Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • News & Views
  • Published:

Prostate cancer

Personalized risk — stratified screening or abandoning it altogether?

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology volume 13, pages 140–142 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening approaches are associated with reduced prostate-cancer mortality, but can lead to overdiagnosis, unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment. Two solutions for this problem exist: to abandon PSA-based screening completely, or to improve the accuracy of PSA-based screening methods to solve the benefit-to-harm equation. Herein we explore these solutions by examining three recent publications.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Jemal, A. et al. Prostate cancer incidence and PSA testing patterns in relation to USPSTF screening recommendations. JAMA 314, 2054–2061 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sammon, J. et al. Prostate-specific antigen screening after 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. JAMA 314, 2077–2079 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schröder, F. H. et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 384, 2027–2035 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gulati, R. et al. Expected population impacts of discontinued prostate-specific antigen screening. Cancer 120, 3519–3526 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Grönberg, H. et al. Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50–69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 16, 1667–1676 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Stephenson, A. J. et al. Integration of gene expression profiling and clinical variables to predict prostate carcinoma recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 104, 290–298 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Parekh, D. J. et al. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 68, 464–670 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bryant, R. J. et al. Predicting high-grade cancer at ten-core prostate biopsy using four kallikrein markers measured in blood in the ProtecT study. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 107, djv095 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stattin, P. et al. Improving the specificity of screening for lethal prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen and a panel of kallikrein markers: a nested case-control study. Eur. Urol. 68, 207–213 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Vickers, A. J., Basch, E. & Kattan, M. W. Against diagnosis. Ann. Intern. Med. 149, 200–203 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. de la Calle, C. et al. Multicenter evaluation of the Prostate Health Index to detect aggressive prostate cancer in biopsy naïve men. J. Urol. 194, 65–72 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carlsson, S. et al. Influence of blood prostate specific antigen levels at age 60 on benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening: population based cohort study. BMJ 348, g2296 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Grenabo Bergdahl, A. et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer screening: a pilot study within the Göteborg randomised screening trial. Eur. Urol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.006 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work of S.V.C. is supported by a postdoctoral research grant from AFA Insurance and, in part, by a Cancer Center Support Grant from the National Cancer Institute made to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (P30 CA008748). We sincerely thank Assistant Editor J.T. at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center for her kind assistance with editing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sigrid V. Carlsson is at the Department of Surgery and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, USA; and at the Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 485 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10017, Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, Bruna Stråket 11B, 41345 Gothenburg, Sweden.,

    Sigrid V. Carlsson

  2. at the Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, Bruna Stråket 11B, 41345 Gothenburg, Sweden.,

    Sigrid V. Carlsson

  3. Michael W. Kattan is at the Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA.,

    Michael W. Kattan

Authors
  1. Sigrid V. Carlsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael W. Kattan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sigrid V. Carlsson or Michael W. Kattan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carlsson, S., Kattan, M. Personalized risk — stratified screening or abandoning it altogether?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 13, 140–142 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.11

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.11

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer