Prostate cancer screening has presented a challenge to clinicians. Although the implementation of screening tests such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal exam (DRE) has had a significant impact on prostate-cancer-specific mortality, these traditional screening tests have a relatively poor positive predictive value of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC), leading to unnecessary biopsies and treatment with a host of potential complications. Fortunately, much research has been done to optimize prostate cancer screening. This includes the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, which underwent a secondary analysis to identify an association between PSA level and CSPC, and the IP1-PROSTAGRAM Tri
FentonJJWeyrichMSDurbinS, et al. Prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer: evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA2018; 319: 1914–1931.
3.
LillardJWMosesKAMahalBA, et al. Racial disparities in Black men with prostate cancer: a literature review. Cancer2022; 128: 3787–3795.
4.
KicińskiMVangronsveldJNawrotTS.An epidemiological reappraisal of the familial aggregation of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One2011; 6: e27130.
BokhorstLPZhuXBulM, et al. Positive predictive value of prostate biopsy indicated by prostate-specific-antigen-based prostate cancer screening: trends over time in a European randomized trial. BJU Int2012; 110: 1654–1660.
8.
CarrollPRParsonsJKAndrioleG, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines prostate cancer early detection, version 2. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw2015; 13: 1534–1561.
9.
GrossmanDCCurrySJOwensDK, et al. Screening for Prostate Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA2018; 319(18): 1901–1913. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.3710.
10.
MontorsiFGandagliaGSaloniaA, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA/SUO guideline. Letter. J Urol2023; 210: 731–732.
11.
QaseemABarryMJDenbergTD, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a guidance statement from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med2013; 158: 761–769.
12.
CornfordPvan den BerghRCNBriersE, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2024 update. Eur Urol2024; 86: 148–163.
13.
AlpertPF.New evidence for the benefit of prostate-specific antigen screening: data from 400,887 Kaiser Permanente Patients. Urology2018; 118: 119–126.
14.
MerrielSWDPocockLGilbertE, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection of prostate cancer in symptomatic patients. BMC Med2022; 20: 54.
15.
von EschenbachAHoRMurphyGP, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 1997. CA Cancer J Clin1997; 47: 261–264.
16.
CrawfordEDMoulJWRoveKO, et al. Prostate-specific antigen 1.5-4.0 ng/mL: a diagnostic challenge and danger zone. BJU Int2011; 108: 1743–1749.
17.
KovacECarlssonSVLiljaH, et al. Association of baseline prostate-specific antigen level with long-term diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer among patients aged 55 to 60 years: a secondary analysis of a cohort in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. JAMA Netw Open2020; 3: e1919284.
18.
HalpernJAOromendiaCShoagJE, et al. Use of digital rectal examination as an adjunct to prostate specific antigen in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol2018; 199: 947–953.
19.
GeorgeAKPintoPARais-BahramiS.Multiparametric MRI in the PSA screening era. Biomed Res Int2014; 2014: 465816.
20.
Magi-GalluzziCMontironiREpsteinJI. Contemporary Gleason grading and novel Grade Groups in clinical practice. Curr Opin Urol2016; 26(5): 488–492. doi:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000320
21.
CarterHBPartinAWWalshPC, et al. Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer?J Clin Oncol2012; 30: 4294–4296.
22.
LitwinMSTanHJ.The diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: a review. JAMA2017; 317: 2532–2542.
23.
EfesoyOBozluMÇayanS, et al. Complications of transrectal ultrasound-guided 12-core prostate biopsy: a single center experience with 2049 patients. Turk J Urol2013; 39: 6–11.
24.
ŻurowskaAPęksaRBieńkowskiM, et al. Prostate cancer and its mimics—a pictorial review. Cancers (Basel)2023; 15: 3682.
25.
ParkBKTurkbeyBRosenkratzA, et al. 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1. Eur Urol2019; 76: e78.
26.
VillersAPuechPMoutonD, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol2006; 176(6 Pt 1): 2432–2437.
27.
KasivisvanathanVRannikkoASBorghiM, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med2018; 378: 1767–1777.
28.
Eldred-EvansDTamHSokhiH, et al. An evaluation of screening pathways using a combination of magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen: results from the IP1-PROSTAGRAM Study. Eur Urol Oncol2023; 6: 295–302.
29.
WürnschimmelCChandrasekarTHahnL, et al. MRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer: current evidence and future challenges. World J Urol2023; 41: 921–928.
30.
BrantAWuXPruntyM, et al. Variability of prostate MRI charges among U.S. hospital-based facilities. AJR Am J Roentgenol2023; 220: 441–442.
31.
JamborIVerhoJEttalaO, et al. Validation of IMPROD biparametric MRI in men with clinically suspected prostate cancer: a prospective multi-institutional trial. PLoS Med2019; 16: e1002813.
32.
YunHKimJGandheA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of annual prostate MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy after prostate-specific antigen test results. JAMA Netw Open2023; 6: e2344856.
