Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Jun;37(6):991-999.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02719-5. Epub 2019 Mar 11.

Smarter screening for prostate cancer

Affiliations
Review

Smarter screening for prostate cancer

Guan Hee Tan et al. World J Urol. 2019 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: Prostate cancer is the second commonest cancer among men. In the large European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has been shown to substantially reduce prostate cancer mortality. However, PSA screening is known to lead to more unnecessary prostate biopsies and over-diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. Therefore, it is imperative that smarter screening methods be developed to overcome the weaknesses of PSA screening. This review explores the novel screening tools that are available.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed regarding newer biomarkers, imaging techniques and risk-predicting models that are used to screen for prostate cancer in mainly biopsy-naïve men.

Results: Novel serum-based models like 4Kscore® and prostate health index (PHI) are generally better than PSA alone in detecting clinically significant cancer. Similarly, urine-based biomarkers like prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and HOXC6/DLX1 have been shown to be more accurate than PSA screening. More recently, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is gaining popularity for its ability to detect clinically significant cancer. There is also evidence that combining individual tests to develop prediction models can reliably predict high-risk prostate cancers while reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies. Combinations such as the Stockholm-3 model (STHLM3) and other novel combinations are presented in this review.

Conclusion: While we continue to find the smarter screening methods that are reliable, precise, and cost-effective, we continue to advocate shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening in order to work in our patients' best interests.

Keywords: Prostate cancer; Screening; Serum biomarker; Urine biomarker; mpMRI.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Cancer Res. 1999 Dec 1;59(23):5975-9 - PubMed
    1. BMC Med. 2008 Jul 08;6:19 - PubMed
    1. Cancer Res. 2000 Feb 1;60(3):756-9 - PubMed
    1. J Urol. 2016 Aug;196(2):361-6 - PubMed
    1. J Urol. 2014 Jun;191(6):1743-8 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources