SpringerLink
Log in

Implications of the New AUA Guidelines on Prostate Cancer Detection in the U.S.

  • Prostate Cancer (D Parekh, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a blanket “D” recommendation against all prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based early detection efforts for prostate cancer, reflecting critical misinterpretations of the major evidence regarding benefits and harms of such testing. Against the backdrop of the ensuing controversy, in 2013 the American Urological Association (AUA) published a new, methodologically rigorous guideline. This guideline recommended that men aged 55–69 be offered biennial screening in the setting of shared decision-making, that men under 40 or over 69 years of age should not be screened routinely, and that evidence was insufficient to recommend screening for men aged 40–54 years. While it has received criticism with regard to the age-based recommendations, the AUA guideline reflects a far better and more balanced presentation of the available evidence than the USPSTF statement. However, because the USPSTF is far more influential than the AUA among primary care providers, the ultimate impact of the new AUA guideline on practice patterns may be limited. Optimizing early detection practices should involve consensus-building incorporating both primary care and specialist input, with the goals of minimizing overtreatment of low-risk disease while continuing to reduce prostate cancer mortality rates through early detection and aggressive management of high-risk disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63:11–30. doi:10.3322/caac.21166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Etzioni R, Gulati R, Tsodikov A, et al. The prostate cancer conundrum revisited. Cancer. 2012. doi:10.1002/cncr.27594. Outstanding analysis of the suggestion that the observed decline in prostate cancer mortality in the U.S. over the years can be explained by improvements in treatment rather than by early detection efforts.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Moyer VA. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(2):120–34. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459. Although this is a substantially flawed analysis based on an incomplete evidence review, it is important to understand the USPSTF's thought process in generating the “D” recommendation against all prostate cancer screening.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Qaseem A, Barry MJ, Denberg TD, Owens DK, Shekelle P, for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Guidance Statement From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2013. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-10-201305210-00633.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carter HB, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline. J Urol. 2013;190(2):419–26. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.119. The 2013 AUA Guideline on Early Detection of Prostate Cancer, discussed at length in the text.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chou R, Croswell JM, Dana T, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(11):762–71.

  7. Kaffenberger SD, Penson DF. The Politics of Prostate Cancer Screening. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41:249–55. A uniquely insightful article on the politics behind the USPSTF's “D” recommendation against PSA-based screening.

  8. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(6):374–83. doi:10.1093/jnci/djp001.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Miller DC, Gruber SB, Hollenbeck BK, Montie JE, Wei JT. Incidence of initial local therapy among men with lower-risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(16):1134–41. doi:10.1093/jnci/djj308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(7):1117–23. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.26.0133.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Esserman L, Thompson I. Solving the Overdiagnosis Dilemma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(9):582. doi:10.1093/jnci/djq119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203–13. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1113162. Important article reporting an RCT of surgery vs. watchful waiting in the VA health care system. The most important findings are in the supplemental material: there is no benefit for surgery for low-risk disease, but a substantial benefit for surgery for high-risk disease.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vickers AJ, Ulmert D, Sjoberg DD, et al. Strategy for detection of prostate cancer based on relation between prostate specific antigen at age 40-55 and long term risk of metastasis: case-control study. BMJ. 2013;346(5):f2023. doi:10.1136/bmj.f2023. Fascinating article laying out the statistical rationale for an early baseline PSA test, based on truly population-based data from Malmö, Sweden.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Drazer MW, Huo D, Schonberg MA, Razmaria A, Eggener SE. Population-based patterns and predictors of prostate-specific antigen screening among older men in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(13):1736–43. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.31.9004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Walter LC, Bertenthal D, Lindquist K, Konety BR. PSA screening among elderly men with limited life expectancies. JAMA. 2006;296(19):2336–42. doi:10.1001/jama.296.19.2336.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bechis SK, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR. Impact of age at diagnosis on prostate cancer treatment and survival. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(2):235–41. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.30.2075.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Savage CJ, Vickers AJ. Low annual caseloads of United States surgeons conducting radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;182(6):2677–9. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.034.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310–9. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0810696.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL, et al. Prostate Cancer Screening in the Randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: Mortality Results after 13 Years of Follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:1–8. The critical update of the PLCO trial, concluding that annual screening offers no benefit over opportunistic screening, but that the trial cannot answer the question of the efficacy of screening vs. no screening.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–8. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0810084.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(11):981–90. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1113135. The updated report of the ERSPC trial.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, et al. Mortality results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(8):725–32. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70146-7. Very important population-based screening trial with a young median age of patients, low thresholds for biopsy, and a high rate of initial surveillance for screen-directed tumors.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pinsky PF, Blacka A, Kramer BS, Miller A, Prorok PC, Berg C. Assessing contamination and compliance in the prostate component of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Clin Trials. 2010;7(4):303–11. doi:10.1177/1740774510374091. Key PLCO study clearly laying out that 79 % of the "usual care" arm patients in PLCO received at least one PSA test.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Grubb RL, Pinsky PF, Greenlee RT, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial: update on findings from the initial four rounds of screening in a randomized trial. BJU Int. 2008;102(11):1524–30. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08214.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Prostate-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(2):203. author reply 204–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gulati R, Mariotto AB, Chen S, Gore JL, Etzioni R. Long-term projections of the harm-benefit trade-off in prostate cancer screening are more favorable than previous short-term estimates. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1412–7. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.011.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yao SL, Lu-Yao G. Population-based study of relationships between hospital volume of prostatectomies, patient outcomes, and length of hospital stay. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(22):1950–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Alibhai SMH, Leach M, Tomlinson G, et al. 30-day mortality and major complications after radical prostatectomy: influence of age and comorbidity. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(20):1525–32. doi:10.1093/jnci/dji313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1557–64. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1451.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P. Positive Surgical Margin and Perioperative Complication Rates of Primary Surgical Treatments for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.029.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Williamson DA, Barrett LK, Rogers BA, Freeman JT, Hadway P, Paterson DL. Infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: new challenges in the era of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57(2):267–74. doi:10.1093/cid/cit193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Heijnsdijk EAM, Wever EM, Auvinen A, et al. Quality-of-life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(7):595–605. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1201637.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Björk T, et al. Prostate specific antigen concentration at age 60 and death or metastasis from prostate cancer: case-control study. BMJ. 2010;341:c4521.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cantor SB, Volk RJ, Cass AR, Gilani J, Spann SJ. Psychological benefits of prostate cancer screening: the role of reassurance. Health Expect. 2002;5(2):104–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Detsky AS. A piece of my mind. Underestimating the value of reassurance. JAMA. 2012;307(10):1035–6. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.235. Terrific editorial essay written by a former opponent of PSA screening who then decided to have a PSA drawn around age 60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Greene KL, Albertsen PC, Babaian RJ, et al. Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2232–41. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.093.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Moul JW, Walsh PC, Rendell MS, et al. Re: Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline: H. B. Carter, P. C. Albertsen, M. J. Barry, R. Etzioni, S. J. Freedland, K. L. Greene, L. Holmberg, P. Kantoff, B. R. Konety, M. H. Murad, D. F. Penson and A. L. Zietman J Urol 2013; 190: 419-426. J Urol. 2013;190(3):1134–1137. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.07.002.

  38. Linares Espinós E, Stephenson A. Words of wisdom. Re: Early detection of prostate cancer. AUA guideline Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):857–8. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.08.041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Murphy DG, Ahlering T, Catalona WJ, et al. The Melbourne Consensus Statement on the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer. BJU Int. 2013. doi:10.1111/bju.12556. Another perpective on the goal of implementing smarter screening: screening men age 50–69, focusing treatment efforts on those diagnosed with high-risk disease, and considering PSA in context of a variety of other key patient factors.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Howard K, Barratt A, Mann GJ, Patel MI. A model of prostate-specific antigen screening outcomes for low- to high-risk men: information to support informed choices. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(17):1603–10. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gulati R, Gore JL, Etzioni R. Comparative effectiveness of alternative prostate-specific antigen–based prostate cancer screening strategies: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):145–53. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00003.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lu-Yao GL, Albertsen PC, Moore DF, et al. Outcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. JAMA. 2009;302(11):1202–9. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1348. Very important natural history analysis showing that elderly men with low-and intermediate-risk disease usually die of other causes, but that older men with high risk face substantial risk for cancer mortality.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tasian GE, Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, et al. Prostate specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: Knowledge of, attitudes towards, and utilization among primary care physicians. Urol Oncol. 2010. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.12.019.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Scosyrev E, Wu G, Mohile S, Messing EM. Prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer and the risk of overt metastatic disease at presentation. Cancer. 2012. doi:10.1002/cncr.27503.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(27):3669–76. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.34.9738.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W, et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. In: Vol 156. 2012:591–595. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-8-201204170-00401.

  47. Cooperberg MR, Hinotsu S, Namiki M, et al. Risk Assessment Among Prostate Cancer Patients Receiving Primary Androgen Deprivation Therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(26):4306–13. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.21.5228.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Roehrborn CG, Kattan MW. An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer. 2008;113(11):3075–99. doi:10.1002/cncr.23908.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al. Preoperative Nomogram Predicting the 10-Year Probability of Prostate Cancer Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(10):715–7. doi:10.1093/jnci/djj190.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

ᅟ

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Matthew R. Cooperberg declares no potential conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Urology and Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, Box 1695, 1600 Divisadero Street, A-624, San Francisco, CA, 94143-1695, USA

    Matthew R. Cooperberg

Authors
  1. Matthew R. Cooperberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew R. Cooperberg.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Prostate Cancer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cooperberg, M.R. Implications of the New AUA Guidelines on Prostate Cancer Detection in the U.S.. Curr Urol Rep 15, 420 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-014-0420-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-014-0420-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation