Purpose The guideline purpose is to provide the urologist with a framework for the early detection of prostate cancer in asymptomatic average risk men. Materials and Methods A systematic review was conducted and summarized evidence derived from over 300 studies that addressed the predefined outcomes of interest (prostate cancer incidence/mortality, quality of life, diagnostic accuracy and harms of testing). In addition to the quality of evidence, the panel considered values and preferences expressed in a clinical setting (patient-physician dyad) rather than having a public health perspective. Guideline statements were organized by age group in years (age <40; 40 to 54; 55 to 69; >70). Results With the exception of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening, there was minimal evidence to assess the outcomes of interest for other tests. The quality of evidence for the benefits of screening was moderate, and evidence for harm was high for men age 55 to 69 years. For men outside this age range, evidence was lacking for benefit, but the harms of screening, including over diagnosis and over treatment, remained. Modeled data suggested that a screening interval of two years or more may be preferred to reduce the harms of screening. Conclusions The Panel recommended shared decision-making for men age 55 to 69 years considering PSA-based screening, a target age group for whom benefits may outweigh harms. Outside this age range, PSA-based screening as a routine could not be recommended based on the available evidence. The entire guideline is available at www.AUAnet.org/education/guidelines/prostate-cancer-detection.cfm

This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.

This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.

Although recently published trials show different results regarding the impact of prostate cancer screening on mortality, both suggest that prostate cancer screening leads to overdetection and overtreatment of some patients. Therefore, men should be informed of the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening before biopsy and the option of active surveillance in lieu of immediate treatment for certain men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

A B S T R A C T PurposeActive surveillance (AS) is an option for the initial management of early-stage prostate cancer. Current risk stratification schema identify patients with low-risk disease who are presumed to be most suitable for AS. However, some men with higher risk disease also elect AS; outcomes for such men have not been widely reported. ; log-rank P ϭ .88). Among men undergoing surgery, none were node positive and none had biochemical recurrence within 3 years. Patients and Methods ConclusionSelected men with intermediate-risk features be appropriate candidates for AS, and are not necessarily more likely to progress. AS for these men may provide an opportunity to further reduce overtreatment of disease that is unlikely to progress to advanced cancer.

The purpose of this prospective study was to estimate the effect of Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 PET on the intended management of patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Pre- and postimaging surveys were filled out by the referring providers for patients with biochemical recurrence who were imaged using Ga-PSMA-11 PET. The inclusion criterion for this study was a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of less than 12 mo after initial treatment (NCT02611882). Of the 150 consecutive patients imaged, 126 surveys were completed (84% response rate). The responses were categorized as major change, minor change, no change, or unknown change. There were 103 patients (82%) with disease detected on Ga-PSMA-11 PET. On the basis of the survey results, there were 67 patients (53.2%) with major changes in management and 8 patients (6.4%) with minor changes. The proportion of cases resulting in a change in management did not significantly differ by baseline PSA level. In patients with PSA levels below 0.2 ng/dL, 7 of 12 patients had disease detected onGa-PSMA-11 PET, 5 of whom had a major change in management. Ga-PSMA-11 PET resulted in a major change in management in 53% of patients with biochemical recurrence. Further studies are warranted to investigate whether PSMA-based management strategies result in improved outcomes for patients.

Objective To assess the influence of patient preferences and urologist recommendations in treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate cancer. Methods We enrolled 257 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (PSA < 20; Gleason 6 or 7) seen by urologists (primarily residents and fellows) in 4 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. We measured patients’ baseline preferences prior to their urology appointments, including initial treatment preference, cancer-related anxiety, and interest in sex. In longitudinal follow-up, we determined which treatment patients received. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the factors that predicted treatment received (active treatment vs. active surveillance) and urologist recommendations. We also conducted a directed content analysis of recorded clinical encounters to determine if urologists discussed patients’ interest in sex. Results Patients’ initial treatment preferences did not predict receipt of active treatment versus surveillance (Δχ2 (4) = 3.67, p = .45). Instead, receipt of active treatment was predicted primarily by urologists’ recommendations (Δχ2(2) = 32.81 p < .001). Urologists’ recommendations, in turn, were influenced heavily by medical factors (age and Gleason score) but unrelated to patient preferences (Δχ2 (6) = 0, p = 1). Urologists rarely discussed patients’ interest in sex (< 15% of appointments). Conclusions Patients’ treatment decisions were based largely upon urologists’ recommendations, which, in turn, were based on medical factors (age and Gleason score) and not on patients’ personal views of the relative pros and cons of treatment alternatives.

Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracy of gallium 68 (Ga)-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 PET/MRI with that of multiparametric MRI in the detection of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods The authors performed a retrospective study of men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer who underwent simultaneous Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI before radical prostatectomy between December 2015 and June 2017. The reference standard was whole-mount pathologic examination. Readers were blinded to radiologic and pathologic findings. Tumor localization was based on 30 anatomic regions. Region-specific sensitivity and specificity were calculated for PET/MRI and multiparametric MRI by using raw stringent and alternative neighboring approaches. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) in the tumor and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 grade were compared with tumor Gleason score. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate population-averaged sensitivity and specificity and to determine the association between tumor characteristics and SUV or PI-RADS score. Results Thirty-two men (median age, 68 years; interquartile range: 62-71 years) were imaged. The region-specific sensitivities of PET/MRI and multiparametric MRI were 74% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 70%, 77%) and 50% (95% CI: 45%, 0.54%), respectively, with the alternative neighboring approach (P < .001 for both) and 73% (95% CI: 68%, 79%) and 69% (95% CI: 62%, 75%), respectively, with the population-averaged generalized estimating equation (P = .04). Region-specific specificity of PET/MRI was similar to that of multiparametric MRI with the alternative neighboring approach (88% [95% CI: 85%, 91%] vs 90% [95% CI: 87%, 92%], P = .99) and in population-averaged estimates (70% [95% CI: 64%, 76%] vs 70% [95% CI: 64%, 75%], P = .99). SUV was associated with a Gleason score of 7 and higher (odds ratio: 1.71 [95% CI: 1.27, 2.31], P < .001). Conclusion The sensitivity of gallium 68-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen-11 PET/MRI in the detection of prostate cancer is better than that of multiparametric MRI. © RSNA, 2018 See also the editorial by Civelek in this issue.