PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Curr Opin Urol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 February 14.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3572789
NIHMSID: NIHMS297437

PSA Screening: Pro

Abstract

Purpose of review

Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous malignancy in US men, and is most frequently diagnosed through prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening. Nevertheless, PSA testing has become increasingly controversial. In this review, we will present the evidence supporting the role of PSA in prostate cancer screening.

Recent findings

Numerous studies have shown that the risk of current and future prostate cancer is directly related to the serum PSA level. Moreover, increasing PSA levels predict a greater risk of adverse pathologic features and worse disease-specific survival. Substantial epidemiologic evidence has suggested a reduction in advanced disease and improvements in prostate cancer survival rates since the introduction of PSA-based screening. Recently, evidence from a randomized trial further validated that PSA testing reduces both metastatic disease and prostate cancer-specific mortality.

Summary

PSA is a valid marker for prostate cancer and its aggressiveness. Level 1 evidence is now available that PSA-based screening reduces both the rate of metastatic disease and prostate cancer-specific mortality.

Keywords: prostate cancer, screening, prostate-specific antigen, detection

Introduction

Screening is defined as the attempt at early disease identification in an asymptomatic population. First, there must be a valid marker for the disease of interest. In addition, for screening to be successful, it should reduce the proportion of advanced disease at diagnosis. Furthermore, there must be evidence that early diagnosis improves outcomes. In this review, we will summarize the evidence showing that PSA-based screening for prostate cancer fulfills these criteria.

PSA is a Valid Marker for Prostate Cancer

First described as a marker for human semen in forensics, PSA was subsequently demonstrated in the serum of men with prostate disease.1 Although PSA is prostate-specific, it is not prostate cancer-specific. Serum PSA levels may also be increased with urinary tract infection, instrumentation, or other benign conditions.2

That notwithstanding, the total PSA level is a strong predictor of future prostate cancer risk. In a hallmark 1995 study, Gann et al. showed that the baseline PSA level was significantly associated with subsequent prostate cancer risk.3 Specifically, compared to men with a baseline PSA <1 ng/ml, those with a PSA of 2 to 3 ng/ml had a 5.5-fold increased relative risk.

Our group has similarly demonstrated the strong predictive value of the baseline PSA level in a screening population. Men in their 40s and 50s with baseline PSA levels above the age-specific median were at substantially higher risk of prostate cancer, even if PSA remained below the biopsy threshold of 2.5 ng/ml.4 Additionally, among men in the Malmo Preventive Medicine Study, Lilja et al. reported that a baseline PSA level at age 50 predicted future prostate cancer diagnosis for >20 years after a single venipuncture.5

Finally, in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, baseline PSA levels were associated with future prostate cancer risk.6 Moreover, in the same population, baseline PSA velocity (i.e., changes in PSA over time) predicted the future presence of life-threatening prostate cancer.7

Based on the aforementioned studies, there is substantial evidence that PSA is a valid marker for future prostate cancer risk. In addition, PSA is also a useful marker for the current presence of prostate cancer on biopsy. This was clearly demonstrated in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, where the likelihood of cancer detection on empiric biopsy showed a significant direct relationship with PSA levels.8

PSA is a Valid Marker for Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness

Not only is PSA a valid biomarker for overall prostate cancer, but it is also correlated with disease aggressiveness. In our longitudinal screening study, cancers diagnosed at lower PSA levels were more likely to be organ-confined.9 We have also demonstrated a direct relationship between PSA derivatives- including PSA density and PSA velocity- with Gleason score and other adverse pathologic tumor features.10, 11

Moreover, both the total PSA levels and PSA derivatives predict fatal prostate cancer. For example, Stephenson et al. showed a direct relationship between PSA and prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy.12

PSA-based adjunctive measures have also been used as markers for prostate cancer aggressiveness. For example, a PSA velocity >2 ng/ml/year during the year prior to prostate cancer diagnosis predicts prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy.13, 14

Overall, due to the strong relationship between PSA with pathologic tumor features and treatment outcomes, it is included in virtually all major risk classification schemes. In the Partin Tables, PSA is combined with clinical stage and biopsy Gleason score to predict pathologic stage.15 Both the CAPRA score and Kattan nomogram use PSA and other variables to predict biochemical progression.16, 17 Other nomograms to predict prostate cancer-specific mortality also include PSA.12

PSA-Based Screening Reduces Advanced Disease at Diagnosis

Having established that PSA is a valid marker for prostate cancer and its aggressiveness, our next objective is to present the evidence that PSA-based screening has led to a lower proportion of advanced stage disease at diagnosis. First, there is substantial epidemiologic evidence demonstrating a stage migration during the PSA era.

Additionally, Level 1 evidence from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) clearly demonstrated a decrease in advanced stage disease at diagnosis with PSA screening. Comparing the screening and control arms from the ERSPC, Schroder et al. reported a 41% reduction in advanced disease.18

A subsequent study compared the rates of metastatic disease between screened men from the ERSPC to a population from Northern Ireland where screening is rare.19 The proportion of metastatic disease at diagnosis was 0.1% and 0.6% in the two groups, respectively, corresponding to a 53% reduction in metastatic disease associated with screening.

Although a reduction in advanced stage disease is necessary to prove the utility of PSA screening, it is not sufficient proof in isolation. Therefore, in the next section we will review the evidence that PSA screening also reduces prostate cancer mortality.

PSA-Based Screening Saves Lives

Epidemiologic studies have demonstrated significant declines in prostate cancer motality rates coincident with the introduction of widespread PSA-based screening. For example, Jemal et al. reported an annual 4.1% reduction in U.S. prostate cancer mortality from 1994 to 2005.20 Mathematical models have suggested that PSA screening has accounted or approximately 80% of the reduction in advanced stage prostate cancer, and 40 to 75% of the decline in prostate cancer-specific mortality.21, 22 In European countries where screening is practiced, reductions in prostate cancer mortality have similarly been reported compared to other regions where screening is not routinely performed.23, 24

To date, the most definitive evidence that screening saves lives was reported by Schroder et al. in the ERSPC.18 In the intent-to-treat analysis, the authors reported a rate ratio of 0.80 for prostate cancer mortality (i.e. a 20% reduction) in the screening arm compared to the control arm. That notwithstanding, some men randomized to screening did not receive screening (noncompliance) and some men randomized to the control arm underwent opportunistic screening (contamination). Factoring in the approximate frequency of noncompliance and contamination, Roobol et al. estimated a risk reduction of up to 33%.25 Furthermore, van Leeuwen et al. reported a relative risk of 0.63 for prostate cancer-specific mortality in the Rotterdam ERSPC group compared to similarly aged men from Northern Ireland.19 It is possible that the mortality reduction in the ERSPC will increase with additional follow-up.

It is noteworthy that a second randomized trial- the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO)- did not demonstrate a survival difference between the screening and control arms. 26 There are many underlying reasons to explain these divergent results. In contrast to the European population, PSA screening had already become common in the United States at the time PLCO was initiated. As such, much of the “prevalent pool” of prostate cancer had already been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Beyond this issue of “prescreening,” contamination of the control arm was a much greater issue in the PLCO. Because more than 50% of controls underwent screening during the study period, Cooperberg and Carroll suggested that it be more aptly considered a trial of more versus less screening.27 In addition, compliance with prompt prostate biopsy was poor among those with abnormal screening results.28 Clearly, greater similarity in the screening practices between the two arms of the trial would reduce the mortality risk difference between groups.

A final issue related to prostate cancer screening is the possibility for the diagnosis and treatment of some tumors that would not cause harm. This can be reduced through the use of more judicious screening practices (ex: performing baseline PSA measurements in the 40s for risk stratification, use of PSA velocity, discontinuing screening for elderly men with limited life expectancy), by reserving definitive treatment for patients who are most likely to benefit, and by further reducing treatment-related morbidity.

Conclusion

PSA is a valid marker for prostate cancer, reflecting the spectrum of future and current risk. PSA and its derivatives are also valid markers for prostate cancer tumor features and treatment outcomes. Finally, PSA screening has been shown in a randomized trial to reduce both metastatic disease and prostate cancer-specific mortality.

Acknowledgement

SL: No funding or disclosures.

WJC is supported in part by the Urological Research Foundation, Prostate SPORE grant (P50 CA90386-05S2) and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center grant (P30 CA60553).

Footnotes

Disclosures for WJC: Beckman-Coulter, Incorporated (consultant/advisor, investigator, meeting participant/lecturer, scientific study/trial), deCODE genetics, Inc. (consultant/advisor, investigator, scientific study/trial), GlaxoSmithKline, Inc (meeting participant/lecturer once), Nanosphere (consultant/advisor, investigator, scientific study/trial), OHMX (consultant/advisor, investigator, scientific study/trial)

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

REFERENCES

1. Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E. Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. N Engl J Med. 1987 Oct 8;317(15):909–916. [PubMed]
2. Nadler RB, Humphrey PA, Smith DS, Catalona WJ, Ratliff TL. Effect of inflammation and benign prostatic hyperplasia on elevated serum prostate specific antigen levels. J Urol. 1995 Aug;154(2 Pt 1):407–413. [PubMed]
3. Gann PH, Hennekens CH, Stampfer MJ. A prospective evaluation of plasma prostate-specific antigen for detection of prostatic cancer. Jama. 1995 Jan 25;273(4):289–294. [PubMed]
4. Loeb S, Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ, Suarez BK, Nadler RB. Baseline prostate-specific antigen compared with median prostate-specific antigen for age group as predictor of prostate cancer risk in men younger than 60 years old. Urology. 2006 Feb;67(2):316–320. [PubMed]
5. Lilja H, Ulmert D, Bjork T, et al. Long-term prediction of prostate cancer up to 25 years before diagnosis of prostate cancer using prostate kallikreins measured at age 44 to 50 years. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Feb 1;25(4):431–436. [PubMed]
6. Fang J, Metter EJ, Landis P, Chan DW, Morrell CH, Carter HB. Low levels of prostate-specific antigen predict long-term risk of prostate cancer: results from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Urology. 2001 Sep;58(3):411–416. [PubMed]
7. Carter HB, Ferrucci L, Kettermann A, et al. Detection of life-threatening prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen velocity during a window of curability. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Nov 1;98(21):1521–1527. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004 May 27;350(22):2239–2246. [PubMed]
9. Antenor JA, Roehl KA, Eggener SE, Kundu SD, Han M, Catalona WJ. Preoperative PSA and progression-free survival after radical prostatectomy for Stage T1c disease. Urology. 2005 Jul;66(1):156–160. [PubMed]
10. Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Yu X, Antenor JA, Suarez BK, Catalona WJ. Prostate specific antigen density correlates with features of prostate cancer aggressiveness. J Urol. 2007 Feb;177(2):505–509. [PubMed]
11. Loeb S, Sutherland DE, D’Amico AV, Roehl KA, Catalona WJ. PSA velocity is associated with gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimen: marker for prostate cancer aggressiveness. Urology. 2008 Nov;72(5):1116–1120. discussion 1120. [PubMed]
12. Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, et al. Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Sep 10;27(26):4300–4305. [PubMed]
13. D’Amico AV, Chen MH, Roehl KA, Catalona WJ. Preoperative PSA velocity and the risk of death from prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med. 2004 Jul 8;351(2):125–135. [PubMed]
14. D’Amico AV, Renshaw AA, Sussman B, Chen MH. Pretreatment PSA velocity and risk of death from prostate cancer following external beam radiation therapy. Jama. 2005 Jul 27;294(4):440–447. [PubMed]
15. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, et al. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 1993 Jul;150(1):110–114. [PubMed]
16. Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005 Jun;173(6):1938–1942. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
17. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 May 20;90(10):766–771. [PubMed]
18. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 26;360(13):1320–1328. [PubMed]
19. van Leeuwen PJ, Connolly D, Gavin A, et al. Prostate cancer mortality in screen and clinically detected prostate cancer: Estimating the screening benefit. Eur J Cancer. 2009 Oct 3; [PubMed]
20. Jemal A, Thun MJ, Ries LA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2005, featuring trends in lung cancer, tobacco use, and tobacco control. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Dec 3;100(23):1672–1694. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21. Etzioni R, Gulati R, Falcon S, Penson DF. Impact of PSA screening on the incidence of advanced stage prostate cancer in the United States: a surveillance modeling approach. Med Decis Making. 2008 May-Jun;28(3):323–331. [PubMed]
22. Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, et al. Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Cancer Causes Control. 2008 Mar;19(2):175–181. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
23. Kvale R, Auvinen A, Adami HO, et al. Interpreting trends in prostate cancer incidence and mortality in the five Nordic countries. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Dec 19;99(24):1881–1887. [PubMed]
24. Bartsch G, Horninger W, Klocker H, et al. Tyrol Prostate Cancer Demonstration Project: early detection, treatment, outcome, incidence and mortality. BJU Int. 2008 Apr;101(7):809–816. [PubMed]
25. Roobol MJ, Kerkhof M, Schroder FH, et al. Prostate Cancer Mortality Reduction by Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening Adjusted for Nonattendance and Contamination in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Eur Urol. 2009 Jul 28; [PubMed]
26. Andriole GL, Grubb RL, 3rd, Buys SS, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 26;360(13):1310–1319. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
27. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Prostate-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 9;361(2):203. author reply 204-205. [PubMed]
28. Andriole GL, Levin DL, Crawford ED, et al. Prostate Cancer Screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial: findings from the initial screening round of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Mar 16;97(6):433–438. [PubMed]