AUA: Early Detection of Prostate Cancer (2023)

See Original Guidelines

See Prostate Cancer Screening Chapter Notes

• This guideline defines
  • Clinically significant prostate cancer as GG2 or higher (GG2+) prostate cancer
  • Abnormal MRI as PI-RADS 3 to 5

• The guideline recommends utilizing validated risk calculators, particularly calculators that incorporate previous negative biopsy and mpMRI use in the repeat biopsy setting.
• This guideline’s literature search is up to November 2022

PSA screening

• Shared-decision making is recommended when considering people for whom prostate cancer screening would be appropriate and proceed based on a person’s values and preferences.
• When screening for prostate cancer, use PSA as the first screening test
  • Stockholm-3 (STHLM-3) has been evaluated as a first-line screening test for predicting the risk of GG2+ prostate cancers. The STHLM-3 test is a multiplex test combining clinical variables (age, first-degree family history of prostate cancer, and previous biopsy), blood biomarkers (total PSA, free PSA, ratio of free to total PSA, hK2, MIC-1, and MSMB), and a polygenic risk score (PRS). The STHLM-3 test has a higher predictive accuracy compared to PSA alone (area under the curve [AUC] 0.74 versus 0.56) and reduced unnecessary biopsies by 32%.20 While this novel test appears promising, further validation in diverse populations to confirm these findings will be necessary to move forward into practice.
  • PRSs that are based on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are genetic tests used to predict a person’s risk of developing prostate cancer. There is little evidence to mandate which SNP panel or PRS to use and where to threshold risk to create strata with different screening intensities. At the time of this evidence review, no PRS tool has been shown to discriminate between aggressive and indolent prostate cancer risk
• For people with a newly elevated PSA, repeat the PSA prior to to a secondary biomarker, imaging, or biopsy.
  • In people with a newly elevated PSA, it will return to a normal level in 25% to 40% upon retesting.
  • Neither DRE nor bicycle riding appreciably alters the PSA and most controlled studies evaluating ejaculation suggest it either does not significantly impact or modestly increases (~10%) PSA.
  • The half-life of PSA is 2 to 3 days.
  • A repeat PSA in a few months is recommended, though it can be shortened or lengthened depending on other clinical factors.
  • Clinicians should also recognize that urinary tract infections and instrumentation (e.g., recent bladder catheterization, prostate biopsy or cystoscopy, urinary retention) cause transient increases in PSA.
  • PSA elevations in these settings should be repeated after appropriate time periods to allow for PSA to reach baseline level.
  • Most studies identifying age-varying thresholds specify threshold values of 2.5 ng/mL for people in their 40s, 3.5 ng/mL for people in their 50s, 4.5 ng/mL for people in their 60s, and 6.5 ng/mL for people in their 70s.
• May begin prostate cancer screening and offer a baseline PSA test to people between ages 45 to 50 years
  • No randomized evidence showing a benefit to initiation of routine screening for prostate cancer before 45 years of age. The randomized trials that demonstrate a benefit for prostate cancer screening (Goteborg-137 and ERSPC18) began at ages 50 and 55 years, respectively.
• Clinicians should offer prostate cancer screening beginning at age 40 to 45 years for people at increased risk of developing prostate cancer based on the following factors: Black ancestry, germline mutations, strong family history of prostate cancer.
  • Black ancestry
    • This increased risk may be addressed by screening Black patients more frequently (e.g., annually), but the risk of overdiagnosis among older Black patients is considerably higher than the average-risk population,
• Germline mutations
  • Empirical studies have shown patients with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants have increased risks of both disease onset and progression.
    • Stronger association between BRCA2 carriers and aggressive cancer for whom systematic PSA screening is indicated,
      • Biopsy referral threshold 3 ng/mL
  • These patients may benefit from both earlier initiation of PSA screening and shorter intervals between screenings.
• Family history
  • Strong family history criteria
    • 1) people with one brother or father OR two or more male relatives with one of the following: a) diagnosed with prostate cancer at age <60 years; b) any of whom died of prostate cancer; c) any of whom had metastatic prostate cancer.
    • 2) family history of other cancers with two or more cancers in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome spectrum.
    • Patients with a strong family history should ideally be genotyped to ascertain whether this is associated with a pathogenic variant (e.g., BRCA1/2, Lynch Syndrome, ATM, CHEK2) or one or more of a growing set of identified germline DNA damage-repair mutations found in patients with metastatic prostate cancer diagnoses.
• Offer regular prostate cancer screening every 2 to 4 years to people aged 50 to 69 years.
• May personalize the re-screening interval, or decide to discontinue screening, based on patient preference, age, PSA, prostate cancer risk, life expectancy, and general health following SDM.
  • Risk-stratified re-screening intervals and biopsy thresholds may be tailored for select patients
    • The re-screening interval can be 1 to 4 years for patients with PSA levels of 1 to 3 ng/mL between the ages of 45 to 70 years, while the re-screening interval can be prolonged for patients aged 45 to 70 years with a PSA < 1 ng/mL or those with a PSA below the age-specific median.
  • Patients with low PSA
    • Amongst patients 60 years of age with a PSA < 1 ng/mL (age-specific median) it is reasonable to significantly lengthen the re-screening interval or discontinue screening based on SDM provided there are no other risk factors, such as strong family history of prostate cancer.59,
  • Older patients
    • Clinicians may discontinue or substantially lengthen the re-screening interval for patients 75 years of age or older if PSA is < 3 ng/mL.
  • Life expectancy
    • In select patients who are very healthy with an estimated life expectancy of at least ten years, ongoing screening every two to four years is reasonable
    • For patients with less than a ten-year estimated life expectancy, screening is not likely to provide a benefit in terms of disease-specific or overall mortality.
    • Risk calculators have been developed to estimate a patient’s life expectancy
      • Based on current Social Security Administration (SSA) data, American men older than 77 years of age have less than a 10-year life expectancy.
    • For the purpose of estimating life expectancy, the use of these tools is likely more reliable than individual clinician judgment.
    • The Panel notes most studies regarding baseline PSA have been conducted in populations of primarily White patients. The Southern Community Cohort Study (100% Black patients) showed that PSA levels in midlife were similar to those among White controls in prior studies and were strongly associated with risk of aggressive prostate cancer.
    • The use of publicly available decision aids may be helpful in SDM, where available, and are updated to the most current level of evidence.
• DRE may be used alongside PSA to establish risk of clinically significant prostate cancer.
  • The primary screening modality recommended for the early detection of prostate cancer is a PSA blood test. Clinicians should not use DRE as the sole screening method.
  • There is insufficient evidence to support adding DRE to PSA-based prostate cancer screening.
  • For various reasons, clinicians may choose to complement PSA screening with DRE based on SDM; however, the evidence base for this practice is weak.
  • In contrast to a screening application, use of DRE subsequent to the screening encounter may be of value. It has been shown that the greatest utility of DRE in randomized trials is demonstrated in the workup of patients with an elevated PSA. For this reason, among patients with PSA ≥ 2 ng/mL, clinicians should strongly consider supplementary DRE to establish risk of clinically significant prostate cancer. In patients undergoing prostate biopsy for an elevated PSA during screening, abnormal DRE improves the PPV for any prostate cancer and GG2+ detection
• PSA velocity should not be used as sole indication for secondary biomarker, imaging, or a biopsy.
• Clinicians and patients may use validated risk calculators to inform the SDM process regarding prostate biopsy
  • Risk calculators for clinically significant disease
  • PCPT V2 (https://riskcalc.org/ PCPTRC/)
  • ERSPC (https://www.prostatecancerriskcalculator.com)
  • PBCG (https://riskcalc.org/PBCG/)
  • In one study, investigators compared PBCG with PCPT and concluded that PCPT performed better in minority groups.
• When the risk of clinically significant prostate cancer is sufficiently low based on available clinical, laboratory, and imaging data, clinicians and patients may forgo near-term prostate biopsy.

Initial biopsy

• Clinicians should inform patients undergoing a prostate biopsy that there is a risk of identifying a cancer, with a sufficiently low risk of mortality, that could safely be monitored with AS rather than treated
  • A brief pre-biopsy discussion about pathologic findings warranting AS is expected to increase subsequent acceptance of AS by patients and lower rates of treatment
• Clinicians may use MRI prior to initial biopsy to increase the detection of GG2+ prostate cancer
  • Studies have demonstrated the clinical value of mpMRI and using this to guide biopsy decision-making can increase the likelihood of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer while lowering detection of insignificant disease. This is particularly true in patients with a prior negative prostate biopsy; data from patients who are biopsy naïve are less definitive.
  • While some data suggest the benefit of a prebiopsy MRI in biopsy-naïve patients, conflicting reports moderate the enthusiasm for a strong recommendation.
  • It is reasonable to obtain an mpMRI in biopsy-naïve patients prior to their first biopsy, but such a practice cannot be regarded as the standard approach based on the currently available evidence.
• Radiologists should utilize PI-RADS in the reporting of mpMRI imaging.
  • Table 5 summarizes the detection prevalence for any prostate cancer and GG2+ prostate cancer based on the PI-RADS score when studies116-138 identified by the systematic review were pooled. Of the 23 studies, 10 reported on a per lesion analysis117, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 128, 129, 133, 136 and 13 reported on a per patient analysis using an index lesion.
    • PR 1-2 15/7
    • PR 3 25/11
    • PR 4 58/37
    • PR 5 85/70
  • Reader variability remains a challenge,
• For biopsy-naïve patients who have a suspicious lesion on MRI, clinicians should perform targeted biopsies of the suspicious lesion and may also perform a systematic template biopsy.
  • The tradeoff for finding more GG2+ cancer, with adding a systematic biopsy to the target only approach, is that more GG1 cancer will also be diagnosed.
• For patients with both an absence of suspicious findings on MRI and an elevated risk for GG2+ prostate cancer, clinicians should proceed with a systematic biopsy.
  • The negative predictive value (NPV) of a “negative” MRI (defined as PIRADS 1 to 2) to detect GG2+ prostate cancer among biopsy-naïve patients was 91%.156 Thus,  approximately 1 in 10 patients who have a negative prostate MRI may have GG2+ cancer on biopsy,
  • A systematic biopsy should include a minimum of 12 cores
  • Various templates employing these principles exist for transrectal and transperineal approaches.
• Clinicians may use adjunctive urine or serum markers when further risk stratification would influence the decision regarding whether to proceed with biopsy.
  • Several blood and urine markers available alone or in combination to further risk stratify patients with a mildly elevated PSA, typically between 2.5 and 10 ng/mL.
  • The most widely available adjunctive test is percent free PSA. Lower percent free PSA is associated with greater likelihood of identifying prostate cancer on biopsy.
  • Numerous studies have shown that higher PSA density (serum PSA [ng/mL] divided by imaging measures of prostate volume [cc]) is associated with the risk of identifying clinically significant prostate cancer on biopsy
  • the Panel recognizes the continuous nature of risk associated with the spectrum of PSA density values and cautions against use of threshold values in isolation
  • table of available tests for an initial biopsy cohort is summarized (Table 6).
  • Such tests may be of value among patients with modestly elevated PSA tests, especially in patients with a prior negative biopsy in whom PSA alone is not recommended as the sole trigger for rebiopsy.
• For patients with a PSA > 50 ng/mL and no clinical concerns for infection or other cause for increased PSA (e.g., recent prostate instrumentation), clinicians may omit a prostate biopsy in cases where biopsy poses significant risk or where the need for prostate cancer treatment is urgent (e.g., impending spinal cord compression).
  • in situations where biopsy may be risky (e.g., anticoagulation, significant comorbidity, frailty) or delay urgent treatment (e.g., spinal cord compromise from metastases),
  • Imaging to establish extent of disease or confirm metastasis may be helpful if an immediate biopsy is not performed.

Repeat biopsy

• Clinicians should communicate with patients following biopsy to review biopsy results, reassess risk of undetected or future development of GG2+ disease, and mutually decide whether to discontinue screening, continue screening, or perform adjunctive testing for early reassessment of risk.
• Clinicians should not discontinue prostate cancer screening based solely on a negative prostate biopsy.
• After a negative biopsy, clinicians should not solely use a PSA threshold to decide whether to repeat the biopsy.
• If the clinician and patient decide to continue screening after a negative biopsy, clinicians should re-evaluate the patient within the normal screening interval (two to four years) or sooner, depending on risk of clinically significant prostate cancer and life expectancy.
• At the time of re-evaluation after negative biopsy, clinicians should use a risk assessment tool that incorporates the protective effect of prior negative biopsy.
  • PSA level alone should not be used to decide whether to repeat the prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy.
  • If concern remains elevated for GG2+ based on PSA density, previous MRI findings, or other factors, the clinician and patient may consider adjunctive testing (blood, urine, or tissue tests), or MRI (if not previously performed) to further risk stratify the patient and guide further management.
• After a negative initial biopsy in patients with low probability for harboring GG2+ prostate cancer, clinicians should not reflexively perform biomarker testing.
  • In patients with a negative biopsy, with low probability for GG2+ disease, it is unlikely that additional biomarker tests will be informative.
• After a negative biopsy, clinicians may use blood, urine, or tissue-based biomarkers selectively for further risk stratification if results are likely to influence the decision regarding repeat biopsy or otherwise substantively change the patient’s management.
  • ConfirmMDx, the only tissue-based biomarker assessing epigenetic changes in GSTP1, APC, RASSF1 in negative biopsy tissue was developed in the MATLOC study221 and validated in the DOCUMENT222 study to detect any prostate cancer and not specifically for GG2+ disease. Moreover, how to integrate the use of these tests with mpMRI in prostate cancer early detection paradigms is yet to be studied comprehensively.192, 193,
  • It is imperative clinicians are familiar with biomarkers, understand what information or data each test provides, and consider whether additional information will impact management decisions before ordering a test.
• In patients with focal (one core) HGPIN on biopsy, clinicians should not perform immediate repeat biopsy.
  • Contemporary studies indicate a 20% to 30% risk of any cancer detected (not just high-grade) in subsequent biopsies,214, 226-232 which is the same risk following an initial benign biopsy.
• In patients with multifocal HGPIN, clinicians may proceed with additional risk evaluation, guided by PSA/DRE and mpMRI findings.
  • The risk of GG2+ detection in repeat biopsies of patients with multifocal HGPIN is approximately 30%, which is not higher than in those without this finding.
  • A recommendation to repeat a prostate biopsy after HGPIN should be based on PSA and DRE evolution, and mpMRI findings. Due to a lack of data stating otherwise, repeat prostate biopsy should not be recommended solely because of a previous diagnosis of HGPIN, even if multifocal.
• In patients with ASAP, clinicians should perform additional testing.
  • An ASAP finding alone on needle biopsy is associated with a 30% to 50% risk of prostate cancer detection on repeat biopsy,214, 225, 229, 233, 236-243 with approximately 10% to 20% of these being GG2+.
  • Following an ASAP diagnosis, which may include repeat systematic needle biopsy with consideration of mpMRI +/- targeted biopsy, PSA, as well as urine, or serum biomarkers
• In patients with AIP, clinicians should perform additional testing.
  • AIP describes lesions with greater architectural complexity and/or cytologic atypia than would be expected in HGPIN but lacking definitive criteria for the diagnosis of intraductal carcinoma (IDC-P).244-248 AIP encompasses many of the lesions formerly designated cribriform HGPIN, exhibiting loose cribriform architecture with moderate cytologic atypia, but lacking marked pleomorphism or necrosis.
  • Given these associations, a diagnosis of AIP as either the sole finding or together with GG1 cancer only warrants additional testing, which may include early repeat systematic needle biopsy or MRI +/- targeted biopsy. The timing of additional testing should be based on reassessment of risk
• In patients undergoing repeat biopsy with no prior prostate MRI, clinicians should obtain a prostate MRI prior to biopsy.
• In patients with indications for a repeat biopsy who do not have a suspicious lesion on MRI, clinicians may proceed with a systematic biopsy.
  • Factors that may identify patients likely to have clinically significant prostate cancer after a negative biopsy and a negative MRI include a PSA density > 0.15 ng/mL a PHI density value > 0.44 or a PSA velocity of 0.27 ng/mL/year or greater.
• In patients undergoing repeat biopsy and who have a suspicious lesion on MRI, clinicians should perform targeted biopsies of the suspicious lesion and may also perform a systematic template biopsy.
  • While these results suggest a combined biopsy with systematic and targeted cores optimizes cancer yield, such an approach entails obtaining a larger number of cores, which may increase patient discomfort and other biopsy-associated complications,263,
  • Off-target biopsy samples may be influenced by the sampling error associated with software image registration at targeted biopsy.265 Ultimately, the decision to perform systematic sampling in addition to target sampling should be based on an integrated evaluation of MRI factors such as quality and confidence in target presence and clinical factors such as PSA, technique of initial biopsy, and time since prior systematic biopsy.

Biopsy technique

• Clinicians may use software registration of MRI and ultrasound images during fusion biopsy, when available.
  • Targeted prostate biopsy of a visible lesion on mpMRI can be performed using software-based registration of mpMRI images and real-time ultrasound or cognitive registration.
  • 1 RCT266 where software-based registration demonstrated better cancer detection rate (CDR) compared with cognitive registration (33.3% versus 19.0%; p=0.016), both approaches have been shown to have similar CDR in multiple studies,267-270 inclusive of an RCT showing no difference in CDR of software-based versus cognitive fusion or in-bore MRI targeted biopsy.271
  • There are drawbacks, however, to implementing softwarebased fusion biopsy program. There are technical issues (e.g., software bugs, system crashes), operator error, and unusual anatomy (e.g., large prostates, previous transurethral resections of the prostate). Thus, the ability to perform cognitive fusion techniques using anatomic fiducial markers such as intraprostatic cysts may augment software-based fusion approaches in some cases such as to minimize the risk of misregistration. Clinicians who adopt the cognitive fusion technique exclusively should undergo advanced training in MRI interpretation to optimize cancer detection.
• Clinicians should obtain at least two needle biopsy cores per target in patients with suspicious prostate lesion(s) on MRI.
  • The optimal number of biopsy cores per MRI target may differ based on multiple factors including patient characteristics (e.g., age, PSA, biopsy naïve versus prior biopsy), target characteristics (e.g., size, location, PIRADS classification), and biopsy  approach/technique (e.g., software fusion versus cognitive fusion, transrectal versus transperineal).272
  • Tthe incremental value in cancer detection is diminished after obtaining more than three cores per target.273, 274 In patients with a suspicious prostate lesion(s) by MR imaging, at least two needle cores per target provides the most reproducible and accurate cancer detection rate. For prostate cancer risk group stratification, all cores from the same MRI target should be considered as a single core.275
• Clinicians may use either a transrectal or transperineal biopsy route when performing a biopsy.
  • CDRs associated with transrectal versus transperineal biopsy route are not significantly different.158, 276 There is some suggestion that transperineal biopsy may detect anterior and apical cancers at a higher rate; however prospective, randomized data are lacking and existing data are contradictory.277 Recent meta-analyses and retrospective reviews of single center data suggest a lower risk of infection with the transperineal approach; however, prospective, randomized data are lacking to make a definitive conclusion.277-280 Use of transperineal biopsies may have some value in patients who have experienced infectious complications with a prior biopsy, are at higher risk for biopsy-related infection, or have anterior lesions that may not be as easily accessible transrectally.
  • On the other hand, use of transrectal approach may be appropriate in certain situations (e.g., patient preference/comfort, patient cannot be placed into the lithotomy position, clinician training/experience or lack of appropriate equipment for the transperineal approach).

References

• Wei, John T., et al. "Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part I: Prostate Cancer Screening." The Journal of Urology (2023): 10-1097.
• Wei, John T., et al. "Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part II: Considerations for a Prostate Biopsy." The Journal of Urology (2023): 10-1097.