Marco Randazzo1,2, Alexander Müller1, Sigrid Carlsson3,4, Daniel Eberli1, Andreas Huber5, Rainer Grobholz6, Lukas Manka7, Ashkan Mortezavi1, Tullio Sulser1, Franz Recker2, Maciej Kwiatkowski2,7. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 2. Department of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland. 3. Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 5. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland. 6. Department of Pathology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland. 7. Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of a positive family history (FH) as a risk factor for prostate cancer incidence and grade among men undergoing organised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in a population-based study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study cohort comprised all attendees of the Swiss arm of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) with systematic PSA level tests every 4 years. Men reporting first-degree relative(s) diagnosed with prostate cancer were considered to have a positive FH. Biopsy was exclusively PSA triggered at a PSA level threshold of 3 ng/mL. The primary endpoint was prostate cancer diagnosis. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used. RESULTS:Of 4 932 attendees with a median (interquartile range, IQR) age of 60.9 (57.6-65.1) years, 334 (6.8%) reported a positive FH. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 11.6 (10.3-13.3) years. Cumulative prostate cancer incidence was 60/334 (18%, positive FH) and 550/4 598 (12%, negative FH) [odds ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-2.2, P = 0.001). In both groups, most prostate cancer diagnosed was low grade. There were no significant differences in PSA level at diagnosis, biopsy Gleason score or Gleason score on pathological specimen among men who underwent radical prostatectomy between both groups. On multivariable analysis, age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), baseline PSA level (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.12-1.14), and FH (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.24-2.14) were independent predictors for overall prostate cancer incidence (all P < 0.001). Only baseline PSA level (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.12-1.16, P < 0.001) was an independent predictor of Gleason score ≥7 prostate cancer on prostate biopsy. The proportion of interval prostate cancer diagnosed in-between the screening rounds was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of the FH status, the current PSA-based screening setting detects the majority of aggressive prostate cancers and missed only a minority of interval cancers with a 4-year screening algorithm. Our results suggest that men with a positive FH are at increased risk of low-grade but not aggressive prostate cancer.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of a positive family history (FH) as a risk factor for prostate cancer incidence and grade among men undergoing organised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in a population-based study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study cohort comprised all attendees of the Swiss arm of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) with systematic PSA level tests every 4 years. Men reporting first-degree relative(s) diagnosed with prostate cancer were considered to have a positive FH. Biopsy was exclusively PSA triggered at a PSA level threshold of 3 ng/mL. The primary endpoint was prostate cancer diagnosis. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used. RESULTS: Of 4 932 attendees with a median (interquartile range, IQR) age of 60.9 (57.6-65.1) years, 334 (6.8%) reported a positive FH. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 11.6 (10.3-13.3) years. Cumulative prostate cancer incidence was 60/334 (18%, positive FH) and 550/4 598 (12%, negative FH) [odds ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-2.2, P = 0.001). In both groups, most prostate cancer diagnosed was low grade. There were no significant differences in PSA level at diagnosis, biopsy Gleason score or Gleason score on pathological specimen among men who underwent radical prostatectomy between both groups. On multivariable analysis, age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), baseline PSA level (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.12-1.14), and FH (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.24-2.14) were independent predictors for overall prostate cancer incidence (all P < 0.001). Only baseline PSA level (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.12-1.16, P < 0.001) was an independent predictor of Gleason score ≥7 prostate cancer on prostate biopsy. The proportion of interval prostate cancer diagnosed in-between the screening rounds was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of the FH status, the current PSA-based screening setting detects the majority of aggressive prostate cancers and missed only a minority of interval cancers with a 4-year screening algorithm. Our results suggest that men with a positive FH are at increased risk of low-grade but not aggressive prostate cancer.
Authors: Ola Bratt; Hans Garmo; Jan Adolfsson; Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Mats Lambe; Pär Stattin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Gerald L Andriole; David G Bostwick; Otis W Brawley; Leonard G Gomella; Michael Marberger; Francesco Montorsi; Curtis A Pettaway; Teuvo L Tammela; Claudio Teloken; Donald J Tindall; Matthew C Somerville; Timothy H Wilson; Ivy L Fowler; Roger S Rittmaster Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-04-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P Lichtenstein; N V Holm; P K Verkasalo; A Iliadou; J Kaprio; M Koskenvuo; E Pukkala; A Skytthe; K Hemminki Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-07-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Páez; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paula M Kujala; Bert G Blijenberg; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Andreas Huber; Kimmo Taari; Matti Hakama; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Allison S Glass; Janet E Cowan; Mahesh J Fuldeore; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll; Stacey A Kenfield; Kirsten L Greene Journal: Urology Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ghalib A Jibara; Marlon Perera; Emily A Vertosick; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew Vickers; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Vincent P Laudone; Karim Touijer; Xin Lin; Maria I Carlo; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: J Urol Date: 2022-04-04 Impact factor: 7.600
Authors: Mihai Dorin Vartolomei; Shoji Kimura; Matteo Ferro; Beat Foerster; Mohammad Abufaraj; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Heminder Sokhi; Anwar R Padhani; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 14.432