Literature DB >> 35348709

Grade Migration of Prostate Cancer in the United States During the Last Decade.

Leonardo D Borregales1, Gina DeMeo1, Xiangmei Gu2, Emily Cheng1, Vanessa Dudley1, Edward M Schaeffer3, Himanshu Nagar4, Sigrid Carlsson5,6,7, Andrew Vickers6, Jim C Hu1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) screening guidelines have changed over the last decade to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-grade disease. We sought to examine and attempt to explain how changes in screening strategies have impacted temporal trends in Gleason grade group (GG) PC at diagnosis and radical prostatectomy pathology.
METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registry database, we identified 438 432 men with newly diagnosed PC during 2010-2018. Temporal trends in incidence of GG at biopsy, radical prostatectomy pathology, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and metastasis at diagnosis were examined. The National Health Interview Survey database was examined to evaluate trends in PSA-screening rates, and a literature review evaluating magnetic resonance imaging and biomarkers utilization during this period was performed.
RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2018, the incidence of low-grade PC (GG1) decreased from 52 to 26 cases per 100 000 (P < .001). The incidence of GG1 as a proportion of all PC decreased from 47% to 32%, and the proportion of GG1 at radical prostatectomy pathology decreased from 32% to 10% (P < .001). However, metastases at diagnosis increased from 3.0% to 5.2% (P < .001). During 2010-2013, PSA screening rates in men aged 50-74 years declined from 39 to 32 per 100 men and remained stable. Utilization rates of magnetic resonance imaging and biomarkers modestly increased from 7.2% in 2012 to 17% in 2019 and 1.3% in 2012 to 13% in 2019, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant decrease in the diagnosis and treatment of GG1 PC between 2010 and 2018. Changes in PSA screening practices appear as the primary contributor. Public health efforts should be directed toward addressing the increase in the diagnoses of metastatic PC.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35348709      PMCID: PMC9275764          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djac066

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   11.816


  39 in total

1.  The Pendulum of Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  David F Penson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Increase in Prostate Cancer Distant Metastases at Diagnosis in the United States.

Authors:  Jim C Hu; Paul Nguyen; Jialin Mao; Joshua Halpern; Jonathan Shoag; Jason D Wright; Art Sedrakyan
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 31.777

3.  A Four-kallikrein Panel Predicts High-grade Cancer on Biopsy: Independent Validation in a Community Cohort.

Authors:  Katharina Braun; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers; Hans Lilja; Anders S Bjartell
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Cancer statistics, 2022.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Hannah E Fuchs; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 5.  The Prostate Health Index: Its Utility in Prostate Cancer Detection.

Authors:  Abbey Lepor; William J Catalona; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.241

6.  Evolving Use of Prebiopsy Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Medicare Population.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jennifer Hemingway; Danny R Hughes; Richard Duszak; Bibb Allen; Jeffrey C Weinreb
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Clinical Utility of 4Kscore®, ExosomeDx™ and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Early Detection of High Grade Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Claire M de la Calle; Vittorio Fasulo; Janet E Cowan; Peter E Lonergan; Martina Maggi; Adam J Gadzinski; Reuben Au Yeung; Alberto Saita; Matthew R Cooperberg; Katsuto Shinohara; Peter R Carroll; Hao G Nguyen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-09-08       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Adoption of Prebiopsy Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Men Undergoing Prostate Biopsy in the United States.

Authors:  Wen Liu; Dattatraya Patil; David H Howard; Renee H Moore; Heqiong Wang; Martin G Sanda; Christopher P Filson
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Disparities in magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate for traditionally underserved patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Timothy P Quinn; Martin G Sanda; David H Howard; Dattatraya Patil; Christopher P Filson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 6.921

10.  Trends and practices for managing low-risk prostate cancer: a SEER-Medicare study.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Sarah L Mott; Bradley D McDowell; Sonia T Anand; Kenneth G Nepple
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 5.455

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Should Contemporary Western Guidelines Based on Studies Conducted in the 2000s Be Adopted for the Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening Policy for Asian Men in the 2020s?

Authors:  Young Hwii Ko; Byung Hoon Kim
Journal:  World J Mens Health       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 6.494

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.