Comparing PSA Screening Patterns and Their Role as Predictor of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Analysis of a Contemporary North American Cohort
Authors: Cirulli Giuseppe Ottone , Stephens Alex , Chiarelli Giuseppe , Finati Marco , Bertini Alessandro , Chase Morrison , Tinsley Shane , Arora Sohrab , Sood Akshay , Lughezzani Giovanni , Buffi Nicolò , Carrieri Giuseppe , Salonia Andrea , Briganti Alberto , Montorsi Francesco , Rogers Craig , Abdollah Firas 
Published: January 2025

Introduction

PSA screening remains a pivotal tool for early prostate cancer (PCa) detection. International guidelines rely on evidence from three major randomized clinical trials: ERSPC, PLCO, and CAP. We aim to examine the percentage of patients in real‐world practice who get PSA screening as defined by each of the aforementioned trials. Moreover, we seek to evaluate if the different PSA screening patterns have a different impact on PCa incidence and its features at diagnosis.

Materials and Methods

Our institutional database was queried to identify men aged 55–69 who received at least one PSA test, did not develop PCa or die within 6 years of the initial test, had follow‐up within our system at least 6 years after the initial test, and did not have a previous PCa diagnosis. A total of 28,612 patients met our selection criteria. We categorized patients into three distinct PSA screening patterns based on testing frequency (PLCO: 1 PSA test per year for 6 years; ERSPC: 2 or 3 PSA tests over 6 years; CAP: 1 PSA test over 6 years). Our primary outcomes were any PCa incidence and clinically significant PCa (csPCa, defined as ISUP ≥ 3) incidence. Secondary outcome was the rate of cM1 disease. Competing risks cumulative incidence curves were used to depict any PCa and csPCa diagnosis with death before a diagnosis considered a competing risk. Multivariable competing risks regression (CRR) was used to assess the impact of the different screening patterns on any PCa and csPCa incidence, after adjusting for confounding factors.

Results

The most prevalent PSA screening pattern was ERSPC, including 15,530 patients (54.3%), followed by the CAP with 9003 patients (31.5%), and the PLCO with only 4079 patients (14.2%). The median (IQR) follow‐up time was 4.8 (1.7–10.8) years. At 10 years, any PCa incidence was 7.4% versus 5.6% versus 2.5% for PLCO versus ERSPC versus CAP, respectively, while for csPCa, the rates were 2.5% versus 2.5% versus 1.2% (both p < 0.001). On multivariable analyses, PLCO and ERSPC patterns were associated with 2.92‐fold and 2.31‐fold higher risks from 1 year to the next of any PCa diagnosis, respectively, compared to CAP pattern (both p < 0.001). Similarly, patients with PLCO and ERSPC patterns had 2.07‐fold and 2.31‐fold higher risks, respectively, of csPCa diagnosis compared to CAP pattern (both p < 0.001). In men with PCa diagnosis, the rates of cM1 disease were respectively 1.7% vs 5.6% vs 10.8% for PLCO versus ERSPC versus CAP, respectively (p = 0.0009).

Conclusion

We observed that the most common screening pattern in “real‐world” clinical practice is close to what ERSPC recommend, and this pattern seems to achieve a reasonable reduction in the risk of advanced PCa, while limiting overdiagnosis.