Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Men Exposed to α1-Adrenoceptor Antagonists.

BACKGROUND: α1-antagonists are commonly used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia. Preclinical studies suggest they induce cell death and inhibit tumor growth. This study evaluates the risk of prostate cancer death in men using α1-antagonists. METHODS: A population-based cohort study in Stockholm, Sweden (January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2019) including 451,779 men with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Study entry was one year after the first PSA test. Men were considered exposed at their second filled prescription. Primary outcome: prostate cancer mortality. Secondary outcomes: all-cause mortality and prostate cancer incidence. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for all outcomes. Inverse probability weighting with marginal structural models accounted for time-dependent confounders. RESULTS: Of 351,297 men in the cohort, 39,856 (11.3%) were exposed to α1-antagonists. Median follow-up for prostate cancer mortality was 8.9 years and median exposure time to α1-antagonists was 4.4 years. There was no evidence of an association between α1-antagonist use and prostate cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, or high-grade prostate cancer. α1-antagonist-use was associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (HR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.06-1.17) and low-grade prostate cancer (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.11-1.33). Men treated with α1-antagonists had more frequent PSA testing. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show no significant association between α1-adrenoceptor antagonist exposure and prostate cancer mortality or high-grade prostate cancer. Although the preclinical evidence indicates a potential chemopreventive effect, this study's findings do not support it.

The Capio Prostate Cancer Center Model for Prostate Cancer Diagnostics-Real-world Evidence from 2018 to 2022.

Background: The Capio Prostate Cancer Center (Capio PCC) in Stockholm, Sweden, adopts a comprehensive diagnostic approach, utilizing prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Stockholm3, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer risk assessment, followed by targeted and systematic biopsies for high-risk cases. Objective: This study aims to elucidate the clinical process and real-world outcomes of the Capio PCC model for prostate cancer diagnosis at Capio S:t Göran Hospital. Design setting and participants: Between 2018 and 2022, a cohort of 12 406 men aged 45-75 yr underwent prostate cancer testing, adhering to Capio PCC's structured diagnostic protocol. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We provide a comprehensive description of the Capio PCC model and present results from its implementation, including assessments of PSA, Stockholm3, MRI scans, and biopsies. A comparative analysis is conducted between the diagnostic outcomes obtained at Capio PCC and those obtained at other regions in Sweden. Results and limitations: The median participant age was 61 yr (interquartile range [IQR]: 55-67), with PSA levels at 1.6 ng/ml (IQR: 0.8-3.3) and Stockholm3 scores at 4 (IQR: 3-11). Among 1064 men (8.6%) undergoing biopsies, 611 (57% of biopsied) were diagnosed with International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥ 2 cancer. Notably, employing a Stockholm3 ≥ 15 cutoff for biopsy, in lieu of PSA ≥ 3 ng/ml, reduced biopsy recommendations by 43%. For men with PSA levels between 1.5 and 2.9 ng/ml, 360 (12%) exhibited Stockholm3 scores of ≥ 15, with 72 (56% of biopsied) diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer. A comparative analysis with national Swedish prostate cancer detection data indicated that the Capio PCC model (vs Sweden) revealed a distribution of 14% (vs 25%) low-risk, 59% (vs 42%) intermediate-risk, and 26% (vs 30%) high-risk and advanced cancers. Conclusions: This study underscores the effectiveness of the protocol-driven diagnostic process at Capio PCC, enabling earlier detection of intermediate-risk prostate cancer and reducing the need for MRI assessments compared with standard prostate cancer care in Sweden. Patient summary: At the Capio Prostate Cancer Center, a novel diagnostic approach incorporating prostate-specific antigen, Stockholm3, magnetic resonance imaging, and targeted biopsies has been implemented to enhance prostate cancer testing and diagnosis in Stockholm, Sweden.

External Validation of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator and Comparison with Stockholm3 for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in a Swedish Population-based Screening Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) and Stockholm3 can be used to aid urologists in their decision to refer men to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess the external validity of the RPCRC and compare it with using PSA and Stockholm3 to detect clinically significant prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using data from the prospective, population-based, randomised STHLM3-MRI screening trial, we included participants with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥3 ng/ml or Stockholm3 risk threshold ≥11% in the standard group who underwent systematic prostate biopsies. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Probabilities for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC, International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2) were calculated for each participant using the RPCRC and Stockholm3 with and without prostate volume. Performance of the risk calculators was assessed by discrimination, calibration, and clinical benefits. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 666 men with a median age of 67 yr (interquartile range [IQR]: 61-71) and PSA of 3.4 ng/ml (2.5-5.0) were included, of whom 154 (23%) had csPC. Risk distribution of the RPCRC was narrow: median risks of 2% (IQR 1-4%) compared with 14% (IQR: 9.5-23%) for Stockholm3. Using RPCRC's recommended risk threshold of ≥4% for finding csPC, 54% of all csPC cases would be detected versus 94% using Stockholm3 with a threshold of ≥11%. Calibration of Stockholm3 was adequate while RPCRC underestimated the risk of csPC. The Stockholm3 test showed positive net benefits at clinically relevant thresholds, while the RPCRC showed negative net benefits. Compared with PSA, the RPCRC was associated with lower detection of csPC (84 vs 103; 0.82 [0.71-0.93]), while Stockholm3 was associated with higher detection of csPC (143 vs 103; 1.40 [1.23-1.57]). The main limitation was that Stockholm3 was evaluated in a similar population to where it was developed. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of the RPCRC in a Swedish population-based cohort is suboptimal with a considerable underestimation of prostate cancer risk, while the Stockholm3 test showed superior performance and a positive clinical benefit. PATIENT SUMMARY: The use of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator available online to predict the risk of prostate cancer in a Swedish cohort was found to be clinically harmful as it underpredicted the risk of clinically significant prostate cancer, while the Stockholm3 test performed well showing clinical benefits.

Digital Rectal Examination in Stockholm3 Biomarker-based Prostate Cancer Screening.

Background: Pathological digital rectal examination (DRE) is suggestive of prostate cancer but has low sensitivity and specificity. DRE is incorporated in many clinical risk calculators, but there is less evidence on how DRE performs in the setting of blood biomarkers and polygenic risk prediction models other than prostate-specific antigen (PSA) associated with prostate cancer. The Stockholm3 test combines a blood test and clinical variables including DRE. Objective: To assess the predictive performance of DRE for finding clinically significant prostate cancer in systematic biopsy and evaluate its added value to the multivariable diagnostic test Stockholm3. Design setting and participants: This population-based study in the screening by invitation setting included 5543 men aged 50-69 yr with PSA ≥3 ng/ml who were referred for systematic prostate biopsy between 2012 and 2015. The STHLM3 study is registered with ISRCTN.com as ISRCTN84445406. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Predictive performance was assessed via estimates of sensitivity and specificity and in logistic regression. Clinically significant cancer was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2 (GG ≥2) cancer on systematic biopsy. Results and limitations: We found that 11% of men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml had a suspicious DRE. A suspicious DRE was associated with a 3.16-fold higher risk (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.83-3.52) of GG ≥2 cancer and greater length of cancer on biopsy. The risk of nonsignificant cancer was similar regardless of the DRE finding. The risk of GG ≥2 cancer was 46.2% (95% CI 42.2-50.3%) for men with a suspicious DRE versus 14.6% (95% CI 13.7-15.7%) for men with a negative DRE. The elevated risk of GG ≥2 cancer persisted after adjusting for the other Stockholm3 test parameters (odds ratio 2.88, 95% CI 2.32-3.57). For detection of GG ≥2 cancer among men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml, DRE had sensitivity of 27.8% (95% CI 25.1-30.7%) and specificity of 92.8% (95% CI 92.1-93.6%). Conclusions: In this screening-by-invitation setting we found that for men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml, a suspicious DRE indicates more than threefold higher risk of harboring significant prostate cancer. DRE as a variable adds significant precision to the Stockholm3 prediction model. Men with a suspicious DRE should be referred for further diagnostic workup, including biopsy. Patient summary: We investigated the ability of digital rectal examination to predict if a patient has clinically significant prostate cancer. We found that digital rectal examination provides valuable information and can help doctors in making an informed decision on whether to recommend prostate biopsy.

External Validation of the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group Risk Calculator and the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in a Swedish Population-based Screening Cohort.

Background: External validation of risk calculators (RCs) is necessary to determine their clinical applicability beyond the setting in which these were developed. Objective: To assess the performance of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer RC (RPCRC) and the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group RC (PBCG-RC). Design setting and participants: We used data from the prospective, population-based STHLM3 screening study, performed in 2012-2015. Participants with prostate-specific antigen ≥3 ng/ml who underwent systematic prostate biopsies were included. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Probabilities for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2, were calculated for each participant. External validity was assessed by calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness for both original and recalibrated models. Results and limitations: Out of 5841 men, 1054 (18%) had csPCa. Distribution of risk predictions differed between RCs; median risks for csPCa using the RPCRC and PBCG-RC were 3.3% (interquartile range [IQR] 2.1-7.1%) and 20% (IQR 15-28%), respectively. The correlation between RC risk estimates on individual level was moderate (Spearman's r = 0.55). Using the RPCRC's recommended risk threshold of ≥4% for finding csPCa, 36% of participants would get concordant biopsy recommendations. At 10% risk cut-off, RCs agreed in 23% of cases. Both RCs showed good discrimination, with areas under the curves for the RPCRC of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.76) and the PBCG-RC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.68-0.72). Calibration was adequate using the PBCG-RC (calibration slope: 1.13 [95% CI 1.03-1.23]), but the RPCRC underestimated the risk of csPCa (calibration slope: 0.73 [0.68-0.79]). The PBCG-RC showed a net benefit in a decision curve analysis, whereas the RPCRC showed no net benefit at clinically relevant risk threshold levels. Recalibration improved clinical benefit, and differences between RCs decreased. Conclusions: Assessment of calibration is essential to ensure the clinical value of risk prediction tools. The PBCG-RC provided clinical benefit in its current version online. On the contrary, the RPCRC cannot be recommended in this setting. Patient summary: Predicting the probability of finding prostate cancer on biopsy differed between two assessed risk calculators. After recalibration, the agreement of the models improved, and both were shown to be clinically useful.

A Head-to-head Comparison of Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Strategies Using the Stockholm3 Test, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Swedish National Guidelines: Results from a Prospective Population-based Screening Study.

Background: Strategies for early detection of prostate cancer aim to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and avoid detection of insignificant cancers and unnecessary biopsies. Swedish national guidelines (SNGs), years 2019 and 2020, involve prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, clinical variables, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The Stockholm3 test and MRI have been suggested to improve selection of men for prostate biopsy. Performance of SNGs compared with the Stockholm3 test or MRI in a screening setting is unclear. Objective: To compare strategies based on previous and current national guidelines, Stockholm3, and MRI to select patients for biopsy in a screening-by-invitation setting. Design setting and participants: All participants underwent PSA test, and men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml underwent Stockholm3 testing and MRI. Men with Stockholm3 ≥11%, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score ≥3 on MRI, or indication according to SNG-2019 or SNG-2020 were referred to biopsy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary outcome was the detection of csPCa at prostate biopsy, defined as an International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade of ≥2. Results and limitations: We invited 8764 men from the general population, 272 of whom had PSA ≥3 ng/ml. The median PSA was 4.1 (interquartile range: 3.4-5.8), and 136 of 270 (50%) who underwent MRI lacked any pathological lesions. In total, 37 csPCa cases were diagnosed. Using SNG-2019, 36 csPCa cases with a high biopsy rate (179 of 272) were detected and 49 were diagnosed with ISUP 1 cancers. The Stockholm3 strategy diagnosed 32 csPCa cases, with 89 biopsied and 27 ISUP 1 cancers. SNG-2020 detected 32 csPCa and 33 ISUP 1 cancer patients, with 99 men biopsied, and the MRI strategy detected 30 csPCa and 35 ISUP 1 cancer cases by biopsying 123 men. The latter two strategies generated more MRI scans than the Stockholm3 strategy (n = 270 vs 33). Conclusions: Previous guidelines provide high detection of significant cancer but at high biopsy rates and detection of insignificant cancer. The Stockholm3 test may improve diagnostic precision compared with the current guidelines or using only MRI. Patient summary: The Stockholm3 test facilitates detection of significant cancer, and reduces the number of biopsies and detection of insignificant cancer.

Association of 5α-Reductase Inhibitors With Prostate Cancer Mortality.

Importance: There is evidence that 5α-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs), a standard treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia, are associated with a decrease in the incidence of prostate cancer (PCa). However, studies to date have had conflicting results regarding the association with prostate cancer mortality (PCM). Objective: To evaluate the association of treatment with 5-ARIs with PCM in men without a prior diagnosis of PCa. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study was conducted in Stockholm, Sweden, between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2018, and included 429 977 men with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test within the study period. Study entry was set to 1 year after the first PSA test. Data were analyzed from September 2021 to December 2021. Exposures: After their initial PSA test, men with 2 or more newly dispensed prescriptions of 5-ARI, finasteride, or dutasteride were considered 5-ARI users (n = 26 190). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was PCM. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to calculate multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for all-cause mortality and PCM. Results: The study cohort included 349 152 men. The median (IQR) age for those with 2 or more filled prescriptions of 5-ARI was 66 (61-73) years and 57 (50-64) years for those without. The median follow-up time was 8.2 (IQR, 4.9-10) years with 2 257 619 person-years for the unexposed group and 124 008 person-years for the exposed group. The median exposure to treatment with 5-ARI was 4.5 (IQR, 2.1-7.4) years. During follow-up, 35 767 men (8.3%) died, with 852 deaths associated with PCa. The adjusted multivariable survival analysis showed a lower risk of PCM in the 5-ARI group with longer exposure times (0.1-2.0 years: adjusted HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.64-1.25; >8 years: adjusted HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.74). No statistically significant differences were seen in all-cause mortality between the exposed and unexposed group. Men treated with 5-ARIs underwent more PSA tests and biopsies per year than the unexposed group (median of 0.63 vs 0.33 and 0.22 vs 0.12, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study suggest that there was no association between treatment with 5-ARI and increased PCM in a large population-based cohort of men without a previous PCa diagnosis. Additionally, a time-dependent association was seen with decreased risk of PCM with longer 5-ARI treatment. Further research is needed to determine whether the differences are because of intrinsic drug effects or PCa testing differences.

Identifying Prostate Cancer Among Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.

BACKGROUND: In men aged above 50 yr, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), benign prostate hyperplasia, and prostate cancer are common urological conditions. Current guidelines for general practitioners frequently recommend prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in patients with LUTS for the detection of prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of PSA, PSA density, and the Stockholm3 blood test for identification of prostate cancer among men with LUTS. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In this post hoc analysis of a population-based diagnostic trial (STHLM3, n = 58 588), 4588 men aged 50-69 yr, without previous prostate cancer, with International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) data, and having PSA ≥ 3 ng/mL were identified. Men with at least moderate LUTS, defined as an IPSS score of ≥8, were included. PSA density and Stockholm3 scores were calculated. INTERVENTION: Participants underwent 10-12-core systematic prostate biopsies. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was significant prostate cancer (sPCa) defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade ≥2. Logistic regression analysis adjusted for age and previous biopsy status was performed. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated, and decision curve analysis was performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Out of 4588 men, 1544 (34%) reported at least moderate LUTS. The median age was 64 yr, and 11% had undergone a previous prostate biopsy. The Stockholm3 test showed superior discrimination for sPCa to PSA density, which in turn showed superior discrimination to PSA (AUC 0.77 vs 0.70 vs 0.61, p <  0.02). Calibration of the Stockholm3 test was adequate. Performing biopsy only in men with PSA ≥5 ng/mL saved 64% of biopsies, but resulted in missing 52% of detectable sPCa. Recommending biopsy for men with PSA density ≥0.07 resulted in sparing 26% of biopsy procedures and delaying the diagnosis of 12% of sPCa cases, with a 6.1% risk of sPCa among unbiopsied men. Recommending men with Stockholm3 ≥ 0.11 for biopsy resulted in sparing 53% of biopsy procedures and delaying the diagnosis of 20% of sPCa cases, with a 5.1% risk of finding sPCa in unbiopsied men. CONCLUSIONS: PSA density and the Stockholm3 blood test were superior to PSA for the identification of prostate cancer among men with LUTS. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this analysis of a large Swedish study, we find that the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density or the Stockholm3 blood test instead of only PSA might improve the detection of prostate cancer among men with lower urinary tract symptoms.

Head-to-head Comparison of Conventional, and Image- and Biomarker-based Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators.

BACKGROUND: A new generation of risk calculators (RCs) for prostate cancer (PCa) incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data have been introduced. However, these have not been validated externally, and their clinical benefit compared with alternative approaches remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess previously published PCa RCs incorporating MRI data, and compare their performance with traditional RCs (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC] 3/4 and Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group [PBCG]) and the blood-based Stockholm3 test. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: RCs were tested in a prospective multicenter cohort including 532 men aged 45-74 yr participating in the Stockholm3-MRI study between 2016 and 2017. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The probabilities of detection of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as Gleason score ≥3 + 4 were calculated for each patient. For each RC and the Stockholm3 test, discrimination was assessed by area under the curve (AUC), calibration by numerical and graphical summaries, and clinical usefulness by decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The discriminative ability of MRI RCs 1-4 for the detection of csPCa was superior (AUC 0.81-0.87) to the traditional RCs (AUC 0.76-0.80). The observed prevalence of csPCa in the cohort was 37%, but calibration-in-the-large predictions varied from 14% to 63% across models. DCA identified only one model including MRI data as clinically useful at a threshold probability of 10%. The Stockholm3 test achieved equivalent performance for discrimination (AUC 0.86) and DCA, but was underpredicting the actual risk. CONCLUSIONS: Although MRI RCs discriminated csPCa better than traditional RCs, their predicted probabilities were variable in accuracy, and DCA identified only one model as clinically useful. PATIENT SUMMARY: Novel risk calculators (RCs) incorporating imaging improved the ability to discriminate clinically significant prostate cancer compared with traditional tools. However, all but one predicted divergent compared with actual risks, suggesting that regional modifications be implemented before usage. The Stockholm3 test achieved performance comparable with the best MRI RC without utilization of imaging.

Biomarker discrimination and calibration with MRI-targeted biopsies: an analysis with the Stockholm3 test.

BACKGROUND: The validated Stockholm3 test is used to improve PC detection. Stockholm3, however, was developed using systematic biopsies. We aimed to assess Stockholm3 operating performance when using MRI-targeted biopsies for PC detection. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 532 men was considered for prostate biopsy during 2016-2017. All men underwent Stockholm3 testing and MRI before biopsy. All PIRADs ≥3 lesion underwent targeted biopsy; all men underwent systematic biopsy. The primary outcome was ISUP Grade Group ≥2 (GG ≥ 2) PC. Detection strategies included: (1) systematic biopsies alone, (2) targeted biopsies alone, (3) targeted with associated systematic biopsies for MRI+, and (4) all biopsies in all men. For each strategy, the Stockholm3 operating characteristics were assessed with discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: Median age was 65 years, median PSA was 6.2 ng/mL, median Stockholm3 score was 16.5%, and overall detection of GG ≥ 2 PC was 36% (193/532). Stockholm3 showed accurate discrimination for separating GG ≥ 2 cancer from benign and GG1, with an area under the curve of 0.84-0.86 depending on the biopsy strategy. Calibration analysis showed that Stockholm3 underestimated risks for GG ≥ 2 PC risk using MRI-targeted biopsies: there was a net benefit over biopsies in all men for Stockholm3 at risk thresholds varying from >3% in systematic biopsies to >15% in targeted with systematic biopsies in MRI+ men. When using a Stockholm3 score of >10% cutoff, a range of 32-38% of biopsies could be avoided while missing 5-11% of GG ≥ 2 PC and 0-3% of GG ≥ 3 PC. CONCLUSIONS: Stockholm3 shows high discriminatory performance in an MRI-targeted biopsy setting, however risks are underpredicted due to MRI-targeted biopsies being more sensitive than the systematic biopsies for which Stockholm3 was developed. Stockholm3, along with any risk prediction model developed for systematic prostate biopsy decisions, will need recalibration for optimal use in an MRI-driven biopsy setting.

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are not associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer in men 50-69 years with PSA ≥3 ng/ml.

Background: There is conflicting evidence about the association between prostate cancer and Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS). We aimed to describe the prevalence of LUTS and its association with prostate cancer risk.Methods: We studied the association between International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and prostate cancer in a population-based sample of men (n = 45,595) aged 50-69 years from the Stockholm3 study. Men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml (n = 4579) underwent systematic prostate biopsies. We used the International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading (ISUP grade) and performed regression analysis for risk of any cancer (n = 1797), ISUP grade ≥2 (n = 840) and advanced cancer, defined as ISUP grade ≥3 or cT ≥3 (n = 353).Results: 74.6% of all men had no or mild LUTS (IPSS ≤7) and 3.2% had severe LUTS (IPSS >19). Men with any, ISUP grade ≥2 or advanced cancer had lower median IPSS compared to men with benign biopsy (any cancer: 4 (IQR 2-9); ISUP grade ≥2: 4 (2-8); advanced cancer: 4 (2-8); benign biopsy: 6 (3-11); p < 0.05). IPSS was not associated with increased risk of cancer in multivariate analyses (OR (any cancer) 0.97; 95% CI 0.96-0.98; OR (ISUP grade ≥2) 0.97; 95% CI 0.96-0.99; OR (advanced cancer) 0.99; 95% CI 0.99-1.01).Conclusions: Three-quarters of men aged 50-69 years report no or mild LUTS. Our data do not support any clinically meaningful association between LUTS and prostate cancer. Specifically, men with advanced prostate cancer did not exhibit more urinary symptoms than men without cancer.

A Unified Prostate Cancer Risk Prediction Model Combining the Stockholm3 Test and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

BACKGROUND: Risk prediction models and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate can reduce unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of low-risk prostate cancer. However, it is unclear how these tools should be used in concert. OBJECTIVE: To develop a unified risk prediction model (S3M-MRI) that combines the Stockholm3 score (based on protein and genetic markers and clinical variables) and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v.2 scores modified for MRI without contrast (modPI-RADS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used data for 532 men from the prospective multicentre STHLM3-MRI diagnostic study to construct S3M-MRI. We compared S3M-MRI to Stockholm3 and modPI-RADS alone with respect to model discrimination, calibration, and net benefit. We also compared clinical outcomes for five diagnostic strategies according to the use of combinations of the three models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.91) for S3M-MRI, which was significantly higher (p=0.04) than for Stockholm3 (0.86, 95% CI 0.83-0.89) and modPI-RADS (0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.87). S3M-MRI had a higher net benefit on decision curve analysis for clinically relevant probability thresholds for biopsy recommendation in comparison to Stockholm3 and modPI-RADS. However, for different diagnostic strategies, sequential use of Stockholm3 followed by MRI only for Stockholm3-positive men resulted in a similar number of unnecessary biopsies (64 vs 69) and diagnosed International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group 1 cancers (56 vs 51) at similar sensitivity for ISUP grade group ≥2 cancers, while avoiding 38% of MRI scans. Limitations include the ethnically homogeneous study population. CONCLUSIONS: The unified S3M-MRI model was superior to the Stockholm3 model and modPI-RADS alone. However, the S3M-MRI improvement was marginal compared to sequential use of Stockholm3 followed by MRI, and resulted in 60% more MRI scans. PATIENT SUMMARY: A new risk prediction model combining clinical variables, genetic and protein biomarkers, and results from prostate magnetic resonance imaging improved the clinical outcome performance of prostate cancer diagnostics.

Are Prostate Specific-Antigen (PSA) and age associated with the risk of ISUP Grade 1 prostate cancer? Results from 72 996 individual biopsy cores in 6 083 men from the Stockholm3 study.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the relationship between PSA, age and ISUP grade group (ISUP) 1 prostate cancer can improve clinical and biological understanding of prostate cancer. We aimed to investigate the associations between PSA and age and the risk of ISUP 1 and ISUP ≥ 2 prostate cancer, respectively. METHODS: We included 6 083 men aged 50-69 biopsied with a total of 72 996 individual biopsy cores from the prospective and population based Stockholm3 diagnostic study. We computed the risk of ISUP 1 and ISUP ≥ 2 prostate cancer and their respective associations with PSA and age. Since lower Gleason grades often are masked by higher grades in the overall Gleason score, we compared associations both for overall Gleason score and for Gleason on individual biopsy cores. RESULTS: ISUP 1 prostate cancer was not significantly associated with PSA at diagnosis: odds ratios ranged from 0.82 (95%CI: 0.68-1.00) for PSA 3-4 ng/mL, 0.96 (95%CI: 0.79-1.16) for PSA 4-6 ng/mL, 0.95 (95%CI: 0.75-1.21) for PSA 6-10 ng/mL, and 0.92 (95%CI: 0.58-1.45) for PSA 10-15 ng/mL compared with PSA 2-3 ng/mL. Age was not significantly associated with risk of ISUP 1 cancer. This contrasts to the strong relationship between ISUP ≥ 2 prostate cancer and its respective associations with PSA and age. CONCLUSIONS: We find no significant association between the risk of ISUP 1 prostate cancer and PSA and age at diagnosis indicating that PSA contribution from ISUP 1 prostate cancer is closer to that of benign prostate tissue than to that of ISUP ≥ 2 prostate cancer.

The impact of different prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing intervals on Gleason score at diagnosis and the risk of experiencing false-positive biopsy recommendations: a population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Given a man's current prostate- specific antigen (PSA) level, age and family history of prostate cancer, what are the benefits (decreased risk of higher Gleason score [GS] cancer at diagnosis) and harms (increased risk of false-positive biopsy recommendation) of waiting 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5-8 years until the next PSA test? DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: All PSA tested men in Stockholm, Sweden, between 2003 and 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 50-74 years with at least two PSA tests between 2003 and 2015 (n=174 636). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Log-binomial regression to calculate the risk ratio (RR) of GS ≥7 and GS 6 versus benign outcome at prostate biopsy and 12-year cumulative probability of experiencing a false-positive biopsy by testing interval, age, PSA level and first-degree family history. RESULTS: Men with PSA ≤1 ng/mL had low risk of GS ≥7 prostate cancer irrespective of testing interval; <3% had a PSA >3 at the next testing occasion, and of the 663 men biopsied after the next PSA test only 32 (5%) had GS ≥7 cancer. Men with PSA >1 ng/mL had increased risk of being diagnosed with GS ≥7 prostate cancer when screened with longer than annual intervals (RRs ranged from 1.4 to 3.2 depending on PSA level and testing interval). The results were consistent across age groups and family history status. This benefit needs to be balanced against the increased risk for false-positive biopsy recommendation with shorter testing intervals (twofold for annual vs biennial and threefold for annual vs triennial). CONCLUSIONS: Men aged 50-74 years with PSA ≤1 ng/mL can wait 3-4 years before having a new PSA test. For men with PSA >1 ng/mL, we observed an increased risk of being diagnosed with GS ≥7 prostate cancer with longer than annual testing intervals. This benefit needs to be balanced against the markedly increased risks for false-positive biopsy recommendations with shorter testing intervals recommendations.

E-Science technologies in a workflow for personalized medicine using cancer screening as a case study.

OBJECTIVE: We provide an e-Science perspective on the workflow from risk factor discovery and classification of disease to evaluation of personalized intervention programs. As case studies, we use personalized prostate and breast cancer screenings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We describe an e-Science initiative in Sweden, e-Science for Cancer Prevention and Control (eCPC), which supports biomarker discovery and offers decision support for personalized intervention strategies. The generic eCPC contribution is a workflow with 4 nodes applied iteratively, and the concept of e-Science signifies systematic use of tools from the mathematical, statistical, data, and computer sciences. RESULTS: The eCPC workflow is illustrated through 2 case studies. For prostate cancer, an in-house personalized screening tool, the Stockholm-3 model (S3M), is presented as an alternative to prostate-specific antigen testing alone. S3M is evaluated in a trial setting and plans for rollout in the population are discussed. For breast cancer, new biomarkers based on breast density and molecular profiles are developed and the US multicenter Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures (WISDOM) trial is referred to for evaluation. While current eCPC data management uses a traditional data warehouse model, we discuss eCPC-developed features of a coherent data integration platform. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: E-Science tools are a key part of an evidence-based process for personalized medicine. This paper provides a structured workflow from data and models to evaluation of new personalized intervention strategies. The importance of multidisciplinary collaboration is emphasized. Importantly, the generic concepts of the suggested eCPC workflow are transferrable to other disease domains, although each disease will require tailored solutions.