Advertisement

Assessment of men’s risk thresholds to proceed with prostate biopsy for the early detection of prostate cancer

  • Kevin KooEmail author
  • Elias S. Hyams
Urology - Original Paper
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To delineate the range of “risk thresholds” for prostate biopsy to determine how improved prostate cancer (CaP) risk prediction tools may impact shared decision-making (SDM).

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey study involving men 45–75 years old attending a multispecialty urology clinic. Data included demographics, personal and family prostate cancer history, and prostate biopsy history. Respondents were presented with a summary of the details, risks, and benefits of prostate biopsy, then asked to indicate the specific risk threshold (% chance) of high-grade CaP at which they would proceed with prostate biopsy.

Results

Of a total of 103 respondents, 18 men (17%) had a personal history of CaP, and 31 (30%) had undergone prostate biopsy. The median risk threshold to proceed with prostate biopsy was 25% (interquartile range 10–50%). Risk thresholds did not vary by race, education, or employment. Personal history of CaP or prostate biopsy was significantly associated with lower mean risk thresholds (19% vs. 32% [P = 0.02] and 23% vs. 33% [P = 0.04], respectively). In the lowest versus highest risk threshold quartiles, there were significantly higher rates of CaP (36% vs. 1%, P = 0.01) and prior prostate biopsy (46% vs. 17%, P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Men have a wide range of risk thresholds for high-grade CaP to proceed with prostate biopsy. Men with a prior history of CaP or biopsy reported lower risk thresholds, which may reflect their greater concern for this disease. The extent to which refined risk prediction tools will improve SDM warrants further study.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Biopsy Shared decision-making Risk Patient counseling 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

11255_2019_2196_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Carter HB, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, Etzioni R, Freedland SJ, Greene KL et al (2013) Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol 190(2):419–426.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.119 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thompson IM Jr, Leach RJ, Ankerst DP (2014) Focusing PSA testing on detection of high-risk prostate cancers by incorporating patient preferences into decision making. JAMA 312(10):995–996.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.9680 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ankerst DP, Boeck A, Freedland SJ, Jones JS, Cronin AM, Roobol MJ et al (2014) Evaluating the prostate cancer prevention trial high grade prostate cancer risk calculator in ten international biopsy cohorts: results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group. World J Urol 32(1):185–191.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0869-2 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benchikh A, Savage C, Cronin A, Salama G, Villers A, Lilja H et al (2010) A panel of kallikrein markers can predict outcome of prostate biopsy following clinical work-up: an independent validation study from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening, France. BMC Cancer 10:635.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-10-635 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta A, Roobol MJ, Savage CJ, Peltola M, Pettersson K, Scardino PT et al (2010) A four-kallikrein panel for the prediction of repeat prostate biopsy: data from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer screening in Rotterdam, Netherlands. Br J Cancer 103(5):708–714.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605815 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vickers A, Cronin A, Roobol M, Savage C, Peltola M, Pettersson K et al (2010) Reducing unnecessary biopsy during prostate cancer screening using a four-kallikrein panel: an independent replication. J Clin Oncol 28(15):2493–2498.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.1968 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loeb S, Catalona WJ (2014) The Prostate Health Index: a new test for the detection of prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol 6(2):74–77.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287213513488 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nordstrom T, Vickers A, Assel M, Lilja H, Gronberg H, Eklund M (2015) Comparison between the four-kallikrein panel and prostate health index for predicting prostate cancer. Eur Urol 68(1):139–146.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.010 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chiu PK, Roobol MJ, Teoh JY, Lee WM, Yip SY, Hou SM et al (2016) Prostate health index (PHI) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) predictive models for prostate cancer in the Chinese population and the role of digital rectal examination-estimated prostate volume. Int Urol Nephrol 48(10):1631–1637.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-016-1350-8 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ng CF, Chiu PK, Lam NY, Lam HC, Lee KW, Hou SS (2014) The Prostate Health Index in predicting initial prostate biopsy outcomes in Asian men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 4–10 ng/mL. Int Urol Nephrol 46(4):711–717.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0582-0 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alford AV, Brito JM, Yadav KK, Yadav SS, Tewari AK, Renzulli J (2017) The use of biomarkers in prostate cancer screening and treatment. Rev Urol 19(4):221–234.  https://doi.org/10.3909/riu0772 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kornberg Z, Cooperberg MR, Spratt DE, Feng FY (2018) Genomic biomarkers in prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 7(3):459–471.  https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2018.06.02 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kearns JT, Lin DW (2018) Improving the specificity of PSA screening with serum and urine markers. Curr Urol Rep 19(10):80.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0828-6 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eskra JN, Rabizadeh D, Pavlovich CP, Catalona WJ, Luo J (2019) Approaches to urinary detection of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0127-4 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schmid M, Trinh QD, Graefen M, Fisch M, Chun FK, Hansen J (2014) The role of biomarkers in the assessment of prostate cancer risk prior to prostate biopsy: which markers matter and how should they be used? World J Urol 32(4):871–880.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1317-2 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee DJ, Mallin K, Graves AJ, Chang SS, Penson DF, Resnick MJ et al (2017) Recent changes in prostate cancer screening practices and epidemiology. J Urol 198(6):1230–1240.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.05.074 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sayyid RK, Dingar D, Fleshner K, Thorburn T, Diamond J, Yao E et al (2017) What false-negative rates of non-invasive testing are active surveillance patients and uro-oncologists willing to accept in order to avoid prostate biopsy? Can Urol Assoc J 11(3–4):118–122.  https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4182 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roumiguie M, Beauval JB, Bordier B, Filleron T, Rozet F, Ruffion A et al (2015) What risk of prostate cancer led urologist to recommend prostate biopsies? Prog Urol 25(16):1125–1131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2015.08.007 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bioreference Laboratories (2017) 4Kscore results interpretation and test characteristics reference card. https://4kscore.com/4kscore-test-for-physicians/physicians-booklet/. Accessed 5 Feb 2019
  20. 20.
    Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Cornford P, Santis MD, Fanti S et al (2019) EAU guidelines: prostate cancer. https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/#5. Accessed 3 Jun 2019
  21. 21.
    Foley RW, Maweni RM, Gorman L, Murphy K, Lundon DJ, Durkan G et al (2016) European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators significantly outperform the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int 118(5):706–713.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13437 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Loeb S, Shin SS, Broyles DL, Wei JT, Sanda M, Klee G et al (2017) Prostate Health Index improves multivariable risk prediction of aggressive prostate cancer. BJU Int 120(1):61–68.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13676 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dijkstra S, Govers TM, Hendriks RJ, Schalken JA, Van Criekinge W, Van Neste L et al (2017) Cost-effectiveness of a new urinary biomarker-based risk score compared to standard of care in prostate cancer diagnostics—a decision analytical model. BJU Int 120(5):659–665.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13861 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Voigt JD, Dong Y, Linder V, Zappala S (2017) Use of the 4Kscore test to predict the risk of aggressive prostate cancer prior to prostate biopsy: overall cost savings and improved quality of care to the us healthcare system. Rev Urol 19(1):1–10Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koo K, Brackett CD, Eisenberg EH, Kieffer KA, Hyams ES (2017) Impact of numeracy on understanding of prostate cancer risk reduction in PSA screening. PLoS One 12(12):e0190357.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190357 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gokce MI, Wang X, Frost J, Roberson P, Volk RJ, Brooks D et al (2017) Informed decision making before prostate-specific antigen screening: initial results using the American Cancer Society (ACS) Decision Aid (DA) among medically underserved men. Cancer 123(4):583–591.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30367 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Arterburn D, Wellman R, Westbrook EO, Ross TR, McCulloch D, Handley M et al (2015) Decision aids for benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer. Am J Manag Care 21(2):e130–e140Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Holmes-Rovner M, Montgomery JS, Rovner DR, Scherer LD, Whitfield J, Kahn VC et al (2015) Informed decision making: assessment of the quality of physician communication about prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Med Decis Making 35(8):999–1009.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15597226 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huntley JH, Coley RY, Carter HB, Radhakrishnan A, Krakow M, Pollack CE (2018) Clinical evaluation of an individualized risk prediction tool for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Urology 121:118–124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.021 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Urology, Department of SurgeryDartmouth-Hitchcock Medical CenterLebanonUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations