Tag Archive for: screening

Posts

Article of the Week: A mpMRI-based risk model to determine the risk of prostate cancer prior to biopsy

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

A multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based risk model to determine the risk of significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy

Pim J. van Leeuwen*, Andrew Hayen, James E. Thompson*†‡, Daniel Moses§Ron Shnier§, Maret Bohm, Magdaline Abuodha, Anne-Maree HaynesFrancis Ting*†‡, Jelle Barentsz, Monique Roobol**, Justin Vass††, Krishan Rasiah††Warick Delprado‡‡ and Phillip D. Stricker*†‡

 

*St. Vincents Prostate Cancer Centre, Garvan Institute of Medical Research/The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, §School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, **Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, ††Department of Urology, Royal North Shore Private Hospital, St Leonards, and ‡‡Douglass Hanly Moir Pathology and University of Notre Dame, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia

 

Abstract

Objective

To develop and externally validate a predictive model for detection of significant prostate cancer.

Patients and Methods

Development of the model was based on a prosp   ctive cohort including 393 men who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) before biopsy. External validity of the model was then examined retrospectively in 198 men from a separate institution whom underwent mpMRI followed by biopsy for abnormal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level or digital rectal examination (DRE). A model was developed with age, PSA level, DRE, prostate volume, previous biopsy, and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score, as predictors for significant prostate cancer (Gleason 7 with >5% grade 4, ≥20% cores positive or ≥7 mm of cancer in any core). Probability was studied via logistic regression. Discriminatory performance was quantified by concordance statistics and internally validated with bootstrap resampling.

Results

In all, 393 men had complete data and 149 (37.9%) had significant prostate cancer. While the variable model had good accuracy in predicting significant prostate cancer, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80, the advanced model (incorporating mpMRI) had a significantly higher AUC of 0.88 (P < 0.001). The model was well calibrated in internal and external validation. Decision analysis showed that use of the advanced model in practice would improve biopsy outcome predictions. Clinical application of the model would reduce 28% of biopsies, whilst missing 2.6% significant prostate cancer.

Conclusions

Individualised risk assessment of significant prostate cancer using a predictive model that incorporates mpMRI PIRADS score and clinical data allows a considerable reduction in unnecessary biopsies and reduction of the risk of over-detection of insignificant prostate cancer at the cost of a very small increase in the number of significant cancers missed.

 

Editorial: Novel risk stratification nomograms for counseling patients on the need for prostate biopsy

Contemporary recommendations for prostate screening incorporate the measurement of serum PSA levels into shared decision making [1]. PSA is limited by a low specificity for prostate cancer and exposes a certain number of men to unnecessary prostate biopsies. Moreover, it has been attributed to an over-diagnosis and over treatment of this disease, especially in indolent cancer that may never affect a man’s longevity [2].

Prostate cancer risk stratification and aggressiveness is necessary in both the pre-biopsy clinical counselling, as well as the decision-making process. It is clear that such an important approach cannot be accomplished based on PSA alone. In order to enhance prostate cancer screening and detection, other clinical variables such as PSA density, prostate volume, percentage free PSA, and DRE, are routinely considered in conjunction with PSA for determining the need for prostate biopsy.

Increasing evidence supports the use of MRI in prostate cancer detection when used as a localisation tool to guide MRI-targeted biopsy techniques such as MRI-ultrasonography fusion-targeted biopsy [3-5]. Pre-biopsy MRI not only allows accurate tumour localisation, but also provides an assessment of cancer suspicion using an MRI suspicion score, and thus provides accurate prediction of the likelihood of prostate cancer on prostate biopsy [6].

In this study, van Leeuwen et al. [7] developed and externally validated a set of nomograms predicting clinically significant prostate cancer by incorporating prostate MRI. The performance characteristics of the nomograms were maximised by inclusion of MRI results. The authors determined that clinical application of the model would reduce 28% of biopsies, while missing 2.6% of clinically significant prostate cancer. Ultimately incorporating these nomograms into the clinical decision-making process could result in a considerable reduction in unnecessary biopsies and reduction in the risk of over-detection of clinically insignificant disease at the cost of a small increase in the number of significant cancers missed.

The authors should be commended for their predictive nomograms, in that they may further aid in the decision to perform biopsy in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. However, the findings of this study should be interpreted with caution. In formulating nomograms, the obvious clinical goal is the creation of a tool that improves the selection of men in need of biopsy. Unless nomograms are derived from general ‘at risk’ populations, including men with low- and high-risk of prostate cancer, the tool may be limited in its prediction. As an example, if all men in the training cohort have an elevated PSA level, the predictive value of PSA in the nomogram may be reduced. In this case, the training and validation cohort are not well described, but it seems to be a referral population, and the PSA range is relatively narrow. As such, it’s applicability to all men presenting for prostate cancer may be questionable.

We also have had difficulty modelling a nomogram from our MRI-targeted biopsy dataset because the power of MRI-suspicion score in predicting cancer tends to minimise the effect of other variables such as PSA, age, and gland size. The authors did not compare their multivariable predictive models to MRI alone, and this may have been the most relevant comparison. In this study, the gland size and PSA level contribute significantly to the nomogram score, but one might question the findings. For example, a man with a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 4 or 5, a large gland and a low PSA level, has a similar or lower risk as a man with a PSA level of 15 ng/mL, a moderate gland, and a PI-RADS score of 3. This is not consistent with our clinical experience and draws concern in the reliability of the nomogram at extremes of PSA and age. Men with PI-RADS 5 have high rates of clinically significant prostate cancer, regardless of PSA or age. This also may reflect variability in the predictive accuracy of MRI depending upon MRI interpretation.

Another limitation of the study, as the authors cite, is that patients were biopsied using a transperineal mapping with a median of 30 cores. This biopsy strategy is not routinely used in most institutions, and consequently limits the generalisability of the nomograms.

Selective use of prostate biopsy among men with elevated PSA levels through further refinement of cancer risk is highly desirable. The novel risk stratification nomograms developed by van Leeuwen et al. [7] add to the tools we may use to counsel our patients on the need for prostate biopsy. Further evaluation of these nomograms on additional independent patient cohorts is warranted prior to implementation in clinical practice.

Marc A. Bjurlinand Samir S. Taneja
*Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, NYU Lutheran Medical Center, NYU Langone Health System, New York, NY, USA and Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, US

 

References

 

1 Carter HBAlbertsen PCBarry MJ et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline. J Urol2013; 190: 41926

 

2 Loeb SBjurlin MANicholson J et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol
2014; 65: 104655

 

3 Mendhiratta NMeng XRosenkrantz AB et al. Prebiopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy in men with previous negative biopsies: impact on repeat biopsy strategies. Urology 2015; 86: 11928

 

 

5 Meng XRosenkrantz ABMendhiratta N et al. Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 51217

 

 

7 van Leeuwen PJHayan AThompson JE et al. A multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based risk model to determine the risk of significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy. BJU Int 2017; 120: 7748

 

Article of the Week: Effect of MetS on serum PSA levels is concealed by enlarged prostate

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video discussing the paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Actual lowering effect of metabolic syndrome on serum prostate-specific antigen levels is partly concealed by enlarged prostate: results from a large-scale population-based study

Sicong Zhao*, Ming Xia*, Jianchun Tang† and Yong Yan*

 

*Department of Urology, and Department of Cardiology, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

 

Abstract

Objectives

To clarify the lowering effect of metabolic syndrome (MetS) on serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in a Chinese screened population.

Subjects and Methods

A total of 45 540 ostensibly healthy men aged 55–69 years who underwent routine health check-ups at Beijing Shijitan Hospital between 2008 and 2015 were included in the study. All the men underwent detailed clinical evaluations. PSA mass density was calculated (serum PSA level × plasma volume ÷ prostate volume) for simultaneously adjusting plasma volume and prostate volume. According to the modified National Cholesterol Education Programme–Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP-ATP) III criteria, patients were dichotomized by the presence of MetS, and differences in PSA density and PSA mass density were compared between groups. Linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the effect of MetS on serum PSA levels.

Results

When larger prostate volume in men with MetS was adjusted for, both PSA density and PSA mass density in men with MetS were significantly lower than in men without MetS, and the estimated difference in mean serum PSA level between men with and without MetS was greater than that before adjusting for prostate volume. In the multivariate regression model, the presence of MetS was independently associated with an 11.3% decline in serum PSA levels compared with the absence of MetS. In addition, increasing number of positive MetS components was significantly and linearly associated with decline in serum PSA levels.

Conclusion

The actual lowering effect of MetS on serum PSA levels was partly concealed by the enlarged prostate in men with MetS, and the presence of MetS was independently associated with lower serum PSA levels. Urologists need to be aware of the effect of MetS on serum PSA levels and should discuss this subject with their patients.

Editorial: Anomalous observation with regard to PCa in cancer research

In science, reports showing data deviating from what is expected are called anomalous observations. Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a promoter of cancer at almost all sites [1]; however, when it comes to prostate cancer (PCa), a series of reports have been published showing an inverse relationship between MetS and its aspects and incident PCa. This lack of coherence in cancer research seriously hampers efforts to fight cancer disorders. It is therefore crucial to find an explanation for this incoherence.

In the search for a reasonable explanation for this anomalous observation, a hypothesis has been formulated, based on the study by Häggström et al. [2], and stating that the PSA-driven diagnostic procedure in PCa, which creates low-stage incident PCa material, is the culprit. The PSA-driven diagnostic procedure introduces several bias mechanisms, which tend to protect men with MetS from being diagnosed with PCa. Thus, men with MetS and its aspects are under-represented in PCa populations generated by PSA-driven diagnostics, thereby creating a distorted incident PCa population. This hypothesis also predicts that high-stage PCa, as well as non-localized and lethal PCa, are not subject to these bias mechanisms, as a minor reduction in the PSA level is of no importance for the PCa diagnosis at these high PSA levels. Finally, the hypothesis predicts that the link between MetS and incident PCa is stage-dependent. A study testing this hypothesis is now in progress.

Several studies have reported that men with MetS had lower PSA levels compared with men without MetS. Zhao et al. [3] address this specific question in this issue of BJUI and confirm that the presence of MetS was independently associated with a lower PSA level and that the enlarged prostate gland, which is an aspect of MetS, partly concealed an even greater PSA level reduction [3]. The findings indicate that a bias mechanism inverses the link between MetS and incident PCa and support the above-mentioned hypothesis.

In short, the following bias mechanisms have been described. MetS is associated with greater body fat with increased aromatase activity, resulting in a reduced testosterone level, which, in turn, is related to a reduced PSA level, as the production of PSA is under androgen control. Another possible bias mechanism, leading to men with MetS being diagnosed less often with PCa, is that these men are more likely to be obese. It is well established that men with a higher BMI also have larger plasma volumes and therefore have greater haemodilution of the PSA production, resulting in a lower PSA level. This means that incident PCa is diagnosed less often in men with MetS, as their PSA level is lower. MetS is also associated with an enlarged prostate gland volume, which means that fewer incident PCas are diagnosed, given the same tumour volume and the same number of biopsies. Another bias mechanism is that a high proportion of men with high socio-economic status undergo PSA testing in the PSA era. It is well established that men with a high socio-economic status have a lower prevalence of MetS and therefore have higher PSA levels, as indicated by the present report in the BJUI [3], and an elevated risk of PCa. Thus, multiple bias mechanisms seem to conceal low-stage PCa in the PSA era.

If it could be confirmed that the negative relationship between MetS and incident PCa is a spurious observation as a result of bias mechanisms, this would open the door for the MetS hypothesis regarding the promotion of multiple cancer disorders. This door has previously been closed by findings in a series of reports of an inverse relationship between MetS and its aspects and incident prostate cancer. Furthermore, this could lead to increased efforts to fight the metabolic aberrations of MetS. It is now well established that MetS and its aspects could be reduced by changes in lifestyle, including physical activity and diet. The most convincing evidence of the effect of diet on MetS comes from studies involving decreased intake of carbohydrates and increased intake of unsaturated fats. Recently, leading authorities in nutrition, endocrinology and metabolism presented a critical review and concluded that carbohydrate restriction is the single most effective intervention to reduce all features of MetS [4]. Another review concluded that carbohydrate restriction is one of the few common interventions that target all features of MetS [5]. This conclusion has recently been confirmed in a meta-analysis by Mansoor et al. [6].

In conclusion, new knowledge challenges the anomalous observation of PCa showing a negative relationship between MetS and PCa. The credibility of the hypothesis that MetS is an important promoting factor for cancer at almost all sites is strengthened. MetS could be treated effectively with a low carbohydrate and high fat diet.

Jan Hammarsten, MD, PhD
Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical SciencesUniversity of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

 

 

References

 

1 Esposito K, Chiodini P, Colao AM et al. Metabolic syndrome and risk of cancer. Diabetes Care 2012; 35: 240211 

 

2Haggstrom C, Stocks T, Ulmert D et al. Prospective study on metabolic factors and risk of prostate cancer. Cancer 2012; 118: 6199206

 

3 Zhao S, Xia M, Tang J et al. The actual lowering effect of metabolic syndrome on serum prostate-specic antigen levels is partly concealed by enlarged prostate: results from large-scale population-based study. BJU Int 2017; 120: 4829

 

4 Feinman RD, Pogozelski WK, Astrup A et al. Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the rst approach in diabetes management: critical review and evidence base. Nutrition 2015;31: 113

 

5 Accurso A, Bernstein RK, Dahlqvist A et al. Dietary carbohydrate restriction in type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome: time for critical appraisal. Nutrition & Metabolism 2008; 5: 9

 

6 Mansoor N, Vinknes UJ , Veierod MB et al. Effects of low-carbohydrate diets v. low fat diets on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Nutrition 2016; 115: 4667

 

Video: Effect of MetS on serum PSA levels is concealed by enlarged prostate

Actual lowering effect of metabolic syndrome on serum prostate-specific antigen levels is partly concealed by enlarged prostate: results from a large-scale population-based study

Sicong Zhao*, Ming Xia*, Jianchun Tang† and Yong Yan*

 

*Department of Urology, and Department of Cardiology, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

 

Abstract

Objectives

To clarify the lowering effect of metabolic syndrome (MetS) on serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in a Chinese screened population.

Subjects and Methods

A total of 45 540 ostensibly healthy men aged 55–69 years who underwent routine health check-ups at Beijing Shijitan Hospital between 2008 and 2015 were included in the study. All the men underwent detailed clinical evaluations. PSA mass density was calculated (serum PSA level × plasma volume ÷ prostate volume) for simultaneously adjusting plasma volume and prostate volume. According to the modified National Cholesterol Education Programme–Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP-ATP) III criteria, patients were dichotomized by the presence of MetS, and differences in PSA density and PSA mass density were compared between groups. Linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the effect of MetS on serum PSA levels.

Results

When larger prostate volume in men with MetS was adjusted for, both PSA density and PSA mass density in men with MetS were significantly lower than in men without MetS, and the estimated difference in mean serum PSA level between men with and without MetS was greater than that before adjusting for prostate volume. In the multivariate regression model, the presence of MetS was independently associated with an 11.3% decline in serum PSA levels compared with the absence of MetS. In addition, increasing number of positive MetS components was significantly and linearly associated with decline in serum PSA levels.

Conclusion

The actual lowering effect of MetS on serum PSA levels was partly concealed by the enlarged prostate in men with MetS, and the presence of MetS was independently associated with lower serum PSA levels. Urologists need to be aware of the effect of MetS on serum PSA levels and should discuss this subject with their patients.

The USPSTF Changes Course: a “C” rating for PSA screening in ages 55-69. I did not see this coming.

It should surprise no one that I never agreed with the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force to give PSA a “D” rating that has led to decreases in U.S. rates of PSA testing, biopsies, and diagnosis of low- through high-risk cancer. I take care of men with prostate cancer in a multidisciplinary clinic at a dedicated cancer hospital. I perform robotic surgeries and manage over a 1,000 men on active surveillance. If you search the BJUI blogs, you can find the often viewed (>80K) “Melbourne Consensus Statement on Prostate Cancer Testing” that included 15 authors who produced 5 consensus statements on the topic. There are 62 comments—comment #5 is a fairly famous one that equates the panel to “a group of 10 pig-farmers telling us we should eat more bacon.” So yes, I think I count as a pig farmer here. My maternal grandfather and great uncle farmed pigs in Western Tennessee, so it does run in the family.


USPSTF PSA screening: Pig farming or roboticsFigure 1: It was either this or robotics

That said, it always seemed odd, that as a large country and major healthcare market, we rolled out PSA screening in the 1990s with wild enthusiasm and without data on benefit, only to then try and roll it back in when faced with two conflicting level 1 evidence studies. Meanwhile, the American Urological Association guidelines recommended PSA screening (with the “shared decision making caveat”)—mostly mirroring the European study—for men ages 55-69 (also consensus statement 1 from the Melbourne consensus). However, a recent fact struck me during a conference talk—Urologists in the U.S. are estimated to order <10% of all PSA tests, and a vast majority are from primary care physicians. So in essence it doesn’t matter as much what we think of one guideline versus another, it’s what the primary care specialties think that matters. As the USPSTF is targeted at primary care, their D rating did have an effect—fewer PSA tests, biopsies, and diagnosis of all grades of cancer (not just Gleason 6). We have heard stories over the years that specialty exams in primary care were starting to feature PSA screening questions, and the “don’t screen” answer was the one you got credit for. But I was also never convinced that most primary care physicians were comfortable with abandoning screening either. They must have seen what we saw—real cancers presenting later stage.

Some memorable quotes along these years of debate:

“There is no evidence prostate carcinogenesis has declined.” Joel Nelson, J Urol 2015

“I believe the USPSTF recommendations have created confusion at the patient and primary physician level, and that this confusion did not likely result in more informed, shared decision making, but instead avoidance of the issue.” Samir Taneja, J Urol.

Amen. So now it’s 2017 and the USPSTF has looked at the data again. They’ve had their “analysis” methods on the web for a while so we know something was planned. I can’t find authorship credits anywhere—we always complained that no prostate cancer experts were involved in the past, and now wondering who is driving this ship. The take home messages are:

  1. Offer PSA screening to ages 55-69 with shared decision making. The narrative is not “do screening.” It’s a full paragraph with the often told caveats of individualized decisions, potential harms and benefits. It’s limited to the reduction in mortality way of thinking, i.e. no thought to preventing metastatic progression, palliative care, etc.
  2. Don’t screen in men ages 70 and older. From an evidence standpoint—hard to argue and the AUA guidelines are similar. The Melbourne Consensus is at least polite enough to point out that not all men over age 70 are going to drop dead any minute, and maybe some of them should be screened if very healthy (level of evidence = CS for common sense).
  3. We recognized that men with a family history of prostate cancer or African American race are higher risk, but we don’t have evidence to support a different screening policy. Again—hard to argue with the evidence and the AUA says the same.

So really that’s it—3 main concepts. This is likely to be a significant impact in the U.S., depending upon whether or not primary care physicians change practice (and their exam questions are the same with a different correct answer).

Probably what is on your mind now is “why the change.” It does not appear to be one thing—not even recent publications revealing a more significant pattern of PSA contamination in the PLCO trial. The checklist seems to include: 1) PCLO “issues”, 2) more data from ERSPC and its subsets, 3) more data on treatment benefit, and 4) increased use of active surveillance in low-risk disease. So the balance tipped in favor of a “C” although they state the benefits and harms are still close. Fair enough.

As I re-read the 2013 Melbourne Consensus and compare to the 2017 USPSTF statement, there is a lot of overlap now. So congrats to the Melbourne group for getting it right in the first place. I, myself, did not see this coming—just another example of why I don’t invest in individual stocks or otherwise pretend to know the future.

I apologize as I re-read this, as I realize we Americans think the world revolves around us. Many of you certainly live in countries that are against routine screening and manage to get by. By all means, please sound off on what you think this means for the international picture of men’s health.

USPSTF PSA screening: Scenic Melbourne at duskFigure 2: Scenic Melbourne at dusk

 

John W. Davis is BJUI Associate Editor for oncology. @jdhdavis

 

 

Comments on this blog have been closed due to high levels of spam.

 

 

Guideline of Guidelines: Imaging of Localized Prostate Cancer

Guidelines Localised Prostate Cacner

 

Introduction

In the era before the widespread adoption of PSA screening for prostate cancer, most incident cases were already advanced stage. Because treatment options, such as surgery or radiation, are thought mainly to benefit patients with localised disease, prostate cancer imaging was necessary before treatment of almost all patients. However, in the PSA era >90% of incident cases are localised, making the need for routine imaging with CT, MRI, or bone scan obsolete [1]. Numerous studies show a relatively low rate of positive staging imaging in low- and intermediate-risk patients. Recognising these trends, several professional societies issued prostate cancer imaging guidelines in the mid-1990s in an effort to curb the overuse of imaging. However, despite these longstanding guidelines, a great number of patients undergo improper imaging [2]. Given how stubborn this problem has been to eradicate, there has been a renewed interest in finding ways to decrease unnecessary imaging, including a Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) quality measure and a highlighting of the problem in the ‘Choosing Wisely’ campaign [3-5]. In addition to the guidelines regarding the staging of incident prostate cancer, some groups have also presented guidelines on the use of imaging to follow men with advanced disease [6]. The purpose of the present article is to summarise the main points from multiple professional society guidelines on imaging in prostate cancer to help clarify when patients with prostate cancer should be imaged and with which modalities.

Prostate Cancer Key Points

Article of the week: Guideline of guidelines: prostate cancer screening

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The introduction is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Guideline of guidelines: prostate cancer screening

Stacy Loeb
Department of Urology and Population Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer screening is one of the most controversial topics in urology [1]. On one hand, there is randomised data showing that PSA screening results in earlier stages at diagnosis, improved oncological outcomes after treatment, and lower prostate cancer mortality rates. However, the downsides include unnecessary biopsies due to false-positive PSA tests, over-diagnosis of some insignificant cancers, and potential side-effects from prostate biopsy and/or prostate cancer treatment. The ongoing controversy is highlighted by the divergent recommendations on screening from multiple professional organisations. The purpose of this article is to summarise the recent guidelines on prostate cancer screening from 2012 to present.

Article of the Month: The Melbourne Consensus Statement

Every month the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, we feature a video from Tony Costello and Declan Murphy discussing the Melbourne Statement.

If you only have time to read one article this month, it should be this one.

The Melbourne Consensus Statement on the early detection of prostate cancer

Declan G. Murphy1,2,3, Thomas Ahlering4, William J. Catalona5, Helen Crowe2,3, Jane Crowe3, Noel Clarke10, Matthew Cooperberg6, David Gillatt11, Martin Gleave12, Stacy Loeb7, Monique Roobol14, Oliver Sartor8, Tom Pickles13, Addie Wootten3, Patrick C. Walsh9 and Anthony J. Costello2,3

1Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 2Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, 3Epworth Prostate Centre, Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Epworth Healthcare Richmond, Melbourne, Vic., Australia, 4School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, 5Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 6Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of California, San Francisco, 7New York University, 8Tulane University School of Medicine, Tulane, 9The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University, USA, 10The Christie Hospital, Manchester University, Manchester, 11Bristol Urological Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK, 12The Vancouver Prostate Centre, 13BC Cancer Agency, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and 14Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

• Various conflicting guidelines and recommendations about prostate cancer screening and early detection have left both clinicians and their patients quite confused. At the Prostate Cancer World Congress held in Melbourne in August 2013, a multidisciplinary group of the world’s leading experts in this area gathered together and generated this set of consensus statements to bring some clarity to this confusion.

• The five consensus statements provide clear guidance for clinicians counselling their patients about the early detection of prostate cancer.

 

Read Previous Articles of the Week

 

Video: Why the Melbourne Statement?

The Melbourne Consensus Statement on the early detection of prostate cancer

Declan G. Murphy1,2,3, Thomas Ahlering4, William J. Catalona5, Helen Crowe2,3, Jane Crowe3, Noel Clarke10, Matthew Cooperberg6, David Gillatt11, Martin Gleave12, Stacy Loeb7, Monique Roobol14, Oliver Sartor8, Tom Pickles13, Addie Wootten3, Patrick C. Walsh9 and Anthony J. Costello2,3

1Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 2Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, 3Epworth Prostate Centre, Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Epworth Healthcare Richmond, Melbourne, Vic., Australia, 4School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, 5Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 6Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of California, San Francisco, 7New York University, 8Tulane University School of Medicine, Tulane, 9The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University, USA, 10The Christie Hospital, Manchester University, Manchester, 11Bristol Urological Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK, 12The Vancouver Prostate Centre, 13BC Cancer Agency, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and 14Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

• Various conflicting guidelines and recommendations about prostate cancer screening and early detection have left both clinicians and their patients quite confused. At the Prostate Cancer World Congress held in Melbourne in August 2013, a multidisciplinary group of the world’s leading experts in this area gathered together and generated this set of consensus statements to bring some clarity to this confusion.

• The five consensus statements provide clear guidance for clinicians counselling their patients about the early detection of prostate cancer.

 

© 2021 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.