Background: Knowledge on missing data in a clinical cancer register is important to assess the validity of research results. For analysis of prostate cancer (Pca), risk category, a composite variable based on serum levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA), stage, and Gleason score, is crucial for treatment decisions and a strong determinant of outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the proportion and characteristics of men in the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden with unknown risk category. Material and methods: Men diagnosed with Pca between 1998 and 2012 registered in NPCR with known or unknown risk category were compared with respect to age, socioeconomic factors, comorbidity, cancer characteristics, cancer treatment, and mortality from Pca and other causes. Results: In total, 3315 of 129 391 (3%) men had unknown risk category. Compared to other men in NPCR, these men more often had a concomitant bladder cancer diagnosis, 19% versus 1%, diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia 31% versus 5%, received unspecified Pca treatment 16% versus 3%, had higher comorbidity, Charlson Comorbidity Index 2 or higher, 34% versus 13%, and had lower Pca mortality 12% versus 30%, but similar mortality from other causes. Conclusion: Men with unknown risk category were rare in NPCR but distinctly different from other men in NPCR in many aspects including higher comorbidity and lower Pca mortality.

Rate: Number of deaths due to prostate cancer per 100,000 male population.

Definition: Number of deaths per 100,000 males with malignant neoplasm (cancer) of the prostate as the underlying cause of death (ICD-10 code: C61).

Data Sources:

(1) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Compressed Mortality File. CDC WONDER On-line Database accessed at http://wonder.cdc.gov/cmf-icd10.html

(2) Death Certificate Database, Office of Vital Statistics and Registry, New Jersey Department of Health

(3) Population Estimates, State Data Center, New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development

Abbreviations: GSU, Gleason score upgrading; BMI, body mass index; PSA, prostate-specific antigenData are presented as means ± standard deviations.Comparison of clinicopathological features among men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer according to Gleason score upgrading (GSU).

The aim of the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) is to evaluate the patterns of care and outcomes for patients with prostate cancer in England and Wales, and to support services to improve the quality of care. National guidelines underpin the management of patients with prostate cancer and the NPCA evaluates current patterns of care against these standards including guidance and quality standards from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The information presented here reports on prostate cancer services in England and Wales, showing variation across providers. We report results from all six of our performance indicators for both England and Wales, using the most recently available data to the audit. Four performance indicators: • proportion of men with low-risk localised cancer undergoing radical prostate cancer treatment • proportion of men with high-risk/locally advanced disease undergoing radical prostate cancer treatment • proportion of patients experiencing at least one genitourinary (GU) complication requiring a procedural/surgical intervention within 2 years of radical prostatectomy • proportion of patients receiving a procedure of the large bowel and a diagnosis indicating radiation toxicity up to 2 years following radical prostate radiotherapy (RT) require risk stratification using the Gleason score, which is not currently available in the Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset (RCRD) therefore, to include these, we have used the National Cancer Registration Dataset (NCRD) in England. The most recently available data to the audit from the NCRD in England is between 1st January 2021 and 31st December 2021. In Wales, the data we receive includes the Gleason score, and the most recently available data to the audit covers patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1st April 2022 and 31st March 2023. Previous analysis has shown that RCRD underestimated the proportion of men diagnosed with metastatic disease when compared to the NCRD, therefore we have used the NCRD in England to report this indicator. This means we report on different time frames for England and Wales. The proportion of patients who had an emergency readmission within 90 days of radical prostate cancer surgery however can be accurately calculated using the RCRD. Therefore, to compare rates between England and Wales, we selected the same timeframe for this indicator. To report on the national picture of prostate cancer services, we use the most recently available data in England from the RCRD between 1st January 2023 and 31st December 2023, and in Wales between 1st April 2022 and 31st March 2023. To report on inequalities in England (age, ethnicity and deprivation), we use the most recently available data from the RCRD between 1st January 2021 and 31st December 2023. Individual provider results and reports are available enabling regional and national comparisons to support local QI.

Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index; PSA, prostate-specific antigenUnivariate and multivariate analyses of clinicopathological factors predicting Gleason score upgrading (GSU) among men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer.

This summary brings together information on prostate cancer incidence, mortality and survival. Source agency: Office for National Statistics Designation: National Statistics Language: English Alternative title: Prostate cancer: the most common cancer in men in England

Demographic characteristics of New South Wales men diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1997 to 2007, comparing those who committed suicide with all men diagnosed with prostate cancer, number, percent, person years at risk and crude rate per 100,000 person years at risk.

Rate or HR for PSA testing, prostate biopsies, prostate biopsies in men with elevated PSA, and prostatitis diagnosis.

BackgroundAmong prostate cancer (PC) patients, over 90% of distant metastases occur in the bone. PC treatments may be associated with side effects, including second primary malignancies (SPM). There is limited information on the incidence of SPM among men with bone metastatic PC (mPC) and among men with bone metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC). We estimated overall survival and the incidence of SPM in men with mPC and mCRPC.MethodsIn the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden, the National Prostate Cancer Register was linked to other national health care registers, 15,953 men with mPC in 1999–2011 were identified. Further, 693 men with mCRPC were identified. Outcomes were evaluated using stratified incidence rates, Kaplan-Meier estimators and Cox models.ResultsThe mean age among men with mPC was 73.9 years and in men with mCRPC 70.0 years. The median respective survivals were 1.5 (13,965 deaths) and 1.14 years (599 deaths), and average times since PC diagnosis 1.8 and 4.7 years. We observed 2,669 SPMs in men with mPC and 100 SPMs in men with mCRPC. The incidence rate of SPM per 1,000 person-years was 81.8 (78.8–85.0) for mPC and 115.6 (95.1–140.7) for mCRPC. High age, prior neoplasms, urinary tract infection, congestive heart failure, diabetes and renal disease were most strongly associated with increased mortality risk. Prior neoplasms and prior use of antineoplastic agents were most strongly associated with increased SPM risk. Several factors associated with increased mortality and SPM risks were more prevalent in the mCRPC cohort.ConclusionsOur results on mortality for men with mPC and mCRPC are in line with previous studies from the same time period. Investigation of factors associated with mortality and SPM in men with mPC and mCRPC can help to further understand these outcomes in the era prior to several new treatments have come available.

Population based cancer incidence rates were abstracted from National Cancer Institute, State Cancer Profiles for all available counties in the United States for which data were available. This is a national county-level database of cancer data that are collected by state public health surveillance systems. All-site cancer is defined as any type of cancer that is captured in the state registry data, though non-melanoma skin cancer is not included. All-site age-adjusted cancer incidence rates were abstracted separately for males and females. County-level annual age-adjusted all-site cancer incidence rates for years 2006–2010 were available for 2687 of 3142 (85.5%) counties in the U.S. Counties for which there are fewer than 16 reported cases in a specific area-sex-race category are suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates; this accounted for 14 counties in our study. Two states, Kansas and Virginia, do not provide data because of state legislation and regulations which prohibit the release of county level data to outside entities. Data from Michigan does not include cases diagnosed in other states because data exchange agreements prohibit the release of data to third parties. Finally, state data is not available for three states, Minnesota, Ohio, and Washington. The age-adjusted average annual incidence rate for all counties was 453.7 per 100,000 persons. We selected 2006–2010 as it is subsequent in time to the EQI exposure data which was constructed to represent the years 2000–2005. We also gathered data for the three leading causes of cancer for males (lung, prostate, and colorectal) and females (lung, breast, and colorectal). The EQI was used as an exposure metric as an indicator of cumulative environmental exposures at the county-level representing the period 2000 to 2005. A complete description of the datasets used in the EQI are provided in Lobdell et al. and methods used for index construction are described by Messer et al. The EQI was developed for the period 2000– 2005 because it was the time period for which the most recent data were available when index construction was initiated. The EQI includes variables representing each of the environmental domains. The air domain includes 87 variables representing criteria and hazardous air pollutants. The water domain includes 80 variables representing overall water quality, general water contamination, recreational water quality, drinking water quality, atmospheric deposition, drought, and chemical contamination. The land domain includes 26 variables representing agriculture, pesticides, contaminants, facilities, and radon. The built domain includes 14 variables representing roads, highway/road safety, public transit behavior, business environment, and subsidized housing environment. The sociodemographic environment includes 12 variables representing socioeconomics and crime. This dataset is not publicly accessible because: EPA cannot release personally identifiable information regarding living individuals, according to the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This dataset contains information about human research subjects. Because there is potential to identify individual participants and disclose personal information, either alone or in combination with other datasets, individual level data are not appropriate to post for public access. Restricted access may be granted to authorized persons by contacting the party listed. It can be accessed through the following means: Human health data are not available publicly. EQI data are available at: https://edg.epa.gov/data/Public/ORD/NHEERL/EQI. Format: Data are stored as csv files. This dataset is associated with the following publication: Jagai, J., L. Messer, K. Rappazzo , C. Gray, S. Grabich , and D. Lobdell. County-level environmental quality and associations with cancer incidence#. Cancer. John Wiley & Sons Incorporated, New York, NY, USA, 123(15): 2901-2908, (2017).

Hazard ratios for the association of different factors with an incident prostate cancer diagnosis.

Observed and expected numbers of suicide deaths, Standardised Mortality Ratios (SMR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for New South Wales men diagnosed with prostate cancer during 1997 to 2007.

This record contains raw data related to article “Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI- and microultrasound-targeted biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients with a PI-RADS 5 lesion: a single-institutional study"

Abstract

Prevalences in percent of the 2168 men and women who had the cancer diagnoses breast cancer and prostate cancer and the periodontal inflammation gingivitis and periodontitis.

ObjectiveThe influence of age on the performance of percent free prostate-specific antigen (%fPSA) in diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa) in East Asians is controversial. We tested the diagnostic performance of %fPSA in a multi-center biopsy cohort in China and identified the proper age-specific cutoff values to avoid unnecessary biopsies.MethodsConsecutive patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 4.0–10.0 ng/ml or 10.1–20.0 ng/ml who underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided or transperineal prostate biopsy were enrolled from 22 Chinese medical centers from Jan 1, 2010 to Dec 31, 2013. The diagnostic accuracy of PSA and %fPSA was determined using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). Age-specific cutoff values were calculated using ROC curve analysis.ResultsThe median %fPSA was much lower in younger patients compared with older patients with a PSA level of 4.0–10.0 ng/ml or 10.1–20.0 ng/ml. The AUC of %fPSA was higher than PSA only in older patients. In patients aged 50 to 59 years, %fPSA failed to improve the diagnosis compared with PSA in these two PSA ranges. Age-specific cutoff values were 24%, 27% and 32% for patients aged 60–69, 70–79 and ≥80 years, respectively, to reduce unnecessary biopsies in men with PSA levels of 4.0–10.0 ng/ml to detect 90% of all PCa.ConclusionsThe effectiveness of %fPSA is correlated with age in the Chinese population. Age-specific cutoff values would help avoid unnecessary biopsies in the Chinese population.

BackgroundAssessing genetic lifetime risk for prostate cancer has been proposed as a means of risk stratification to identify those for whom prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is likely to be most valuable. This project aimed to test the effect of introducing a genetic test for lifetime risk of prostate cancer in general practice on future PSA testing.Methods and findingsWe performed a cluster randomized controlled trial with randomization at the level of general practices (73 in each of two arms) in the Central Region (Region Midtjylland) of Denmark. In intervention practices, men were offered a genetic test (based on genotyping of 33 risk-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms) in addition to the standard PSA test that informed them about lifetime genetic risk of prostate cancer and distinguished between “normal” and “high” risk. The primary outcome was the proportion of men having a repeated PSA test within 2 years. A multilevel logistic regression model was used to test the association.After applying the exclusion criteria, 3,558 men were recruited in intervention practices, with 1,235 (34.7%) receiving the genetic test, and 4,242 men were recruited in control practices. Men with high genetic risk had a higher propensity for repeated PSA testing within 2 years than men with normal genetic risk (odds ratio [OR] = 8.94, p < 0.01). The study was conducted in routine practice and had some selection bias, which is evidenced by the relatively large proportion of younger and higher income participants taking the genetic test.ConclusionsProviding general practitioners (GPs) with access to a genetic test to assess lifetime risk of prostate cancer did not reduce the overall number of future PSA tests. However, among men who had a genetic test, knowledge of genetic risk significantly influenced future PSA testing.Trial registrationThis study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01739062.

Proportion of invited men in each quintile for examined neighbourhood characteristics and for degree of urbanisation among 20,948 50-year-old men invited in 2020 and 2021 to an organised prostate cancer testing programme in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.

The mCRPC cohort was too small to determine the effects of several other variables in addition to age and cohort entry year.

Percentages of the observed separations for each treatment for prostate cancer are also provided. The Australian standard age distribution 2001 was used for age-standardisation [30].

Total and stratified mortality and second primary malignancy (SPM) rates with adjusted hazard ratios (HR) among prostate cancer patients with bone metastases (mPC).