RESUMEN

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) screening strategies are being developed and evaluated in several countries. However, most of the evidence regarding PCa screening has been generated in study populations aged 50 and older. Aims: This study summarizes findings of a screening trial in younger men and discuss those findings in the context of other screening trials. Methods: Non-systematic review. Results: Screening of 45-year-old men resulted in a low PCa detection rate. Nonetheless, almost 70% of screen-detected PCa at this age was clinically significant. In young men ISUP GG 1 screen-detected cancers warrant rigorous follow-up. A baseline, midlife prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value at age 45 may safely exclude the vast majority of men from further screening investigations for at least 5 years. At age 45, a confirmatory PSA value reduces the number of subsequent tests almost by half. Sequential magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a reflex test subsequent to an elevated PSA ≥ 3 ng/mL needs further investigation in young men. Conclusions: Screening in young men needs to be carefully investigated in order to avoid overscreening and overdiagnosis.

RESUMEN

AIM: To investigate the role of family history, race/ethnicity, and genetics in prostate cancer (PCa) screening. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of articles from January 2013 through September 2023 that focused on the association of race/ethnicity and genetic factors on PCa detection. Of 10,815 studies, we identified 43 that fulfilled our pre-determined PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome) criteria. RESULTS: Men with ≥1 first-degree relative(s) with PCa are at increased risk of PCa, even with negative imaging and/or benign prostate biopsy. Black men have higher PCa risk, while Asian men have lower risk. Most of the differences in risks are attributable to environmental and socioeconomic factors; however, genetic differences may play a role. Among numerous pathogenic variants that increase PCa risk, BRCA2, MSH2, and HOXB13 mutations confer the highest risk of PCa. Polygenic risk score (PRS) models identify men at higher PCa risk for a given age and PSA; these models improve when considering other clinical factors and when the model population matches the study population's ancestry. CONCLUSIONS: Family history of PCa, race/ethnicity, pathogenic variants (particularly BRCA2, MSH2, and HOXB13), and PRS are associated with increased PCa risk and should be considered in shared decision-making to determine PCa screening regimens.

RESUMEN

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening is a preference-sensitive decision for which experts recommend a shared decision making (SDM) approach. This study aimed to examine PSA screening SDM in primary care. Methods included qualitative analysis of audio-recorded patient-provider interactions supplemented by quantitative description. Participants included 5 clinic providers and 13 patients who were: (1) 40-69 years old, (2) Black, (3) male, and (4) attending clinic for routine primary care. Main measures were SDM element themes and "observing patient involvement in decision making" (OPTION) scoring. Some discussions addressed advantages, disadvantages, and/or scientific uncertainty of screening, however, few patients received all SDM elements. Nearly all providers recommended screening, however, only 3 patients were directly asked about screening preferences. Few patients were asked about prostate cancer knowledge (2), urological symptoms (3), or family history (6). Most providers discussed disadvantages (80%) and advantages (80%) of PSA screening. Average OPTION score was 25/100 (range 0-67) per provider. Our study found limited SDM during PSA screening consultations. The counseling that did take place utilized components of SDM but inconsistently and incompletely. We must improve SDM for PSA screening for diverse patient populations to promote health equity. This study highlights the need to improve SDM for PSA screening.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer (PCa) screening tools, particularly digital rectal examination (DRE), are under scrutiny. This review assesses the utility of DRE in PCa screening. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies reaffirm the DRE's sensitivity and specificity, a higher PCa detection rate with PSA in conjunction with DRE, and a slightly elevated risk of clinically significant PCa (CSPC) in those with elevated PSA and suspicious DRE. Studies confirm high accuracy of MRI in identifying CSPC, with ongoing research exploring its screening potential. DRE alone lacks accuracy for PCa screening, often resulting in missed diagnoses and unnecessary biopsies. Its supplementary use with PSA marginally increases detection rates of identifying a small percentage of CSPC, but the benefit remains questionable. Emerging evidence suggests MRI has the potential as a superior screening tool compared to DRE, although direct comparative studies are lacking. Overall, the DRE has a limited role in current PCa screening.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To establish and evaluate an ultra-fast MRI screening protocol for prostate cancer (PCa) in comparison to the standard multiparametric (mp) protocol, reducing scan time and maintaining adequate diagnostic performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective single-center study included consecutive biopsy-naïve patients with suspected PCa between December 2022 and March 2023. A PI-RADSv2.1 conform mpMRI protocol was acquired in a 3 T scanner (scan time: 25 min 45 sec). In addition, two deep-learning (DL) accelerated sequences (T2- and diffusion-weighted) were acquired, serving as a screening protocol (scan time: 3 min 28 sec). Two readers evaluated image quality and the probability of PCa regarding PI-RADSv2.1 scores in two sessions. The diagnostic performance of the screening protocol with mpMRI serving as the reference standard was derived. Inter- and intra-reader agreements were evaluated using weighted kappa statistics. RESULTS: We included 77 patients with 97 lesions (mean age: 66 years; SD: 7.7). Diagnostic performance of the screening protocol was excellent with a sensitivity and specificity of 100%/100% and 89%/98% (cut-off ≥ PI-RADS 4) for reader 1 (R1) and reader 2 (R2), respectively. Mean image quality was 3.96 (R1) and 4.35 (R2) for the standard protocol vs. 4.74 and 4.57 for the screening protocol (p < 0.05). Inter-reader agreement was moderate (κ: 0.55) for the screening protocol and substantial (κ: 0.61) for the multiparametric protocol. CONCLUSION: The ultra-fast screening protocol showed similar diagnostic performance and better imaging quality compared to the mpMRI in under 15% of scan time, improving efficacy and enabling the implementation of screening protocols in clinical routine. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The ultra-fast protocol enables examinations without contrast administration, drastically reducing scan time to 3.5 min with similar diagnostic performance and better imaging quality. This facilitates patient-friendly, efficient examinations and addresses the conflict of increasing demand for examinations at currently exhausted capacities. KEY POINTS: Time-consuming MRI protocols are in conflict with an expected increase in examinations required for prostate cancer screening. An ultra-fast MRI protocol shows similar performance and better image quality compared to the standard protocol. Deep-learning acceleration facilitates efficient and patient-friendly examinations, thus improving prostate cancer screening capacity.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is projected to account for the greatest proportion of cancer-related burden among men with HIV. However, incidence is reportedly lower than in men without HIV, potentially due to differences in screening. Factors influencing receipt of screening in men with HIV are unknown. We described receipt of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and assessed factors for association with receipt of PSA test. METHODS: Demographics, measures of HIV and related care, and non-HIV care were assessed for association with receipt of first PSA test in men ≥40 years old each calendar year in 2000-2020 using univariable and multivariable Poisson regression. Models were additionally stratified by calendar period to identify changes in determinants of PSA test as prostate cancer screening guidelines changed. RESULTS: Men (n = 2,063) 72% Non-Hispanic Black, median age of 47 (IQR: 41, 53), contributed median of 4.7 years (IQR: 2.3, 10.0) of follow-up. Receipt of antiretroviral therapy (aIRR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.55), engagement in HIV care (aIRR = 2.09; 95% CI: 1.66, 2.62), history of testosterone-replacement therapy (aIRR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.19, 1.50), urologist evaluation (aIRR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.35, 2.05), and receipt of PSA test in preceding two years (no elevated PSA aIRR = 2.37; 95% CI: 2.16, 2.61; elevated PSA aIRR = 4.35; 95% CI: 3.24, 5.84) were associated with PSA testing in men aged 50 or older. Associations varied across calendar time. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest men with greater interaction with healthcare are more likely to receive PSA test. Measures of control of HIV did not appear to influence the decision to screen.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This study analyzed data from a community-based prostate cancer (PCa) education and screening program (Prostate Outreach Project; POP) to enhance PCa-related knowledge among medically underserved Asian American men. It also examined PCa screening history, clinical abnormalities based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests and digital rectal examination (DRE) results, and follow-up and PCa diagnosis rates. Participants-521 Asian men (251 Vietnamese, 142 Chinese, and 128 South Asians)-were offered PCa screening using PSA tests and/or DRE and an educational session on PCa. Of these men, 277 completed PCa-related knowledge surveys before and after viewing an educational video. Significant between-group differences in PCa-related knowledge were found at pre-assessment (p < 0.001) but not at post-assessment (p = 0.11), at which time all groups showed improved PCa-related knowledge. Most participants (77.9%) had never received PCa screening, but Vietnamese men had the lowest previous screening rate (17.3%). Chinese men had elevated PSA values and the highest abnormal DRE rates. Of the 125 men with abnormal screening outcomes, only 15.2% had adequate follow-up. Of the 144 men diagnosed with PCa in POP, 11.1% were Asians (seven Chinese, six Vietnamese, and three South Asian). Despite the ethnic heterogeneity among Asian men, a community outreach program may successfully enhance their PCa-related knowledge.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer screening has not significantly reduced mortality. International guidelines strongly endorse shared decision-making to navigate risks, emphasizing its crucial role prior to prescribing a prostate-specific antigen test. This study aims to provide insight into the current role of shared decision-making in primary care for prostate cancer screening and suggest ways to improve the process. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, and Lissa databases were searched for following terms: 'prostate-specific antigen' or 'prostate cancer screening' combined with 'shared decision making', 'informed decision making' or 'decision support' and 'primary care'. All studies were screened by two independent reviewers. This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Of 85 articles screened, 34 were included. Key findings included heterogenous and poor quality implementation of shared decision-making in practice, patients with limited knowledge of shared decision-making, clinicians infrequently discussing patients' views, decision aids that could be better integrated into practice, and finally, changes in care systems to support the expansion of shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening. CONCLUSION: Decision aids are essential tools in the informed decision-making process. Integrating these elements into practice would require training for doctors and adjustments to the healthcare system.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether PSA fluctuation can be used to predict the risk of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 1244 patients who underwent prostate biopsy at Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar City Hospital between 2013 and 2021 (848 in non-cancer; 396 in cancer). The patient's age, last two PSA values (PSA1 and PSA2) within three months before the biopsy, the duration between two PSAs (days), prostate size (g) and PSA density (PSAD) were all recorded. PSA fluctuation rate (PSAfr) was defined as the change rate between two PSA values. RESULTS: PSAfr was significantly higher in the non-cancer group than in the prostate cancer group (15.2% (20.5) and 9.6% (14.4), P=.019). A Simple linear regression was used to examine the relationship between PSAfr and other factors such as age, PSA, PSAD, and prostate volume, but it was shown that these had no effect on PSA fluctuations. ROC analysis revealed a relatively low Area Under the Curve (AUC) for PSAfr (AUC, 0.584 (0.515-0.653)). However, the cut-off value of 12.35% was found to be significant, with a sensitivity of 58% and a specificity of 59% (P:.019, 95%CI). The odds ratio, adjusted for age, PSAD, and PSA2, was calculated as 0.545 (0.33-0.89) using logistic regression analysis to show the relationship between prostate cancer and PSAfr. As a result, those with high PSAfr were found to be 1.83 times less likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than those with low fluctuations. CONCLUSION: PSAfr could be used in nomograms to predict prostate cancer risk and reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Prostate needle biopsy (PNBx) is essential for prostate cancer diagnosis, yet it is not without risks. We sought to assess patients who underwent PNBx using a claims-based frailty index to study the association between frailty and postbiopsy complications from a large population-based cohort. We hypothesized that increased frailty would be associated with adverse outcomes. METHODS: Using Market Scan, we identified all men who underwent PNBx from 2010 to 2015. Individuals were stratified by claims-based frailty index into 2 prespecified categories: not frail, frail. Complications occurring within 30 days from prostate biopsy requiring emergency department, clinic, or hospital evaluations constituted the primary outcome. Unadjusted and adjusted analyses identified patient covariates associated with complications. RESULTS: We identified 193,490 patients who underwent PNBx. The mean age was 57.6 years (SD: 5.0). In all, 5% were prefrail, mildly frail, or moderately to severely frail. The rate of overall complications increased from 11.1% for not frail to 15.5% for frail men. After adjusting for covariates, individuals with any degree of frailty experienced a higher risk of overall complication (odds ratio [OR]: 1.29; P < .001), clinic (OR: 1.26; P < .001) and emergency department visits (OR: 1.32; P = .02), and hospital readmissions (OR: 1.41; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty was associated with a higher risk of complications for patients undergoing PNBx. Frailty assessment should be integrated into shared decision-making to limit the provision of potentially harmful care associated with prostate cancer screening.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous malignancy in men. The updated PSA testing 2018 United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommend shared decision-making for men ages 55 to 69. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid coverage to childless adults earning < 138% of the federal poverty level. Thereafter, individual states have chosen to adopt or defer Medicaid expansion at different times. This allows for the opportunity to study the effects of expansion on a population that did not previously qualify for Medicaid. We examine the long-term association of Medicaid expansion on prostate cancer screening. METHODS: Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were extracted for childless men earning less than 138% of the federal poverty level in states with different Medicaid expansion statuses from 2012 to 2020. States were classified into 4 expansion categories: very early expansion states, early expansion states, late expansion states, and nonexpansion states. Prevalence of PSA screening was determined for each category of expansion. Difference-in-difference analyses were used to understand variations in very early expansion states, early expansion states, and late expansion states trends with reference to nonexpansion states. RESULTS: PSA screening prevalence decreased in very early expansion states (27.76% vs 18.50%), early expansion states (33.79% vs 18.09%), late expansion states (36.08% vs 19.14%), and nonexpansion states (38.82% vs 24.40%) from 2012 to 2020. However, the difference-in-difference analyses did not show statistically significant results among any of the years and expansion category groups in our study period. CONCLUSIONS: PSA screening prevalence decreased in all states, regardless of expansion category. No long-term effect of Medicaid expansion on PSA screening prevalence was observed among states with different expansion statuses.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer among men worldwide, and it represents a substantial worldwide health issue, primarily impacting men as they grow older. Understanding its epidemiology and etiology is crucial for crafting efficient preventive measures and enhancing treatment results. The epidemiology of this disease provides valuable insights into its prevalence and distribution. Age is a critical factor, with the risk of prostate cancer increasing with advancing years. Incidence rates are notably higher in developed countries, suggesting a role for lifestyle and environmental factors. Furthermore, there are significant racial and geographical disparities in prostate cancer incidence, with African-American men experiencing both a higher incidence and more aggressive forms of the disease. On the other hand, hormones, especially testosterone and its conversion to dihydrotestosterone (DHT), contribute to prostate cell growth and, potentially, cancer. Genetics also plays a pivotal role, with certain gene mutations, like Breast Cancer gene 1 & 2 (BRCA1 and BRCA2), elevating risk. Dietary habits and lifestyle choices influence susceptibility, with diets low in fruits and vegetables and high in saturated fats linked to higher risk. Chronic inflammation, often tied to prostatitis, may further increase susceptibility to prostate cancer. This review article explores the complex realm of prostate cancer, providing insights into its occurrence, factors that elevate risks, and the fundamental factors that play a role in its emergence and how we can prevent it.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen-based routine screening is not recommended for the general population due to conflicting results with mortality reduction. We aimed to develop a web-based decision aid (DA) for informed decision making for prostate cancer screening. METHODS: Using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) development process model, we developed our DA based on patient and clinician interviews and multidisciplinary expert discussions. The prototype consisted of predicting individual prostate cancer risk and informed decision-making, including knowledge, risk and benefit, cost, personal value, and decision making. We conducted a pilot study on 101 healthy men, evaluating the effectiveness of DA by measuring knowledge, attitude, and intention to screen before and after using the DA, as well as decisional conflict and usefulness after using the DA. RESULTS: Of the 101 participants (median age 60 [50-69] years), 84% had not undergone screening for prostate cancer in the past two years. After using the DA, knowledge on prostate cancer screening increased (mean score [of 10] before versus after: 6.85 ± 1.03 versus 7.57 ± 1.25; P < 0.001), and intention to not screen increased from 27.7% to 51.5% (P < 0.001), but attitude toward screening did not change (P = 0.564). After use of the DA, 79 participants reported no decisional conflict, and the usefulness score was high (mean score [of 100] 77.35 ± 7.69), with 85% of participants reporting that the DA helped with decision making. CONCLUSION: Our web-based DA yielded increased knowledge, decreased screening intention, and high perceived usefulness. These findings indicate potential clinical relevance, especially among younger individuals.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Screening men for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains controversial. We aimed to estimate the likely budgetary impact on secondary care in England and Wales to inform screening decision makers. METHODS: The Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer study (CAP) compared a single invitation to men aged 50-69 for a PSA test with usual care (no screening). Routinely collected hospital care data were obtained for all men in CAP, and NHS reference costs were mapped to each event via Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) codes. Secondary-care costs per man per year were calculated, and cost differences (and population-level estimates) between arms were derived annually for the first five years following randomisation. RESULTS: In the first year post-randomisation, secondary-care costs averaged across all men (irrespective of a prostate cancer diagnosis) in the intervention arm (n = 189279) were £44.80 (95% confidence interval: £18.30-£71.30) higher than for men in the control arm (n = 219357). Extrapolated to a population level, the introduction of a single PSA screening invitation could lead to additional secondary care costs of £314 million. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a single PSA screening test for men aged 50-69 across England and Wales could lead to very high initial secondary-care costs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is common among men, and awareness can reduce associated deaths. Low knowledge of prostate cancer screening and wrong perceptions about prostate cancer leads to poor screening practices. Our study assessed knowledge, attitude and practice towards prostate cancer screening among male adults at Mbeya Zonal Referral Hospital. METHODS: This hospital-based cross-sectional study used a random sampling technique to select men attending the hospital. Data was collected using a questionnaire on socio-demographic characteristics, personal and familiar medical history of prostate cancer, knowledge about prostate cancer and its screening. Data analysis was done using SPSS version 23. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-two (132) men participated in the study. Participants ranged from 18 to 75 years, with a mean age of 41.57. This study found that while 72% of respondents had heard of prostate cancer, only 43.9% had knowledge of prostate cancer screening. Age was associated with prostate cancer screening knowledge (COR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.54, p < 0.001). Only 29.5% of respondents had a positive attitude toward prostate cancer screening. A small percentage (16.7%) had been tested for prostate cancer, but the majority (89.4%) were willing to be screened in the future. CONCLUSION: The study found that while most men in the study area had a basic understanding of prostate cancer, only a small percentage had a favourable knowledge of prostate cancer screening, with a low positive perception of screening. The study highlights the need to increase awareness of prostate cancer screening in Tanzania.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

There is limited research about the content and context of communication on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing among men in the state of Florida. The purpose of this study is to understand how the content communication (discussion of advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing between provider and patient; provider recommendations of PSA testing) and the context of communication (continuity of care denoted by the presence of a personal doctor) influence PSA testing. Data were drawn from the Florida Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Receipt of PSA testing was the primary outcome. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for sociodemographic, clinical, healthcare access, and lifestyle characteristics when associating the content and context of communication with PSA testing. Discussions were classified into four mutually exclusive categories: discussions of advantages and disadvantages, only advantages, only disadvantages, and no discussion. The most significant predictors for PSA testing included physician recommendation, discussions including advantages, older age, non-smoking, and having a personal doctor. Individualized PSA screening may be a pathway to reducing racial disparities in screening for prostate cancer (PCa) and, by extension, lower incidence and mortality rates. Developing a bill to create an Office of Men's Health at Health & Human Services is recommended.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on the early detection of prostate cancer and provides a framework to facilitate clinical decision-making in the implementation of prostate cancer screening, biopsy, and follow-up. This is Part II of a two-part series focusing on initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. Please refer to Part I for discussion of initial prostate cancer screening recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. The systematic review was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1, 2000-November 21, 2022). Searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance in prostate cancer screening, initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of prostate cancer risk should be focused on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (Grade Group 2 or higher [GG2+]). The use of laboratory biomarkers, prostate MRI, and biopsy techniques described herein may improve detection and safety when a prostate biopsy is deemed necessary following prostate cancer screening.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on the early detection of prostate cancer and provides a framework to facilitate clinical decision-making in the implementation of prostate cancer screening, biopsy, and follow-up. This is Part I of a two-part series that focuses on prostate cancer screening. Please refer to Part II for discussion of initial and repeat biopsies as well as biopsy technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. The systematic review was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1, 2000-November 21, 2022). Searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance in prostate cancer screening, initial and repeat biopsy, and biopsy technique. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening in combination with shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended. Current data regarding risk from population-based cohorts provide a basis for longer screening intervals and tailored screening, and the use of available online risk calculators is encouraged.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Current guidelines recommend that physicians use a shared decision-making (SDM) approach to engage with patients on the potential benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening based on their individual risk. In a sample of 4,118 men aged 55-69 from the 2018 New York State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS), we compared the frequency of screening recommendations and SDM conversations according to four race/ethnic groups. In logistic regression, we evaluated the likelihood of SDM conversations between race/ethnic groups. Our findings suggest that the odds of never having a SDM conversation with their healthcare provider were significantly higher among Hispanic men (OR 95% CI: 2.10, 1.11-3.99) and other/multiracial men (OR, 95% CI: 3.08, 1.46-6.52) compared to white men, while black men had comparable odds (1.52, 0.98-2.34). The lower frequency of SDM conversation among Hispanic and other/multiracial men suggest a missed opportunity for healthcare providers to guide informed screening decisions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The aim of the study was to analyze population-based prostate cancer (PCa) screening and the incidence of PCa among males ≥50 years of age residing in the Luqiao district of Taizhou, China. From October to December 2020, male residents ≥50 years of age were screened for serum total prostate-specific antigen (total-PSA). If t-PSA re-test levels persisted above 4 µg/L, subjects underwent further noninvasive examinations, including digital rectal examination or multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. Subjects underwent prostate biopsy of pathological tissue based on t-PSA and mpMRI results. A total of 3524 (49.1%) residents participated in this PCa screening study. In total, 285 (8.1%) subjects exhibited t-PSA levels ≥4.0 µg/L and 112 (3.2%) underwent noninvasive examinations. Forty-two (1.2%) residents underwent prostate biopsy, of which 16 (0.45%) were diagnosed with PCa. Of those diagnosed with PCa, three (19%) had localized PCa (cT1-cT2N0M0), six (37%) had locally advanced PCa (cT3a- cT4N0-1M0), and seven (44%) had advanced metastatic PCa (M1). Unfortunately, 3477 (48.5%) residents did not participate in the study, mainly due to lack of awareness of PCa based on feedback from local health centers. Age and t-PSA were used as primary screening indicators and, when further combined with mpMRI and prostate biopsy, confirmed the diagnosis of PCa among participating residents. Although this was a relatively economical and convenient screening method, education and knowledge should be further enhanced to increase the participation rate in PCa screening programs.

Asunto(s)