Prostate Cancer Screening Recommendations Research Articles

Prostate-specific antigen testing patterns and prostate cancer stage at diagnosis in older Ohio cancer patients.

Prostate cancer (PCa) screening recommendations do not support prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for older men. Such screening often occurs, however. It is, therefore, important to understand how frequently and among which subgroups screening occurs, and the extent of distant stage PCa diagnoses among screened older men. Using the 2014-2016 linked Ohio Cancer Incidence Surveillance System (OCISS) and Medicare administrative database, we identified men 68 and older diagnosed with PCa and categorized their PSA testing in the three years preceding diagnosis as screening or diagnostic. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify correlates of screening PSA and to determine whether screening PSA is independently associated with distant stage disease. Our study population included 3034 patients (median age: 73years). 62.1% of PCa patients underwent at least one screening-based PSA in the three years preceding diagnosis. Older age (75-84years: aOR [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.71, 0.99], ≥ 85: aOR: 0.27 [0.19, 0.38]), and frailty (aOR: 0.51 [0.37, 0.71]) were associated with lower screening. Screening was associated with decreased odds of distant stage disease (aOR: 0.55 [0.42, 0.71]). However, older age (75-84years: aOR: 2.43 [1.82, 3.25], ≥ 85: aOR: 10.57 [7.05, 15.85]), frailty (aOR: 5.00 [2.78, 9.31]), and being separated or divorced (aOR: 1.64 [1.01, 2.60]) were associated with increased distant stage PCa. PSA screening in older men is common, though providers appear to curtail PSA screening as age and frailty increase. Screened older men are diagnosed at earlier stages, but the harms of screening cannot be assessed.

PE031 The impact of 2012 and 2016 PSA-based prostate cancer screening recommendations on tumor volume, positive surgical margins, and pathological stage

PE031 The impact of 2012 and 2016 PSA-based prostate cancer screening recommendations on tumor volume, positive surgical margins, and pathological stage

Adequacy of prostate cancer prevention and screening recommendations provided by an artificial intelligence-powered large language model.

We aimed to assess the appropriateness of ChatGPT in providing answers related to prostate cancer (PCa) screening, comparing GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. A committee of five reviewers designed 30 questions related to PCa screening, categorized into three difficulty levels. The questions were formulated identically for both GPTs three times, varying the prompts. Each reviewer assigned a score for accuracy, clarity, and conciseness. The readability was assessed by the Flesch Kincaid Grade (FKG) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE). The mean scores were extracted and compared using the Wilcoxon test. We compared the readability across the three different prompts by ANOVA. In GPT-3.5 the mean score (SD) for accuracy, clarity, and conciseness was 1.5 (0.59), 1.7 (0.45), 1.7 (0.49), respectively for easy questions; 1.3 (0.67), 1.6 (0.69), 1.3 (0.65) for medium; 1.3 (0.62), 1.6 (0.56), 1.4 (0.56) for hard. In GPT-4 was 2.0 (0), 2.0 (0), 2.0 (0.14), respectively for easy questions; 1.7 (0.66), 1.8 (0.61), 1.7 (0.64) for medium; 2.0 (0.24), 1.8 (0.37), 1.9 (0.27) for hard. GPT-4 performed better for all three qualities and difficulty levels than GPT-3.5. The FKG mean for GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 answers were 12.8 (1.75) and 10.8 (1.72), respectively; the FRE for GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 was 37.3 (9.65) and 47.6 (9.88), respectively. The 2nd prompt has achieved better results in terms of clarity (all p < 0.05). GPT-4 displayed superior accuracy, clarity, conciseness, and readability than GPT-3.5. Though prompts influenced the quality response in both GPTs, their impact was significant only for clarity.

Abstract A008: Addressing medical distrust among African Americans and adherence to cancer screening recommendations during COVID-19

Abstract Cancer is a leading cause of death in the United States especially among racial and ethnic minorities, and other medically underserved populations. Cancer disparities are an important public health issue with health communication implications particularly for African Americans. African Americans have the highest mortality rate and shortest survival rate for most cancers. Reducing the cancer burden depends on early detection through preventative screening and addressing social determinants of health that drive cancer health inequities. Despite the evidence that adherence to providers’ recommendation of cancer screening guidelines decreases incidence and mortality rates, participation in cancer screening remain low among African Americans due to social and economic factors. The reasons for cancer-related health disparities are multifactorial and encompass physician and patient barriers. Medical distrust has emerged as a significant issue impacting cancer prevention especially during the coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) pandemic. Mistrust of the medical and research communities reflects the history of abuse and discrimination in the U.S., and has resulted in disparate health outcomes, as well as less frequent use of preventive health services. It is critical that populations at increased cancer risk have access to trusted, credible cancer health information and medical services to promote adherence to screening recommendations. To address this need, this cross-sectional study will examine the patient-provider communication practices among African American adults receiving primary care in the District of Columbia and their adherence to breast, cervical, colon and prostate cancer screening recommendations during the COVID era. The study is guided by an understanding of the social determinants of health. Specifically, the study will examine the relationship of trust, structural racism, and religiosity on cancer prevention behavior. The project will describe the perceptions of health inequities within the healthcare system and trust in cancer information sources that influence cancer screening behaviors among African Americans. This project is relevant to the reduction of cancer disparities and cancer prevention for African Americans. Patient-provider communication is a known barrier and facilitator of cancer screening behavior where an awareness of historical distrust of medical institutions, systemic racism, and religiosity are important factors in providing culturally appropriate care. The results of this pilot project will be used to inform best practices for patient-provider communication for cancer prevention. Findings will be used to develop culturally tailored interventions to promote compliance for cancer screening during the COVID era and beyond. Citation Format: Finie Hunter-Richardson, Pamela L. Carter-Nolan, Carla D. Williams, Mark S. Johnson. Addressing medical distrust among African Americans and adherence to cancer screening recommendations during COVID-19 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr A008.

Latin America and the Caribbean Code Against Cancer 1st Edition: Medical interventions including hormone replacement therapy and cancer screening

Prostate, breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung cancers are the leading cause of cancer in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) accounting for nearly 50% of cancer cases and cancer deaths in the region. Following the IARC Code Against Cancer methodology, a group of Latin American experts evaluated the evidence on several medical interventions to reduce cancer incidence and mortality considering the cancer burden in the region. A recommendation to limit the use of HRT was issued based on the risk associated to develop breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer and on growing concerns related to the over-the-counter and without prescription sales, which in turn bias estimations on current use in LAC. In alignment with WHO breast and cervical cancer initiatives, biennial screening by clinical breast examination (performed by trained health professionals) from the age of 40 years and biennial screening by mammography from the age of 50 years to 74, as well as cervical screening by HPV testing (either self-sampling or provider-sampling) every 5–10 years for women aged 30–64 years, were recommended. The steadily increasing rates of colorectal cancer in LAC also led to recommend colorectal screening by occult blood testing every two years or by endoscopic examination of the colorectum every 10 years for both men and women aged 50–74 years. After evaluating the evidence, the experts decided not to issue recommendations for prostate and lung cancer screening; while there was insufficient evidence on prostate cancer mortality reduction by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, there was evidence of mortality reduction by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) targeting high-risk individuals (mainly heavy and/or long-term smokers) but not individuals with average risk to whom recommendations of this Code are directed. Finally, the group of experts adapted the gathered evidence to develop a competency-based online microlearning program for building cancer prevention capacity of primary care health professionals.

Trends in prostate cancer incidence among Black men in the Caribbean and the United States.

Prostate cancer incidence is highest for Black men of the African diaspora in the United States and Caribbean. Recent changes in recommendations for prostate cancer screening have been shown to decrease overall prostate cancer incidence and increase the likelihood of late stage disease. However, it is unclear how trends in prostate cancer characteristics among high risk Black men differ by geographic region during the changes in screening recommendations. In this study, we used population-based prostate cancer registry data to describe age-adjusted prostate cancer incidence trends from 2008 to 2015 among Black men from six geographic regions. We obtained data on incident Black prostate cancer patients from six cancer registries (in the United States: Florida, Alabama, Pennsylvania, and New York; and in the Caribbean: Guadeloupe and Martinique). After age standardization, we used descriptive analyses to compare the demographics and tumor characteristics by cancer registry site. The Joinpoint regression program was used to compare the trends in incidence by site. A total of 59,246 men were analyzed. We found the highest incidence rates (per 100,000) for prostate cancer in the Caribbean countries (181.99 in Martinique and 176.62 in Guadeloupe) and New York state (178.74). Incidence trends decreased significantly over time at all sites except Martinique, which also showed significantly increasing rates of late stage (III/IV) and Gleason score 7+ tumors. We observed significant differences in prostate cancer incidence trends among Black men after major changes prostate screening recommendations. Future studies will examine the factors that differentially influence prostate cancer trends among the African diaspora.

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part II: Considerations for a Prostate Biopsy.

The summary presented herein covers recommendations on the early detection of prostate cancer and provides a framework to facilitate clinical decision-making in the implementation of prostate cancer screening, biopsy, and follow-up. This is Part II of a two-part series focusing on initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. Please refer to Part I for discussion of initial prostate cancer screening recommendations. The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. The systematic review was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1, 2000-November 21, 2022). Searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. The Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance in prostate cancer screening, initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. The evaluation of prostate cancer risk should be focused on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (Grade Group 2 or higher [GG2+]). The use of laboratory biomarkers, prostate MRI, and biopsy techniques described herein may improve detection and safety when a prostate biopsy is deemed necessary following prostate cancer screening.

Recommendations for Prostate Cancer Screening in Europe

FOR the first time, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening has been included in the Screening Recommendations published by the European Commission (EC). A series of presentations and discussions were held at the European Association of Urology (EAU) 2023 Congress in Milan, Italy, on how European Union (EU) member states should swiftly implement these recommendations in their own populations. Emphasis was placed on raising awareness and promoting risk stratification before biopsy to reduce overdiagnosis.

Accuracy of prostate cancer screening recommendations for high-risk populations on YouTube and TikTok.

This study aimed to evaluate content quality and racial/ethnic representation, particularly of high-risk cohorts, of prostate cancer screening videos on YouTube (YT) and TikTok (TK). The top 50 videos populated for the search term 'prostate cancer screening' on YT and TK that met inclusion criteria were retrieved in a cache-cleared browser. Three reviewers analysed all videos using validated criteria for the quality of consumer health information (DISCERN and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool [PEMAT]). High quality was defined as follows: DISCERN ≥ 4, PEMAT understandability ≥75% and PEMAT actionability ≥75%. A 5-point Likert scale was used to demonstrate the level of misinformation compared to American Urological Association and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Perceived race and ethnicity of people in the videos were assessed by consensus approach. TK videos were shorter (median 3.7 vs. 0.5 min, p < 0.001) and had more views per month (5437.5 vs. 19.3, p = 0.03) than YT videos. Perceived Black and Hispanic representation was present in 10% and 6% of YT videos and 20% and 12% of TK videos, respectively. High-risk racial/ethnic groups were explicitly discussed in 46% of YT videos and 8% of TK videos. A total of 98% of YT videos and 100% of TK videos had low- to moderate-quality consumer health information, and 88% of YT videos and 100% of TK videos had moderate to high levels of misinformation based on screening guidelines. YT and TK videos about prostate cancer screening are widely viewed but do not provide quality consumer health information. Black and Hispanic men remain under-represented on both platforms, and high-risk racial groups were not discussed in most videos despite the importance for screening criteria. The low understandability and actionability, significant misinformation and lack of diversity in online videos support the need for higher quality videos with adequate attention to high-risk ethnic cohorts.

Comparison of US Cancer Center Recommendations for Prostate Cancer Screening With Evidence-Based Guidelines

Comparison of US Cancer Center Recommendations for Prostate Cancer Screening With Evidence-Based Guidelines

Abrogation of survival disparity between insured and uninsured individuals after the USPSTF's 2012 prostate-specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening recommendation.

77 Background: In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer. Studies have found that insured patients with prostate cancer have better outcomes than uninsured patients. We examined the recommendation’s effects on survival disparities based on insurance status as well as socioeconomic quintile, marital status, and housing (urban/rural). Methods: Using the SEER18 database, we examined prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) based on diagnostic time period and one of four factors: insurance status, socioeconomic quintile, marital status, and housing (urban/rural). The SEER-designated socioeconomic quintile was based on variables including median household income and education index. Patients were designated as belonging to the pre-USPSTF era if diagnosed in 2010-2012 or post-USPSTF era if diagnosed in 2014-2016. Disparities were measured with the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: We identified 282,994 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer. During the pre-USPSTF era, uninsured patients experienced worse PCSS compared to insured patients (adjusted HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06-1.58, p = 0.01). This survival disparity narrowed during the post-USPSTF era as a result of decreased PCSS among insured patients combined with unchanged PCSS among uninsured patients. Moreover, the survival disparity was no longer observed during the post-USPSTF era (aHR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61-1.38, p = 0.67). The survival disparity based on socioeconomic quintile also narrowed but remained significant. In contrast, the survival disparity based on marital status widened, while housing status was not associated with survival disparities in either era. Conclusions: From the pre- to the post-USPSTF era, insured patients with prostate cancer observed a significant decrease in survival that made their survival outcomes similar to that of uninsured patients. Although the underlying reasons are not clear, the USPSTF’s 2012 PSA screening recommendation may have hindered insured patients from being regularly screened for prostate cancer and selectively led to worse outcomes for insured patients without improving the survival of uninsured patients.[Table: see text]

Brazilian Survey on Preventive Actions for the Population With Access to Primary Healthcare: Inefficient Spending in a Country in Economic Crisis.

Cancer ranks second as a cause of death in Brazil. Although preventive practices are part of the daily routine of primary healthcare (PHC) teams, organized screening programs are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the adequacy of preventive interventions in the main cancer types, as defined by the Brazilian government. We analyzed cross-sectional data from a larger project conducted in 2016 with PHC service users and physicians from all over Brazil, interviewed by trained research staff. The sample was stratified by the number of PHC physicians per geographic region, who were eligible for inclusion if they had been working in the same PHC unit for at least one year. Twelve adult patients with at least two encounters were included per participating physician. Only the data from service users were analyzed in this study. We evaluated the questions about preventive practices and calculated the following indicators: coverage, focus, screening errors, and screening ratio. National guidelines and international evidence were used as a comparison parameter. The study population consisted of 6160 service users. The data indicate that the recommendations for cervical, breast, and prostate cancer screening and for treatment of tobacco dependence are not adequately followed. Coverage for breast and cervical cancer screening presented an overutilization bias, with rates 50% and 9% above the expected, respectively. The screening focus was also inadequate: 24%, 47%, and 54% of the screening tests for the three cancer types were performed in individuals outside the recommended age range. 31% of smokers were not approached for treatment. These findings indicate that the Brazilian population has been subjected to inadequate and potentially iatrogenic interventions in PHC. New policies based on stricter criteria of adequacy and increased use of the concept of quaternary prevention may improve the effectiveness and equity of the health system.

Reductions in cancer screening: The consequence of changes in routine care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

10550 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic imposes significant impact on daily activities with regard to public health orders and individual responses to the pandemic. Much of the direct or indirect impact is potentially in reductions in healthcare encounters for services such as preventive care. Here, we quantified changes in cancer screening rates to better understand the impact of the evolving COVID-19 implications and shifts in health-seeking behaviors. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of cancer screening rates during March-June 2019 (pre-COVID-19) and March-June 2020 (post-COVID-19 restrictions), using Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database which includes Medicare and commercially insured members. Members meeting age and/or sex criteria as detailed in the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, and cervical cancer screening represented the eligible membership for screening. Procedure and laboratory services were used to identify those who received cancer screening. Analyses were conducted cross-sectionally by cancer screening type. Results: Eligible cohorts were identified from insured members within March-June 2019 and 2020 (2019: 17,931,318; 2020: 17,521,411). The percent of eligible members screened in March-June 2019 was 19.3%, 9.4%, 16.7%, 0.4%, and 7.8% for breast, cervical, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Changes in screening rates from 2019 to 2020 are summarized in Table, with the sharpest decline in April. The percent change from 2019 to 2020 during the combined March-June period for each cancer screening type was statistically significant (p&lt;0.0001). Conclusions: Routine cancer screening rates from March-June 2020 showed meaningful reductions when compared to the same period in 2019, with substantial declines during the initial peak of the pandemic in April. These declines may be impacted by variations in regional restrictions with tighter restrictions leading to larger screening declines and loosening restrictions reflecting catch-up screening. Efforts to promote cancer screening in a safe and timely manner are crucial given individual risk factors, to reduce later stage cancer diagnoses and improve clinical outcomes.[Table: see text]

Prostate Cancer Screening Recommendations for General and Specific Populations in the Western Nations

There is a chaotic scenario that exists in the field of prostate cancer (PCa) screening. To balance goals, such as decreasing mortality, avoiding unnecessary procedures, and decreasing the cost of medical care, the pendulum seems to have swung to the side of more restricted screening. The decrease in PCa screening has led to a slowly creeping decline in the favourable outcomes that existed among patients with PCa. If a potential patient or a family member is trying to get clear guidance about PCa screening by searching the internet, they will end up confused by several recommendations from many organisations. It is even more challenging to obtain any clarity about PCa screening for special populations, such as those with a family history of PCa, those of African descent/African Americans, and the elderly. The advent of genomic medicine and precision medicine is an opportunity to identify those at a very high risk of developing aggressive PCa, so that PCa screening can be more actively undertaken among them. In this paper, the authors review the current recommendations by different entities and summarise emerging molecular markers that may help bring clarity to PCa screening. The authors predict that concrete, consensual guidelines will emerge in less than one decade. Meanwhile, this article suggests intermediary steps that will help save lives from PCa mortality, especially for under-represented populations. This paper is a catalyst to stimulate further discussion and serves as a guide to noncancer-specialists for the near future as precision medicine progresses to better understand risk–benefit and cost–benefit ratios in PCa screening.

Associations of Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Testing in the US Population: Results from a National Cross-Sectional Survey.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is one of the standard screening methods for prostate cancer (PC); however, a high proportion of men with abnormal PSA findings lack evidence for PC and may undergo unnecessary treatment. Furthermore, little is known about the prevalence of PSA testing for US men, after the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine PSA screening in 2012. Our objectives were to: (1) examine the self-reported patterns of PSA testing following a change in the USPSTF prostate cancer screening recommendations and (2) to determine the associated socio-demographic factors. Data were from the 2010 and 2015 National Health Interview Surveys. Men were ages ≥ 40years and responded to the question "Ever had a PSA test?". Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine PSA testing prevalence in 2010 and 2015, and their associated socio-demographic factors. The analytic sample contained 15,372 men. A majority (75.2%) identified as non-Hispanic (NHW) and 14.2% were foreign-born. Those surveyed in 2015 were less likely to report ever having had a PSA test when compared to those in 2010. Compared to US-born and older NHW men, PSA testing was statistically significantly lower among foreign-born men and men belonging to all other racial categories. Fewer men reported PSA testing following the USPSTF 2012 recommendations. Associated socio-demographic factors included nativity, age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment and type of health insurance. Further studies are required to elucidate our findings and their health implications for the US native and foreign-born population.

Abrogation of survival disparity between Black and White individuals after the USPSTF's 2012 prostate-specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening recommendation.

In May 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa), assigning it a grade D. This decision then was modified in 2018 to a grade C for men aged 55 to 69 years. The authors hypothesized that changes in screening practices would reduce survival outcomes for both Black and White men but maintain racial discrepancies in outcomes. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, the authors examined PCa-specific survival based on race and year of diagnosis. The period between January 2010 and December 2012 was categorized as the pre-USPSTF era, whereas the period between January 2014 and December 2016 was classified as the post-USPSTF era. The year 2013 was considered the transition year and was excluded from the analysis. A total of 49,388 men were identified in the pre-USPSTF era who were diagnosed with PCa, approximately 83.7% of whom were White and 16.3% of whom were Black. In the post-USPSTF era, a total of 41,829 men were diagnosed with PCa, approximately 82.7% of whom were White and 17.3% of whom were Black. When compared with the pre-USPSTF era, men diagnosed in the post-USPSTF era were found to have more adverse clinical features. In the pre-USPSTF era, White men were less likely to die of PCa than Black men. This survival disparity between White and Black men was no longer observed in the post-USPSTF era. In men diagnosed with PCa between 2014 and 2016, a survival disparity between White and Black men was not observed due to a decrease in survival among White men while the survival of Black men remained steady.

Risk of invasive prostate cancer and prostate cancer death in relatives of patients with prostatic borderline or in situ neoplasia: A nationwide cohort study.

The question of whether having a family history of prostatic borderline or in situ neoplasia (PBISN) is associated with an increased risk of invasive prostate cancer (PCa) or death from PCa remains unanswered. The objective of the current study was to provide an evidence-based risk estimation for the relatives of patients with PBISN. Nationwide Swedish family cancer data sets were used for the current study, including data regarding all residents of Sweden who were born after 1931 and their parents. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), and lifetime cumulative risks of PCa were calculated for men with different constellations of family history. Family history was defined as a dynamic (time-dependent) variable considering changes during follow-up (1958-2015). Of the 6,343,727 men in the current study, a total of 238,961 developed invasive PCa and 5756 were diagnosed with PBISN during the follow-up. Men with 1 first-degree relative who was diagnosed with PBISN had a 70% increased risk of invasive PCa (SIR, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-1.9) and PCa death (SMR, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.2) compared with men with no family history of PBISN or invasive PCa. These were rather close to estimates in men with 1 first-degree relative diagnosed with invasive PCa (SIR, 2.1 and SMR, 1.8). A higher risk of PCa in family members was found among patients with a family history of PBISN and/or PCa diagnosed before age 60 years. The results in terms of cumulative risk resembled this trend. A family history of PBISN appears to be as important as a family history of invasive PCa with regard to an increased risk of invasive PCa or PCa mortality. Such a history should not be overlooked in PCa screening recommendations or in future research regarding familial PCa.

PSA Testing and Prostate Cancer Incidence Following the 2012 Update to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Prostate Cancer Screening Recommendation: Implications for Racial/Ethnic Disparities

Abstract The 2012 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation against prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing led to a decrease in prostate cancer screening, but its impact on prostate cancer racial/ethnic disparities remains unclear. Methods: The proportion of men ages 40–74 years who received a routine PSA test in the past year was estimated over time in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS; 2012–2018) and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS; 2005–2018). Screening trends by race/ethnicity were evaluated using logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of screening adjusting for socioeconomic and healthcare-related factors. Prostate cancer incidence rates and rate ratios (IRRs) by race/ethnicity were estimated in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry data over time (2004–2016). Results: In the 2012 BRFSS, PSA testing rates were highest among non-Hispanic white (NHW) men (32.3%), followed by non-Hispanic black (NHB; 30.3%), Hispanic (21.8%), and Asian/Pacific Islander men (17.7%). The absolute screening frequency declined by 9.5% overall from 2012 to 2018, with a greater decline among NHB (11.6%) than NHW men (9.3%). Adjusting for socioeconomic and healthcare-related factors, the relative decline was greater among NHB (OR per year = 0.86, 95% CI 0.84–0.88) than NHW men (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.89–0.90; p-het. = 0.005), driven by a steeper drop among NHB men ages 40–54. In the NHIS, the 2012 update was associated with a 35% decrease in the odds of screening (OR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.51–0.82), though there was no annual change since 2012 (OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.98–1.03). Trends in the NHIS did not differ by race/ethnicity. The NHB:NHW IRR for total prostate cancer increased from 1.73 in 2011 to 1.87 in 2012 and has remained elevated, driven by differences in the incidence of localized tumors. Disparity IRRs have been consistent since 2012 for other racial/ethnic populations. Conclusions: Although the frequency of prostate cancer screening varies by race/ethnicity, the impact of the 2012 USPSTF recommendation against PSA testing on screening trends did not robustly differ by race/ethnicity. Following 2012, there was a modest increase in the disparity for localized prostate cancer incidence between NHB and NHW men.

PSA screening—a matter of debate?

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer type in men. Overall, the goal of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening is to identify early-stage disease that can be treated successfully. However, evidence supporting an overall survival advantage in men undergoing PSA screening is controversial, leading to a lack of consensus on guidelines. The present review article provides an overview of the most important studies on PSA screening including the latest updates of large trials. In addition, modern concepts in early detection of PCa that can be added to PSA measurement alone such as PSA isoforms or mpMRI are discussed. Lastly, recommendations for PCa screening and early detection from the European and German Societies of Urology issued in 2019 are presented.

PD35-02 IMPACT OF 2012 UNITED STATES PREVENTIVE SERVICES TASK FORCE STATEMENT ON PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING, DETECTION AND PRESENTATION IN MEN UNDER THE AGE OF 70 AT KAISER PERMANENTE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:To determine how the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Prostate Cancer Screening recommendations altered the rates of PSA screening, prostate bi...