Variation in harms and benefits of prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer by socio-clinical risk factors: A rapid review.

Objective: To analyse the latest evidence on the relative harms and benefits of screening and diagnostic pathways with close examination of (i) men aged 50 years or older, (ii) men whose ethnicity places them at higher risk and (iii) men with a family history. Methods: We conducted a literature search using PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases and other sources, from January 1990 to 25 January 2023. Two independent reviewers selected for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies which met our inclusion criteria. Results: Twenty-eight articles were selected, from six trials, including the Göteborg trial-reported separately from European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening led to the increased detection of low-grade cancer and reduction of advanced/metastatic disease but had contradictory effects on prostate cancer (PCa)-specific mortality (no difference or reduced), possibly due to issues of contamination or compliance. Screening men from a relatively young age (50-55) reduced risk of PCa-specific mortality in a subanalysis of an 18-year follow-up study and in a 17-year cohort study from the main Göteborg trial. Moreover, one Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial analysis reported a trend of reduced risk of PCa-specific mortality for men with a family history who were screened. [Correction added on 05 March 2024, after first online publication: "Cancer Screening Trial" has been added to the preceding sentence.] However, we did not find relevant studies for ethnicity. Conclusion: Under current UK practice, the choice to conduct a PSA test relies on a shared decision-making approach guided by known risk factors. However, we found there was a lack of strong evidence on the harms and benefits of PSA screening by socio-clinical risk factors and suggest further research is required to understand the long-term impact of screening on high-risk populations in the current diagnostic setting.

The impact of pre-biopsy MRI and additional testing on prostate cancer screening outcomes: A rapid review.

Objective: This work aims to examine the latest evidence on the impact of pre-biopsy MRI, in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, on health outcomes and quality of life. Methods: We conducted a literature search including PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases, with a limited scan of (i) guidelines and (ii) references from trial reports, from January 2005 to 25th January 2023. Two independent reviewers selected randomised controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies which met our inclusion criteria. Results: One hundred thirty-seven articles were identified, and seven trial articles were selected. Trial interventions were as follows: (i) PSA blood test, (ii) additional tests such as pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and Biparametric MRI (bpMRI), and (iii) MRI targeted biopsy and standard biopsy. Compared with standard biopsy, MRI-based interventions led to increased detection of clinically significant cancers in three studies and decreased detection of clinically insignificant cancer (Gleason grade 3 + 3) in four studies. However, PROstate Magnetic resonance Imaging Study (PROMIS) and Stockholm3 with MRI (STHLM3-MRI) studies reported different trends depending on the scenario studied in PROMIS (MRI triage and MRI directed biopsy vs. MRI triage and standard biopsy) and thresholds used in STHLM3-MRI (≥0·11 and ≥0·15). MRI also helped 8%-49% of men avoid biopsy, in six out of seven studies, but not in STHLM3-MRI at ≥0.11. Interestingly, the proportion of men who experienced sepsis and UTI was low across studies. Conclusion: This review found that a combination of approaches, centred on the use of pre-biopsy MRI, may improve the detection of clinically significant cancers and reduce (i) the diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancers and (ii) unnecessary biopsies, compared with PSA testing and standard biopsy alone. However, the impact of such interventions on longer term outcomes such as prostate cancer-specific mortality has not yet been assessed.

Evaluating whether Prostate Cancer UK's risk checker is a help or hindrance to prostate-specific antigen testing policy: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The UK has an informed choice testing policy for prostate cancer. The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test is available for free to any man aged ≥50 years who requests it and has been informed of the harms and benefits. This policy leads to differences in PSA testing rates, which can exacerbate health inequalities. AIM: To assess whether Prostate Cancer UK's risk checker helps men at risk of prostate cancer make an informed choice about the PSA test. DESIGN & SETTING: Mixed-methods study in the UK. METHOD: In total, 1181 men at risk, their partners, and clinical experts participated in surveys, focus groups, and one-to-one interviews. Data on risk checker completions by sociodemographic factors were analysed over time. Data from general practices that sent the risk checker to their patients were collected and analysed for service monitoring purposes. RESULTS: There was a strong assumption that testing must be good, and therefore a need to emphasise the pros and cons of the test and that having it was the patient's decision. Men believed their GP would invite them for PSA testing. On the impact of the risk checker, 79.6% of men who completed it had at least one prostate cancer risk factor; the average time they interacted with the information in the tool was 9 minutes 28 seconds; and 75.7% felt the tool had equipped them to make an informed choice. CONCLUSION: Online decision-making tools, such as the risk checker, can help reach men at high risk of prostate cancer and support them in making an informed choice about the PSA test.

Remote consultations: experiences of UK patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aim: Explore UK prostate cancer patients' experiences and preferences for in-person and remote consultations. Materials & methods: In January-March 2021, patients completed a survey of consultation format preferences. Results: Of 971 patients, most preferred in-person consultations when receiving diagnosis and results (92.3 and 66.5%, respectively) and discussing first and further treatment options (92.0 and 84.0%, respectively). Fewer patients considered follow-up (40.9%) or side effect consultations (47.7%) should be in person. Patients with longer travel preferred telephone consultations for receiving test results post-treatment. Patients over 55 preferred in-person consultations for discussing first treatment. Conclusion: To optimize prostate cancer care in the wake of COVID-19, we recommend patients have the option of consultation format, although key decisions should be made in person.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a move away from in-person to remote consultations for patients with prostate cancer. However, it is not clear if remote consultations work well for every interaction. We surveyed UK-based men with prostate cancer about their preferences for consultation format. Patients wanted in-person consultations when receiving their diagnosis, discussing treatment options or getting test results after treatment. They were more accepting of remote consultations for regular follow-up or support with treatment side effects. Patients should ideally be offered a choice between in-person and remote consultations, although consultations should be in person when key decisions have to be made. These findings will be of value in planning care for patients with prostate cancer post pandemic.

Addressing bias in big data and AI for health care: A call for open science.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has an astonishing potential in assisting clinical decision making and revolutionizing the field of health care. A major open challenge that AI will need to address before its integration in the clinical routine is that of algorithmic bias. Most AI algorithms need big datasets to learn from, but several groups of the human population have a long history of being absent or misrepresented in existing biomedical datasets. If the training data is misrepresentative of the population variability, AI is prone to reinforcing bias, which can lead to fatal outcomes, misdiagnoses, and lack of generalization. Here, we describe the challenges in rendering AI algorithms fairer, and we propose concrete steps for addressing bias using tools from the field of open science.