Background: In May 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force assigned prostate-specific antigen-based screening a grade D recommendation, advising against screening at any age. Our objective was to compare prostate cancer characteristics pre- and post-recommendation with an adjusted analysis of our data and a pooled analysis including other primary data sources. Methods: We identified all incident prostate cancer diagnoses at our institution from 2007 to 2016. Multivariable log binomial regression was used to determine the relative risk (RR) of metastasis at diagnosis, ≥Gleason Group 4, and high D’Amico risk disease pre- versus post-recommendation. The meta-analysis included primary data studies evaluating these outcomes. Results: At our institution, 287 (44.6%) and 224 (48.8%) patients were diagnosed in the pre- and post-cohorts. The RR of metastatic disease at diagnosis did not differ between groups (p = 0.224), nor did the risk of high D’Amico category disease (p = 0.089). The risk of ≥Gleason Group 4 was 1.58 times higher post-recommendation (p = 0.007). The pooled risk of ≥Gleason Group 4 disease was 1.5 (p < 0.001) post-recommendation and was 1.29 (p = 0.006) for high D’Amico risk disease. Conclusions: While the number of metastatic cases did not differ after the recommendation, the risk of high-grade cancers increased at both a local and aggregated level.

1.
Wilt
TJ
,
Brawer
MK
,
Jones
KM
,
Barry
MJ
,
Aronson
WJ
,
Fox
S
, et al.
Words of wisdom: re: radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer
.
Eur Urol
.
2012
:
63
(
4
):
767
8
.
2.
Hamdy
FC
,
Donovan
JL
,
Lane
JA
,
Mason
M
,
Metcalfe
C
,
Holding
P
, et al.
10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer
.
N Engl J Med
.
2016
:
375
(
15
):
1415
24
.
3.
Moyer
VA
.
Screening for HIV: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2012
;
159
(
1
):
51
60
.
4.
Drazer
MW
,
Huo
D
,
Eggener
SE
.
National prostate cancer screening rates after the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation discouraging prostate-specific antigen-based screening
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2015
;
33
(
22
):
2416
23
.
5.
Li
J
,
Berkowitz
Z
,
Hall
IJ
.
Decrease in prostate cancer testing following the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations
.
J Am Board Fam Med
.
2015
;
28
(
4
):
491
3
.
6.
Shoag
J
,
Halpern
JA
,
Lee
DJ
,
Mittal
S
,
Ballman
KV
,
Barbieri
CE
, et al.
Decline in prostate cancer screening by primary care physicians: an analysis of trends in the use of digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen testing
.
J Urol
.
2016
;
196
(
4
):
1047
52
.
7.
Draft recommendation statement: prostate cancer: screening: US Preventive Services Task Force. 2017. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-recommendation-statement/prostate-cancer-screening1
.
8.
D’Amico
AV
,
Whittington
R
,
Malkowicz
SB
,
Schultz
D
,
Blank
K
,
Broderick
GA
, et al.
Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer
.
JAMA
.
1998
;
280
(
11
):
969
74
.
9.
Mathieu
R
,
Moschini
M
,
Beyer
B
,
Gust
KM
,
Seisen
T
,
Briganti
A
, et al.
Prognostic value of the new grade groups in prostate cancer: a multi-institutional European validation study
.
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
.
2017
;
20
(
2
):
197
202
.
10.
Pannek
J
,
Marks
LS
,
Pearson
JD
,
Rittenhouse
HG
,
Chan
DW
,
Shery
ED
, et al.
Influence of finasteride on free and total serum prostate specific antigen levels in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia
.
J Urol
.
1998
;
159
(
2
):
449
53
.
11.
Fleshner
K
,
Carlsson
SV
,
Roobol
MJ
.
The effect of the USPSTF PSA screening recommendation on prostate cancer incidence patterns in the USA
.
Nat Rev Urol
.
2016
;
14
(
1
):
26
37
.
12.
Lee
DJ
,
Mallin
K
,
Graves
AJ
,
Chang
SS
,
Penson
DF
,
Resnick
MJ
, et al.
Recent changes in prostate cancer screening practices and epidemiology
.
J Urol
.
2017
;
198
(
6
):
1230
40
.
13.
Dersimonian
R
,
Laird
N
.
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
.
Controlled Clin Trials
.
1986
;
7
(
3
):
177
88
.
14.
Liberati
A
,
Altman
DG
,
Tetzlaff
J
,
Mulrow
C
,
Gøtzsche
PC
,
Ioannidis
JP
, et al.
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
.
BMJ
.
2009 Jul 21
;
339
:
b2700
.
15.
Banerji
JS
,
Wolff
EM
,
Massman
JD
,
Odem-Davis
K
,
Porter
CR
,
Corman
JM
.
Prostate needle biopsy outcomes in the era of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against prostate specific antigen based screening
.
J Urol
.
2016
;
195
(
1
):
66
73
.
16.
Bhindi
B
,
Mamdani
M
,
Kulkarni
GS
,
Finelli
A
,
Hamilton
RJ
,
Trachtenberg
J
, et al.
Impact of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against prostate specific antigen screening on prostate biopsy and cancer detection rates
.
J Urol
.
2015
;
193
(
5
):
1519
24
.
17.
Perez
TY
,
Danzig
MR
,
Ghandour
RA
,
Badani
KK
,
Benson
MC
,
McKiernan
JM
.
Impact of the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force statement on prostate-specific antigen screening: analysis of urologic and primary care practices
.
Urology
.
2015
;
85
(
1
):
85
9
.
18.
Gejerman
G
,
Ciccone
P
,
Goldstein
M
,
Lanteri
V
,
Schlecker
B
,
Sanzone
J
, et al.
PD09-03 USPSTF PSA screening guidelines result in higher Gleason score diagnoses
.
J Urol
.
2016
;
195
(
4S
):
e234
5
.
19.
Khusid
JA
,
Inoyatov
I
,
Beccera
A
,
Hyacinthe
L
,
McNeil
BK
,
Winer
AG
.
PD40-10 effects of the 2012 USPSTF PSA screening recommendations on prostate biopsy practices in an inner city hospital with a high risk patient population
.
J Urol
.
2017
;
197
(
4S
):
e753
4
.
20.
Barocas
DA
,
Alvarez
J
,
Resnick
MJ
,
Koyama
T
,
Hoffman
KE
,
Tyson
MD
, et al.
Association between radiation therapy, surgery, or observation for localized prostate cancer and patient-reported outcomes after 3 years
.
JAMA
.
2017
;
317
(
11
):
1126
40
.
21.
Albertsen
PC
,
Hanley
JA
,
Fine
J
.
20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer
.
JAMA
.
2013
;
293
(
17
):
2095
101
.
22.
Antunes
AA
,
Srougi
M
,
Dall’Oglio
MF
,
Crippa
A
,
Campagnari
JC
,
Leite
KR
.
The percentage of positive biopsy cores as a predictor of disease recurrence in patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy
.
BJU Int
.
2005
;
96
(
9
):
1258
63
.
23.
Spalding
AC
,
Daignault
S
,
Sandler
HM
,
Shah
RB
,
Pan
CC
,
Ray
ME
.
Percent positive biopsy cores as a prognostic factor for prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation
.
Urology
.
2007
;
69
(
5
):
936
40
.
24.
Barocas
DA
,
Mallin
K
,
Graves
AJ
,
Penson
DF
,
Palis
B
,
Winchester
DP
, et al.
Effect of the USPSTF grade D recommendation against screening for prostate cancer on incident prostate cancer diagnoses in the United States
.
J Urol
.
2015
;
194
(
6
):
1587
93
.
25.
Herget
KA
,
Patel
DP
,
Hanson
HA
,
Sweeney
C
,
Lowrance
WT
.
Recent decline in prostate cancer incidence in the United States, by age, stage, and Gleason score
.
Cancer Med
.
2016
;
5
(
1
):
136
41
.
26.
Gaylis
F
,
Choi
J
,
Dato
P
,
Prime
H
,
Calabrese
R
,
Cohen
E
, et al.
MP09-06 the change in prostate cancer presentation and diagnosis coinciding with screening recommendations
.
J Urol
.
2016
;
195
(
4S
):
e95
6
.
27.
Gulati
R
,
Tsodikov
A
,
Etzioni
R
,
Hunter-Merrill
RA
,
Gore
JL
,
Mariotto
AB
, et al.
Expected population impacts of discontinued prostate-specific antigen screening
.
Cancer
.
2015
;
120
(
22
):
3519
26
.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.