Renu S Eapen1, Annika Herlemann, Samuel L Washington, Matthew R Cooperberg. 1. aDepartment of Urology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA bDepartment of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany cDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In 2012, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a grade 'D' recommendation against the use of routine prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for any men. This recommendation reflects critical misinterpretations of the available evidence base regarding benefits and harms of PSA screening and has influenced the nationwide landscape of prostate cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: Following the USPSTF recommendation, a substantial decline in PSA screening was noted for all age groups. Similarly, overall rates of prostate biopsy and prostate cancer incidence have significantly decreased with a shift toward higher grade and stage disease upon diagnosis. Concurrently, the incidence of metastatic prostate cancer has significantly risen in the United States. These trends are concerning particularly for the younger men with occult high-grade disease who are expected to benefit the most from early detection and definitive prostate cancer treatment. SUMMARY: These emerging trends in PSA screening and prostate cancer incidence following the USPSTF recommendation may have significant public health implications. Due to the long natural history of the disease, a long-term follow-up is needed to provide a better understanding on the implications of such recommendations on disease progression and mortality rates in prostate cancer patients. The future of US screening policy should reflect a targeted 'smarter' screening strategy rather than dichotomizing the decision between 'screen all' or 'screen none'.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In 2012, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a grade 'D' recommendation against the use of routine prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for any men. This recommendation reflects critical misinterpretations of the available evidence base regarding benefits and harms of PSA screening and has influenced the nationwide landscape of prostate cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: Following the USPSTF recommendation, a substantial decline in PSA screening was noted for all age groups. Similarly, overall rates of prostate biopsy and prostate cancer incidence have significantly decreased with a shift toward higher grade and stage disease upon diagnosis. Concurrently, the incidence of metastatic prostate cancer has significantly risen in the United States. These trends are concerning particularly for the younger men with occult high-grade disease who are expected to benefit the most from early detection and definitive prostate cancer treatment. SUMMARY: These emerging trends in PSA screening and prostate cancer incidence following the USPSTF recommendation may have significant public health implications. Due to the long natural history of the disease, a long-term follow-up is needed to provide a better understanding on the implications of such recommendations on disease progression and mortality rates in prostate cancerpatients. The future of US screening policy should reflect a targeted 'smarter' screening strategy rather than dichotomizing the decision between 'screen all' or 'screen none'.
Authors: Donna P Ankerst; Johanna Straubinger; Katharina Selig; Lourdes Guerrios; Amanda De Hoedt; Javier Hernandez; Michael A Liss; Robin J Leach; Stephen J Freedland; Michael W Kattan; Robert Nam; Alexander Haese; Francesco Montorsi; Stephen A Boorjian; Matthew R Cooperberg; Cedric Poyet; Emily Vertosick; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Vincent Beck; Boris Schlenker; Annika Herlemann; Maria Apfelbeck; Alexander Buchner; Christian Gratzke; Christian G Stief; Stefan Tritschler Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Kevin H Kensler; Claire H Pernar; Brandon A Mahal; Paul L Nguyen; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Adam S Kibel; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 13.506