AUA G UIDELINES : E ARLY D ETECTION OF P ROSTATE C ANCER Urology Journal Club 5/28/13.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Great PSA Testing Controversy Does PSA Testing Do More Harm Than Good? Associate Professor Anthony Lowe.
Advertisements

CANCER SCREENING 2011 DELAWARE CANCER EDUCATION ALLIANCE STEPHEN S. GRUBBS, M.D. HELEN F. GRAHAM CANCER CENTER DELAWARE CANCER CONSORTIUM OCTOBER 5, 2011.
PROSTATE CANCER Dr Samad Zare Assistant Proffesor of Urology Shaheed Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences.
PSA Testing William J Catalona MD Northwestern University.
Breast MR Imaging Workshop th September 2014 High-Risk Screening Evidence-based Clinical Indications for Breast MRI Dr. Muhamad Zabidi Ahmad, AMDI.
Screening for Prostate Cancer: Sharing the Decision 7/1/03.
An update for Illinois Nurses Elizabeth A. Peralta, MD The Breast Center at SIU Springfield, IL May 2011.
Is Nucleic Acid Testing for Organ Donors the ‘Right’ Choice? Reference: Humara A, Morrisb M, Blumbergc R, et al. Nucleic acid testing (NAT) of organ donors:
What is the evidence of benefits of PSA screening for prostate cancer? Outpatient Medicine.
Prostate Cancer Screening: Con
Meta-Analysis of PSA Growth Lurdes Y.T. Inoue, Ph.D. Ruth Etzioni, Ph.D. Elizabeth Slate, Ph.D. Christopher Morrel, Ph.D.
Prostate Cancer One of the commonest causes of death in the Western World USA 2005 – 232,090 new cases – 30,350 deaths Lifetime risk of disease 16.6% Lifetime.
How do we know whether a marker or model is any good? A discussion of some simple decision analytic methods Carrie Bennette on behalf of Andrew Vickers.
Otis W. Brawley, M.D. Chief Medical and Scientific Officer Executive Vice President American Cancer Society Professor of Hematology, Medical Oncology,
A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PSA SCREENING Kendall Itoku, MD St. Louis Urological Surgeons.
Geriatric Health Maintenance: Cancer Screening Linda DeCherrie, MD Geriatric Fellow Mount Sinai Hospital.
Prostates & Pissing in the Wind. The Laytons Bob December 25, 1925 – May 9, 2002 Jack July 18, 1950 – August 22, 2011.
Prostate Cancer Screening 2012 Paul L. Crispen, MD Department of Surgery University of Kentucky.
Prostate Cancer Screening Assistant Professor Charles Chabert Men’s health Seminar Ballina April 2011 prostates.com.au.
M Ravanbod Medical oncologist Bushehr – 11/91 A 50 y/o white man comes for check up and wants to discuss about prostate cancer. Negative family history.
Lecture Fourteen Biomedical Engineering for Global Health.
How to Overcome Barriers and Develop Collaborative Guidelines Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, FACP Chair, Guidelines International Network Director, Clinical.
Multiple Choice Questions for discussion
Prostate Screening in 2009: New Findings and New Questions Durado Brooks, MD, MPH Director, Prostate and Colorectal Cancer.
Finding N.E.M.O. Marvin R. Balaan, MD, FCCP System Division Director, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh.
Prostate Cancer James B. Benton,M.D.. Prostate Cancer Significant of the clinical problem Early detection/screening Prevention/Management.
Surrogate End point for Prostate Cancer- Specific Mortality After RP or EBRT A D’Amico J Nat Ca Inst 95,
Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care:
A/Prof Brian Cox Cancer Epidemiologist Dunedin. Research Associate Professor Brian Cox Hugh Adam Cancer Epidemiology Unit Department of Preventive and.
Prostate Cancer Screening in 2013: Reports of its Death Are Greatly Exaggerated Norm D. Smith, M.D. Associate Professor Co-Director Urologic Oncology University.
Prostate Cancer: A Case for Active Surveillance Philip Kantoff MD Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical School.
A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROSTATE CANCER. PROSTATE CANCER 101 SPONSORED BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE PROSTATE CANCER COALITION AND THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF STATE.
How do we know whether a marker or model is any good? A discussion of some simple decision analytic methods Carrie Bennette (on behalf of Andrew Vickers)
Biostatistics Case Studies Peter D. Christenson Biostatistician Session 2: Diagnostic Classification.
“The African American Prostate Cancer Crisis in Numbers”
AUA VUR guidelines 2010 Methodology Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria (six were prospective), data were extracted and a meta-analysis was.
Prostate Cancer Screening in African American Men Mark H. Kawachi, MD FACS Director, Prostate Cancer Center City of Hope, National Medical Ctr.
PCa Screening New Areas of Research Francesco Montorsi Milan.
Prevention with Finasteride Ian M. Thompson, MD October, 2009.
 Volunteer bias  Lead time bias  Length bias  Stage migration bias  Pseudodisease.
A Clinical Profile of Male Health in the Bahamas “Real Men Die from Prostate Cancer” A Clinical Profile of Male Health in the Bahamas “Real Men Die from.
Screening of diseases Dr Zhian S Ramzi Screening 1 Dr. Zhian S Ramzi.
Screening and its Useful Tools Thomas Songer, PhD Basic Epidemiology South Asian Cardiovascular Research Methodology Workshop.
Unit 15: Screening. Unit 15 Learning Objectives: 1.Understand the role of screening in the secondary prevention of disease. 2.Recognize the characteristics.
Screening of genital cancers Evidence Based Presented by Dr\ Heba Nour.
From EBM to SDM: Michel Labrecque MD PhD Michel Cauchon MD Department of Family and Emergency Medicine Université Laval Teaching how to apply evidence.
Towards Global Eminence K Y U N G H E E U N I V E R S I T Y Colonoscopy Surveillance After Colorectal Cancer Resection: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society.
South West Public Health Observatory The changing casemix of prostate cancer patients and prostatectomies in the South West Sean McPhail.
Prostatectomy operations in England South West Public Health Observatory Trends in the use of radical prostatectomy in England Sean McPhail.
Radical Prostatectomy versus Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate Cancer Anna Bill-Axelson, M.D., Lars Holmberg, M.D., Ph.D., Mirja Ruutu, M.D., Ph.D., Michael.
Premature deaths due to Prostate Cancer: The Role of Diagnosis and Treatment Appathurai Balamurugan MD, MPH S William Ross MD Chris Fisher, BS Jim Files,
PSA screening Cost Conscious Project Kristopher Huston January 2016.
© 2010 Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC. Chapter 12 Clinical Epidemiology.
What are the Chances Dr? Nick Pendleton. Can I have a Prostate Check? ?
Screening Tests: A Review. Learning Objectives: 1.Understand the role of screening in the secondary prevention of disease. 2.Recognize the characteristics.
Date of download: 7/6/2016 From: Comparative Effectiveness of Alternative Prostate-Specific Antigen–Based Prostate Cancer Screening Strategies: Model Estimates.
PSA Consensus and The Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme Karen Stalbow, Prostate Cancer UK Dr Ali Cooper, Prostate Cancer UK Annual Conference 2016.
Journal Club August 10, 2012 Ryan M. Zitnay MD. Case 71 y/o male veteran w PMH CAD s/p MI, HTN, HL, constipation Followed by urology for rising PSA x.
Screening for Prostate Cancer
Cancer prevention and early detection
Cancer prevention and early detection
Cancer Screening Guidelines
Evidence-based Medicine
Definition of Cancer Screening
2017 USPSTF Draft Recommendations for Prostate Cancer Screening
BME 301 Lecture Fourteen.
Willie Underwood, III, MD, MS,MPH
Prostate Cancer Screening- Update
Active Surveillance for Low Risk Prostate Cancer
Does PSA Testing Influence the Natural History of Prostate Cancer?
Presentation transcript:

AUA G UIDELINES : E ARLY D ETECTION OF P ROSTATE C ANCER Urology Journal Club 5/28/13

I NDEX P ATIENTS Men < 40 years Men aged 40 – 54 years Men aged 55 – 69 years Men aged ≥ 70 years “defined as a man without risk factors, such as a family history of prostate cancer in multiple generations and/or family history of early onset below age 55 years, or African American race.”

D EFINITION OF T ERMS Early detection = screening Both imply “detection of disease at an early, pre- symptomatic stage when a man would have no reason to seek medical care – an intervention referred to as secondary prevention.” Standard Statement based on Grade A/B evidence Recommendation Statement based on Grade C evidence Option Suggestion based on Grade A/B/C evidence Clinical opinion Widely agreed clinical consensus ± evidence Expert opinion Consensus by the study panel in absence of evidence

S TUDY D ESIGN Independent group sponsored by the AUA Systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature on prostate cancer detection and Search terms focused mainly on the efficacy of PSA screening as opposed to that with PSA isoforms, urinary biomarkers or imaging Methodologic quality of the papers determined by the Methodology team

S TUDIES Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) Stockholm Norrkoping Quebec ERSPC Goteborg PLCO All looked at the sequelae associated with PSA screening in a population setting Significant flaws found with first three studies; most data gleaned from the final three

R ESULTS The bulk of the evidence from all of these studies is in the year age range No statistically significant reduction in CaP mortality with screening over the entire cohort Average lead-time – years Overdiagnosis rates – 23-42% Some associated risks associated with screening See next page

M ODELING S TUDIES Use knowledge on disease process to supplement observed data on cancer outcomes Led to the following conclusions PSA screening yields survival benefits that have contributed to a sharp decrease in US CaP deaths PSA screening advances CaP dx by five to six years on average – 25% of cases reflect overdiagnosis Strategies that screen less frequently than every year, and even less frequently for men with low PSA levels, are likely to be of value in reducing costs and harms while preserving most of the potential benefit of PSA-based screening

B ENEFITS OF PSA S CREENING Potential to decrease disease specific mortality Potential to decrease disease specific morbidity as well (metastases, hematuria, bone pain, bladder outlet obstruction) Once dx dissociated from automatic tx then risk:harm ratio will be positively impacted

H ARMS Associated with biopsy Hematuria Hematochezia Hematospermia Dysuria and retention Infection Minimized with fecal swab cx Overtreatment of indolent disease Psychological distress associated with workup for CaP as well as TRUS-PNB

P OLICY I MPLICATIONS When medical interventions have both possible benefits and risks, then expected net benefit of the intervention for an individual will depend on how a man (in the PSA context) values the possible outcomes For one man, the benefits may outweigh the risks, but for another, even with the same outcome probabilities, the risks may outweigh the benefits In these “close call” situations, a shared decision making approach can be used to make the best possible decision about the intervention at the individual level.

R ECOMMENDED I NFO FOR D ISCUSSION Putative mortality benefit of screening in absolute terms Description of options after abnormal PSA is detected The likelihood of false-positive and false-negative results Description of subsequent tests needed for follow up on abnormal screening results Harms of screening (additional procedures, hospitalization, sepsis)

T ARGET P OPULATION For those choosing testing when > 70 yo Increase the trigger for a prostate biopsy (e.g. to 10ng/mL) based on the evidence that these men have the most to gain from a diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer over a decade Discontinue PSA screening among older men age 70 to 75 years who have PSA levels below 3ng/mL

T ESTING F REQUENCY Trials show no change in long-term mortality when screened annually versus every other year annual PSA screening as a routine should be discouraged for those who choose to be screened, that two year PSA intervals are a reasonable approach and will be unlikely to miss a curable prostate cancer in most men, and that for men over 60 with PSA levels below 1.0ng/ml, longer PSA screening intervals (e.g., of four years) could be considered

Guidelines

A GE < 40 The Panel recommends against PSA screening in men under age 40 years. (Recommendation; Evidence Strength Grade C) Very low prevalence of CaP in this group (~0.1%) None of the RCTs looked at the < 40 yo population in their studies so no data in this group Known harm associated with biopsy

A GE 40 TO 54 The Panel does not recommend routine screening in men between ages 40 to 54 years at average risk. (Recommendation; Evidence Strength Grade C) Howard et al. noted no 10-year cancer-specific mortality reduction if screening is performed in this group This group was not studied in the ERSCP or PLCO trials Only screen if at an increased risk (strong fam hx or black race)

A GE For men ages 55 to 69 years the Panel recognizes that the decision to undergo PSA screening involves weighing the benefits of preventing prostate cancer mortality in one man for every 1,000 men screened over a decade against the known potential harms associated with screening and treatment. For this reason, the Panel strongly recommends shared decision-making for men age 55 to 69 years that are considering PSA screening, and proceeding based on men’s values and preferences. (Standard; Evidence Strength Grade B)

A GE To reduce the harms of screening, a routine screening interval of two years or more may be preferred over annual screening in those men who have participated in shared decision-making and decided on screening. As compared to annual screening, it is expected that screening intervals of two years preserve the majority of the benefits and reduce overdiagnosis and false positives. (Option; Evidence Strength Grade C)

AGE ≥ 70 The Panel does not recommend routine PSA screening in men over age 70 years or any man with less than a 10 to 15 year life expectancy. (Recommendation; Evidence Strength Grade C) Likelihood of overdiagnosis increases with age None of the RCTs showed any mortality benefit to screening males older than 70