Implications of the New AUA Guidelines on Prostate Cancer Detection in the U.S.
In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a blanket “D” recommendation against all prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based early detection efforts for prostate cancer, reflecting critical misinterpretations of the major evidence regarding benefits and harms of such testing. Against the backdrop of the ensuing controversy, in 2013 the American Urological Association (AUA) published a new, methodologically rigorous guideline. This guideline recommended that men aged 55–69 be offered biennial screening in the setting of shared decision-making, that men under 40 or over 69 years of age should not be screened routinely, and that evidence was insufficient to recommend screening for men aged 40–54 years. While it has received criticism with regard to the age-based recommendations, the AUA guideline reflects a far better and more balanced presentation of the available evidence than the USPSTF statement. However, because the USPSTF is far more influential than the AUA among primary care providers, the ultimate impact of the new AUA guideline on practice patterns may be limited. Optimizing early detection practices should involve consensus-building incorporating both primary care and specialist input, with the goals of minimizing overtreatment of low-risk disease while continuing to reduce prostate cancer mortality rates through early detection and aggressive management of high-risk disease.
KeywordsProstate cancer AUA guidelines Prostate-specific antigen
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 2.••Etzioni R, Gulati R, Tsodikov A, et al. The prostate cancer conundrum revisited. Cancer. 2012. doi:10.1002/cncr.27594. Outstanding analysis of the suggestion that the observed decline in prostate cancer mortality in the U.S. over the years can be explained by improvements in treatment rather than by early detection efforts.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.•Moyer VA. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(2):120–34. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459. Although this is a substantially flawed analysis based on an incomplete evidence review, it is important to understand the USPSTF's thought process in generating the “D” recommendation against all prostate cancer screening.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Qaseem A, Barry MJ, Denberg TD, Owens DK, Shekelle P, for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Guidance Statement From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2013. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-10-201305210-00633.Google Scholar
- 6.Chou R, Croswell JM, Dana T, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(11):762–71.Google Scholar
- 7.•Kaffenberger SD, Penson DF. The Politics of Prostate Cancer Screening. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41:249–55. A uniquely insightful article on the politics behind the USPSTF's “D” recommendation against PSA-based screening.Google Scholar
- 12.•Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203–13. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1113162. Important article reporting an RCT of surgery vs. watchful waiting in the VA health care system. The most important findings are in the supplemental material: there is no benefit for surgery for low-risk disease, but a substantial benefit for surgery for high-risk disease.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.•Vickers AJ, Ulmert D, Sjoberg DD, et al. Strategy for detection of prostate cancer based on relation between prostate specific antigen at age 40-55 and long term risk of metastasis: case-control study. BMJ. 2013;346(5):f2023. doi:10.1136/bmj.f2023. Fascinating article laying out the statistical rationale for an early baseline PSA test, based on truly population-based data from Malmö, Sweden.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.•Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL, et al. Prostate Cancer Screening in the Randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: Mortality Results after 13 Years of Follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:1–8. The critical update of the PLCO trial, concluding that annual screening offers no benefit over opportunistic screening, but that the trial cannot answer the question of the efficacy of screening vs. no screening.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.••Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, et al. Mortality results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(8):725–32. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70146-7. Very important population-based screening trial with a young median age of patients, low thresholds for biopsy, and a high rate of initial surveillance for screen-directed tumors.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.•Pinsky PF, Blacka A, Kramer BS, Miller A, Prorok PC, Berg C. Assessing contamination and compliance in the prostate component of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Clin Trials. 2010;7(4):303–11. doi:10.1177/1740774510374091. Key PLCO study clearly laying out that 79 % of the "usual care" arm patients in PLCO received at least one PSA test.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Grubb RL, Pinsky PF, Greenlee RT, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial: update on findings from the initial four rounds of screening in a randomized trial. BJU Int. 2008;102(11):1524–30. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08214.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Gulati R, Mariotto AB, Chen S, Gore JL, Etzioni R. Long-term projections of the harm-benefit trade-off in prostate cancer screening are more favorable than previous short-term estimates. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1412–7. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.011.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P. Positive Surgical Margin and Perioperative Complication Rates of Primary Surgical Treatments for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.029.Google Scholar
- 31.Williamson DA, Barrett LK, Rogers BA, Freeman JT, Hadway P, Paterson DL. Infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: new challenges in the era of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57(2):267–74. doi:10.1093/cid/cit193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Moul JW, Walsh PC, Rendell MS, et al. Re: Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline: H. B. Carter, P. C. Albertsen, M. J. Barry, R. Etzioni, S. J. Freedland, K. L. Greene, L. Holmberg, P. Kantoff, B. R. Konety, M. H. Murad, D. F. Penson and A. L. Zietman J Urol 2013; 190: 419-426. J Urol. 2013;190(3):1134–1137. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.07.002.
- 39.•Murphy DG, Ahlering T, Catalona WJ, et al. The Melbourne Consensus Statement on the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer. BJU Int. 2013. doi:10.1111/bju.12556. Another perpective on the goal of implementing smarter screening: screening men age 50–69, focusing treatment efforts on those diagnosed with high-risk disease, and considering PSA in context of a variety of other key patient factors.Google Scholar
- 41.Gulati R, Gore JL, Etzioni R. Comparative effectiveness of alternative prostate-specific antigen–based prostate cancer screening strategies: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):145–53. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00003.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.•Lu-Yao GL, Albertsen PC, Moore DF, et al. Outcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. JAMA. 2009;302(11):1202–9. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1348. Very important natural history analysis showing that elderly men with low-and intermediate-risk disease usually die of other causes, but that older men with high risk face substantial risk for cancer mortality.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W, et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. In: Vol 156. 2012:591–595. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-8-201204170-00401.