Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Smarter screening for prostate cancer

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Prostate cancer is the second commonest cancer among men. In the large European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has been shown to substantially reduce prostate cancer mortality. However, PSA screening is known to lead to more unnecessary prostate biopsies and over-diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. Therefore, it is imperative that smarter screening methods be developed to overcome the weaknesses of PSA screening. This review explores the novel screening tools that are available.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed regarding newer biomarkers, imaging techniques and risk-predicting models that are used to screen for prostate cancer in mainly biopsy-naïve men.

Results

Novel serum-based models like 4Kscore® and prostate health index (PHI) are generally better than PSA alone in detecting clinically significant cancer. Similarly, urine-based biomarkers like prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and HOXC6/DLX1 have been shown to be more accurate than PSA screening. More recently, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is gaining popularity for its ability to detect clinically significant cancer. There is also evidence that combining individual tests to develop prediction models can reliably predict high-risk prostate cancers while reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies. Combinations such as the Stockholm-3 model (STHLM3) and other novel combinations are presented in this review.

Conclusion

While we continue to find the smarter screening methods that are reliable, precise, and cost-effective, we continue to advocate shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening in order to work in our patients’ best interests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al (2018) Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492

  2. Cronin KA, Lake AJ, Scott S et al (2018) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part I: National cancer statistics. Cancer 124(13):2785–2800. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M et al (2013) GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 11. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon. http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 30 Aug 2018

  4. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al (2014) Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 384:2027–2035. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J et al (2014) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 65(6):1046–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ilic D, Djulbegovic M, Jung JH et al (2018) Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 5(362):k3519. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Borgoño CA, Michael IP, Diamandis EP (2004) Human tissue kallikreins: physiologic roles and applications in cancer. Mol Cancer Res 2(5):257–280

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Aus G et al (2008) A panel of kallikrein markers can reduce unnecessary biopsy for prostate cancer: data from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening in Göteborg, Sweden. BMC Med 8(6):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-6-19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Vickers A, Cronin A, Roobol M et al (2010) Reducing unnecessary biopsy during prostate cancer screening using a four-kallikrein panel: an independent replication. J Clin Oncol 28(15):2493–2498. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.1968

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Russo GI, Regis F, Castelli T et al (2017) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate health index and 4-kallikrein panel score in predicting overall and high-grade prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer 15(4):429–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2016.12.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mikolajczyk SD, Grauer LS, Millar LS et al (1997) A precursor form of PSA (pPSA) is a component of the free PSA in prostate cancer serum. Urology 50(5):710–714

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mikolajczyk SD, Millar LS, Wang TJ et al (2000) A precursor form of prostate-specific antigen is more highly elevated in prostate cancer compared with benign transition zone prostate tissue. Cancer Res 60(3):756–759

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG et al (2011) A multicenter study of [-2]pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. J Urol 185(5):1650–1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.032

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Loeb S, Sanda MG, Broyles DL et al (2015) The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 193(4):1163–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tan LG, Tan YK, Tai BC et al (2017) Prospective validation of %p2PSA and the Prostate Health Index, in prostate cancer detection in initial prostate biopsies of Asian men, with total PSA 4–10 ng ml−1. Asian J Androl 19(3):286–290. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.168687

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bussemakers MJ, van Bokhoven A, Verhaegh GW et al (1999) DD3: a new prostate-specific gene, highly overexpressed in prostate cancer. Cancer Res 59(23):5975–5979

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hessels D, Klein GJM, van Oort I et al (2003) DD3(PCA3)-base molecular urine analysis for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 44(1):8–15 (discussion 15–6)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chevli KK, Duff M, Walter P et al (2014) Urinary PCA3 as a predictor of prostate cancer in a cohort of 3,073 men undergoing initial prostate biopsy. J Urol 191(6):1743–1748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang FB, Chen R, Ren SC et al (2017) Prostate cancer antigen 3 moderately improves diagnostic accuracy in Chinese patients undergoing first prostate biopsy. Asian J Androl 19(2):238–243. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.167715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cui Y, Cao W, Li Q et al (2016) Evaluation of prostate cancer antigen 3 for detecting prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 6:25776. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25776

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Leyten GH, Hessels D, Smit FP et al (2015) Identification of a candidate gene panel for the early diagnosis of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 21(13):3061–3070. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-3334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Van Neste L, Hendriks RJ, Dijkstra S et al (2016) Detection of high-grade prostate cancer using a urinary molecular biomarker-based risk score. Eur Urol 70(5):740–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.04.012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2018) EAU—ESTRO—ESUR—SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-2018-compilation-of-all-guidelines.pdf. Accessed 13 Sept 2018

  24. Auer T, Edlinger M, Bektic J et al (2017) Performance of PI-RADS version 1 versus version 2 regarding the relation with histopathological results. World J Urol 35(5):687–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1920-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S et al (2016) Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 69(1):41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nam RK, Wallis CJ, Stojcic-Bendavid J et al (2016) A pilot study to evaluate the role of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer screening in the general population. J Urol 196(2):361–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahmed HU, El-Shater BA, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ (2017) From PROMIS to PRO-MRI in primary prostate cancer diagnosis. Transl Androl Urol 6(3):604–607. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.04.35

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378(19):1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Grönberg H, Adolfsson J, Aly M et al (2015) Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50–69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 16(16):1667–1676. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00361-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nordström T, Adolfsson J, Grönberg H et al (2017) Effects of increasing the PSA cutoff to perform additional biomarker tests before prostate biopsy. BMC Urol 17(1):92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0281-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Prostate Cancer UK (2016) 2016/17 Major award STHLM3 UK validation: guidance notes. https://prostatecanceruk.org/media/2493572/2016-major-awards-sthlm3-uk-validation-guidance-document-final.pdf. Accessed 13 Sept 2018

  34. Roobol MJ, Vedder MM, Nieboer D et al (2015) Comparison of two prostate cancer risk calculators that include the prostate health index. Eur Urol Focus 1(2):185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2015.06.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Foley RW, Maweni RM, Gorman L et al (2016) European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators significantly outperform the Prostat Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int 118(5):706–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM et al (2018) Prediction of high-grade prostate cancer following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: improving the rotterdam european randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.07.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Grönberg H, Eklund M, Picker W et al (2018) Prostate cancer diagnostics using a combination of the Stockholm3 blood test and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.022

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Health Network-Toronto General Hospital and Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, 3-130, Toronto, ON, M6G 2M9, Canada

    Guan Hee Tan, Gregory Nason, Khaled Ajib, Dixon Teck Sing Woon, Jaime Herrera-Caceres, Omar Alhunaidi & Nathan Perlis

Authors
  1. Guan Hee Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory Nason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Khaled Ajib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dixon Teck Sing Woon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jaime Herrera-Caceres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Omar Alhunaidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nathan Perlis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GHT was involved in project development, data collection, data analysis and manuscript writing. GN analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. KA analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. DTSW analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. JHC analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. OA analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. NP was involved in project development, data collection, data analysis and manuscript writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan Perlis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tan, G.H., Nason, G., Ajib, K. et al. Smarter screening for prostate cancer. World J Urol 37, 991–999 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02719-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02719-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation