Individual and Mass Screening

  • Chris H. Bangma
  • Pim J. van Leeuwen
  • Monique J. Roobol


Screening for prostate cancer is one of the main current health issues nowadays. As prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer affecting over 10% of men in the Western world, early detection by mass screening or by individual approaches has to be considered in order to reduce disease-specific morbidity and mortality. Randomized studies on population-based screening show a significant specific mortality reduction of 30%, but current screening protocols are unacceptable and need adjustment in order to reduce unnecessary biopsy procedures and overdiagnosis of low-risk cancers. The incidence of interval cancers has to be lowered, and screening intervals need to be individualized. Quality of life appears to be improved for those that are diagnosed with intermediate and high-risk cancers. Individual screening can be performed based on adequate information upfront, followed by the application of validated risk calculators including especially the level of serum markers, digital rectal examination, and prostate volume. A strong need for the development of prognostic tools remains.


Prostate Cancer Prostate Biopsy Interval Cancer Sextant Biopsy Mass Screen 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Albertsen PC, Moore DF et al (2011) Impact of comorbidity on survival among men with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 29(10):1335–1341PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S et al (2008) Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ. 86(4):317–319.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Andriole GL, Levin DL et al (2005) Prostate cancer screening in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial: findings from the initial screening round of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 97(6):433–438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Andriole GL, Crawford ED et al (2009a) Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360(13):1310–1319PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Andriole GL, Grubb RL 3rd et al (2009b) Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360:1310–1319PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ankerst DP, Groskopf J et al (2008) Predicting prostate cancer risk through incorporation of prostate cancer gene 3. J Urol 180(4):1303–1308; discussion 1308PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bangma CH, van Schaik RH et al (2010) On the use of prostate-specific antigen for screening of prostate cancer in European randomised study for screening of prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 46(17):3109–3119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Benson MC, Whang IS et al (1992a) The use of prostate specific antigen density to enhance the predictive value of intermediate levels of serum prostate specific antigen. J Urol 147(3 Pt 2):817–821PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Benson MC, Whang IS et al (1992b) Prostate specific antigen density: a means of distinguishing benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer. J Urol 147(3 Pt 2):815–816PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Berenguer A, Lujan M et al (2003) The Spanish contribution to the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. BJU Int 92(suppl 2):33–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Boevee SJ, Venderbos LD et al (2010) Change of tumour characteristics and treatment over time in both arms of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 46(17):3082–3089PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Borden LS Jr, Wright JL et al (2007) An abnormal digital rectal examination is an independent predictor of Gleason > or =7 prostate cancer in men undergoing initial prostate biopsy: a prospective study of 790 men. BJU Int 99(3):559–563PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bozeman CB, Carver BS et al (2005) Prostate cancer in patients with an abnormal digital rectal examination and serum prostate-specific antigen less than 4.0 ng/mL. Urology 66(4):803–807PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bray F, Lortet-Tieulent J et al (2010) Prostate cancer incidence and mortality trends in 37 European countries: an overview. Eur J Cancer 46(17):3040–3052PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bruner DW, Moore D et al (2003) Relative risk of prostate cancer for men with affected relatives: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 107(5):797–803PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Cavadas V, Osorio L et al (2010) Prostate cancer prevention trial and European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators: a performance comparison in a contemporary screened cohort. Eur Urol 58(4):551–558PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP et al (1994) Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 47(11):1245–1251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Chun FK, de la Taille A et al (2009) Prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3): development and internal validation of a novel biopsy nomogram. Eur Urol 56(4):659–667PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ciatto S, Gervasi G et al (2003a) Specific features of the Italian section of the ERSPC. BJU Int 92(suppl 2):30–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ciatto S, Zappa M et al (2003b) Contamination by opportunistic screening in the European randomized study of prostate cancer screening. BJU Int 92(suppl 2):97–100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Collin SM, Martin RM et al (2008) Prostate-cancer mortality in the USA and UK in 1975–2004: an ecological study. Lancet Oncol 9(5):445–452PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Cooperberg MR (2008) Prostate cancer risk assessment: choosing the sharpest tool in the shed. Cancer 113(11):3062–3066PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Crawford ED, DeAntoni EP et al (1996) Serum prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination for early detection of prostate cancer in a national community-based program. The Prostate Cancer Education Council. Urology 47(6):863–869PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Dixon H, Scully M et al (2009) The prostate cancer screening debate: public reaction to medical controversy in the media. Public Underst Sci 18(1):115–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Djavan B, Margreiter M (2007) Biopsy standards for detection of prostate cancer. World J Urol 25(1):11–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Epstein JI, Walsh PC et al (1994) Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 271(5):368–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Eskew LA, Bare RL et al (1997) Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 157(1):199–202; discussion 202–193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Ferlay J, Shin HR et al (2010) GLOBOCAN 2008, cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10 [Internet]Google Scholar
  29. Ficarra V, Novella G et al (2005) The potential impact of prostate volume in the planning of optimal number of cores in the systematic transperineal prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 48(6):932–937PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Finne P, Stenman UH et al (2003) The Finnish trial of prostate cancer screening: where are we now? BJU Int 92(suppl 2):22–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ghavamian R, Blute ML et al (1999) Comparison of clinically nonpalpable prostate-specific antigen-detected (cT1c) versus palpable (cT2) prostate cancers in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 54(1):105–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Gohagan JK, Prorok PC et al (2000) The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial of the National Cancer Institute: history, organization, and status. Control Clin Trials 21(suppl 6):251S–272SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ et al (2005) Prevalence and characteristics of screen-detected prostate carcinomas at low prostate-specific antigen levels: aggressive or insignificant? BJU Int 95(2):231–237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ et al (2006) Screening for prostate cancer without digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound: results after four years in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam. Prostate 66(6):625–631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Gosselaar C, Kranse R et al (2008) The interobserver variability of digital rectal examination in a large randomized trial for the screening of prostate cancer. Prostate 68(9):985–993PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Grubb RL 3rd, Pinsky PF et al (2008) 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 102(11):1524–1530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Habbema JD, van Oortmarssen GJ et al (1982) Mass screening for cancer: the interpretation of findings and the prediction of effects on morbidity and mortality. Clin Lab Med 2(3):627–638PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Heijnsdijk EA, der Kinderen A et al (2009) Overdetection, overtreatment and costs in prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 101(11):1833–1838PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Hugosson J, Aus G et al (2003) Population-based screening for prostate cancer by measuring free and total serum prostate-specific antigen in Sweden. BJU Int 92(suppl 2):39–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hugosson J, Carlsson S et al (2010) Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based ­prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol 11(8):725–732PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Ilic D, O’Connor D et al (2011) Screening for prostate cancer: an updated Cochrane systematic review. BJU Int 107(6):882–891PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Jemal A, Center MM et al (2010) Global patterns of cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. Aug;19(8):1893-907. Epub Jul 20 ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Johns LE, Houlston RS (2003) A systematic review and meta-analysis of familial prostate cancer risk. BJU Int 91(9):789–794PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kjellman A, Akre O et al (2009) 15-year followup of a population based prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 181(4):1615–1621; discussion 1621PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Korfage IJ, Essink-Bot ML et al (2005) Five-year follow-up of health-related quality of life after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. Int J Cancer 116(2):291–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Krumholtz JS, Carvalhal GF et al (2002) Prostate-specific antigen cutoff of 2.6 ng/mL for prostate cancer screening is associated with favorable pathologic tumor features. Urology 60(3):469–473; discussion 473–464PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Kwiatkowski M, Huber A et al (2003) Features and preliminary results of prostate cancer screening in Canton Aargau, Switzerland. BJU Int 92(suppl 2):44–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Labrie F, Candas B et al (2004) Screening decreases prostate cancer mortality: 11-year follow-up of the 1988 Quebec prospective randomized controlled trial. Prostate 59(3):311–318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Lilja H, Ulmert D et al (2007) Long-term prediction of prostate cancer up to 25 years before diagnosis of prostate cancer using prostate kallikreins measured at age 44 to 50 years. J Clin Oncol 25(4):431–436PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Loeb S, Roehl KA et al (2007) Prostate specific antigen velocity in men with total prostate specific antigen less than 4 ng/ml. J Urol 178(6):2348–2352; discussion 2352–2343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Loeb S, Roehl KA et al (2010) Can prostate specific antigen velocity thresholds decrease insignificant prostate cancer detection? J Urol 183(1):112–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. McLellan DL, Norman RW (1995) Hereditary aspects of prostate cancer. CMAJ 153(7):895–900PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller AB, Madalinska JB et al (2001) Health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness studies in the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer and the US prostate, lung, colon and ovary trial. Eur J Cancer 37(17):2154–2160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Mols F, Korfage IJ et al (2009) Bowel, urinary, and sexual problems among long-term prostate cancer survivors: a population-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73(1):30–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Nguyen CT, Kattan MW (2011) How to tell if a new marker improves prediction. Eur Urol 60(2):226–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Oberaigner W, Siebert U et al (2011) Prostate-specific antigen testing in Tyrol, Austria: prostate cancer mortality reduction was supported by an update with mortality data up to 2008. Int J Public Health Jun 17 [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  57. Oliveira M, Marques V et al (2011) Head-to-head comparison of two online nomograms for prostate biopsy outcome prediction. BJU Int 107(11):1780–1783PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Otto SJ, van der Cruijsen IW et al (2003) Effective PSA contamination in the Rotterdam section of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Int J Cancer 105(3):394–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Paul R, Scholer S et al (2004) Morbidity of prostatic biopsy for different biopsy strategies: is there a relation to core number and sampling region? Eur Urol 45(4):450–455; discussion 456PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Pienta KJ (2009) Critical appraisal of prostate-specific antigen in prostate cancer screening: 20 years later. Urology 73(suppl 5):S11–S20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Postma R, Schroder FH et al (2007) Cancer detection and cancer characteristics in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) – section Rotterdam. A comparison of two rounds of screening. Eur Urol 52(1):89–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Raaijmakers R, Wildhagen MF et al (2004) Prostate-specific antigen change in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, section Rotterdam. Urology 63(2):316–320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Rao AR, Motiwala HG et al (2008) The discovery of prostate-specific antigen. BJU Int 101(1):5–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Roemeling S, Roobol MJ et al (2007) Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome. Eur Urol 51(5):1244–1250; discussion 1251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Roobol MJ, Schroder FH (2003) European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer: achievements and presentation. BJU Int 92(suppl 2):117–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Roobol MJ, Kranse R et al (2004) Prostate-specific antigen velocity at low prostate-specific antigen levels as screening tool for prostate cancer: results of second screening round of ERSPC (ROTTERDAM). Urology 63(2):309–313; discussion 313–305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Roobol MJ, Roobol DW et al (2005) Is additional testing necessary in men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 1.0 ng/mL or less in a population-based screening setting? (ERSPC, section Rotterdam). Urology 65(2):343–346PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Roobol MJ, Grenabo A et al (2007) Interval cancers in prostate cancer screening: comparing 2- and 4-year screening intervals in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, Gothenburg and Rotterdam. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(17):1296–1303PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Roobol MJ, Kerkhof M et al (2009) Prostate cancer mortality reduction by prostate-specific antigen-based screening adjusted for nonattendance and contamination in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Eur Urol 56:584–591PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Roobol MJ, Schroder FH et al (2010a) Performance of the prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) gene and prostate-specific antigen in prescreened men: exploring the value of PCA3 for a first-line diagnostic test. Eur Urol 58(4):475–481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW et al (2010b) A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57:79–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Sanda MG, Dunn RL et al (2008) Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 358(12):1250–1261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Sandblom G, Varenhorst E et al (2004) Clinical consequences of screening for prostate cancer: 15 years follow-up of a randomised controlled trial in Sweden. Eur Urol 46(6):717–723; discussion 724PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Schroder FH, van der Maas P et al (1998) Evaluation of the digital rectal examination as a screening test for prostate cancer. Rotterdam section of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90(23):1817–1823PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Schroder FH, Denis LJ et al (2003) The story of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. BJU Int 92(suppl 2):1–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Schroder FH, Carter HB et al (2008) Early detection of prostate cancer in 2007. Part 1: PSA and PSA kinetics. Eur Urol 53(3):468–477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Schroder FH, Hugosson J et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360(13):1320–1328PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Schroder FH, van den Bergh RC et al (2010) Eleven-year outcome of patients with prostate cancers diagnosed during screening after initial negative sextant biopsies. Eur Urol 57:256–266, Epub 2009 Nov 6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Schröder FH, Hugosson J et al (2011) Prostate Cancer Mortality at 11 years of Follow-up in the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Accepted for publication New England Journal of Medicine, March 2012Google Scholar
  80. Sciarra A, Barentsz J et al (2011) Advances in magnetic resonance imaging: how they are changing the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 59(6):962–977PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Sindhwani P, Wilson CM (2005) Prostatitis and serum prostate-specific antigen. Curr Urol Rep 6(4):307–312PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Smith DS, Catalona WJ (1995) Interexaminer variability of digital rectal examination in detecting prostate cancer. Urology 45(1):70–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP (2007) Prostate-specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer. CMAJ 176(13):1853–1858PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Thompson IM, Rounder JB et al (1987) Impact of routine screening for adenocarcinoma of the prostate on stage distribution. J Urol 137(3):424–426PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Thompson IM, Pauler DK et al (2004) Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 350:2239–2246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Trottier G, Lawrentschuk N et al (2010) Prevention strategies in prostate cancer. Curr Oncol 17(suppl 2):S4–S10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Van Vugt HA, Roobol MJ et al (2011) Compliance with biopsy recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10611.x. BJU Int Sep 20 [Epub ahead of print]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. van den Bergh RC, Roobol MJ, Wolters T, van Leeuwen PJ, Schröder FH et al (2008) The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculators indicating a positive prostate biopsy: a comparison. BJU Int 102(9):1068–73, Epub 2008 Aug 18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. van der Cruijsen-Koeter IW, Roobol MJ et al (2006) Tumor characteristics and prognostic factors in two subsequent screening rounds with four-year interval within prostate cancer screening trial, ERSPC Rotterdam. Urology 68(3):615–620PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. van Leeuwen P, van den Bergh R et al (2009) Screening: should more biopsies be taken in larger prostates? BJU Int 104(7):919–924PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. van Leeuwen PJ, Connolly D et al (2010) Prostate cancer mortality in screen and clinically detected prostate cancer: estimating the screening benefit. Eur J Cancer 46:377–383, Epub 2009 Oct 5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Vashi AR, Wojno KJ et al (1998) A model for the number of cores per prostate biopsy based on patient age and prostate gland volume. J Urol 159(3):920–924PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Vickers AJ, Wolters T et al (2009) Prostate-specific antigen velocity for early detection of prostate cancer: result from a large, representative, population-based cohort. Eur Urol 56(5):753–760PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM et al (2010a) Prostate specific antigen concentration at age 60 and death or ­metastasis from prostate cancer: case-control study. BMJ 341:c4521PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM et al (2010b) A four-kallikrein panel predicts prostate cancer in men with recent screening: data from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, Rotterdam. Clin Cancer Res 16(12):3232–3239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Vickers AJ, Till C et al (2011) An empirical evaluation of guidelines on prostate-specific antigen velocity in prostate cancer detection. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(6):462–469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Villers A, Malavaud B et al (2003) ERSPC: features and preliminary results of France. BJU Int 92(suppl 2):27–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. White WM, Sadetsky N et al (2008) Quality of life in men with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the prostate: an exploratory analysis using data from the CaPSURE database. J Urol 180(6):2409–2413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Wilson JM, Jungner YG (1968) Principles and practice of mass screening for disease. Bol Oficina Sanit Panam 65(4):281–393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Wolters T, Roobol MJ et al (2010a) The effect of study arm on prostate cancer treatment in a large screening trial (ERSPC). Int J Cancer 126:2387–2393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Wolters T, Vissers KJ et al (2010b) The value of EZH2, p27(kip1), BMI-1 and MIB-1 on biopsy specimens with low-risk prostate cancer in selecting men with significant prostate cancer at prostatectomy. BJU Int 106(2):280–286PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Yamamoto T, Ito K et al (2001) Diagnostic significance of digital rectal examination and transrectal ­ultrasonography in men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 4 NG/ML or less. Urology 58(6):994–998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Zani EL, Clark OA et al (2011) Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:CD006576PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Zhu X, van Leeuwen PJ et al (2011) Disease-specific ­survival of men with prostate cancer detected during the screening interval: results of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer-Rotterdam after 11 years of follow-up. Eur Urol 60(2):330–336PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris H. Bangma
    • 1
  • Pim J. van Leeuwen
    • 2
  • Monique J. Roobol
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of UrologyErasmus MCRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of UrologyErasmus MC, University Medical CentreRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations