of 15 years. Cancer 2017;123:592-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30474
decision-making, recognizing that each patient has a dif- 16. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: Results of the
ferent perspective with regards to the potential benefits and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of followup. Lancet
2014;384:2027-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0
harms of prostate cancer screening and treatment. These 17. Arnsrud Godtman R, Holmberg E, Lilja H, et al. Opportunistic testing vs. organized prostate-specific antigen
recommendations summarize the best available evidence for screening: Outcome after 18 years in the Goteborg randomized, population-based prostate cancer screening
conducting prostate cancer screening in a Canadian context, trial. Eur Urol 2015;68:354-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.006
with an emphasis placed on maximizing the detection of 18. Otto SJ, van der Cruijsen IW, Liem MK, et al. Effective PSA contamination in the Rotterdam section
aggressive and potentially lethal disease and minimizing the of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Int J Cancer 2003;105:394-9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.11074
harms associated with unnecessary prostate biopsy and dis- 19. Lujan M, Paez A, Pascual C, et al. Extent of prostate-specific antigen contamination in the Spanish section
covery of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. We hope of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Eur Urol 2006;50:1234-40;
that these recommendations will help promote initiatives discussion 9-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.04.015
for improving the health of Canadian men. 20. Turner EL, Metcalfe C, Donovan JL, et al. Design and preliminary recruitment results of the Cluster
randomized triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP). Br J Cancer 2014;110:2829-36.
https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2014.242
Competing interests: The authors report no competing personal or financial interests. 21. Bartsch G, Horninger W, Klocker H, et al. Prostate cancer mortality after introduction of prostate-
specific antigen mass screening in the Federal State of Tyrol, Austria. Urology 2001;58:417-24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01264-X
This paper has been peer-reviewed. 22. Roberts RO, Bergstralh EJ, Katusic SK, et al. Decline in prostate cancer mortality from 1980 to
1997, and an update on incidence trends in Olmsted County, Minnesota. J Urol 1999;161:529-33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)61941-4
23. Collin SM, Martin RM, Metcalfe C, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality in the USA and UK in 1975-2004: An
ecological study. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:445-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70104-9

CUAJ • October 2017 • Volume 11, Issue 10 305