To summarise and compare the key recommendations on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer, and so highlight where more evidence is required to facilitate consistent recommendations.
The Medline database and websites of 18 national screening organisations and professional associations were searched between January 2010 and November 2020 to identify screening guidelines published in English, considering recent clinical trials.
Population-based PSA testing of asymptomatic men is not widely recommended. Guidelines emphasize shared patient-clinician decision making. For \'average-risk\' men choosing to be screened, the recommended age varies from 50-55 to 70 years, alongside consideration of life expectancy (ranging from 7-15 years). Screening intervals, when specified, are biennial (most common), annual, or determined from baseline PSA. The earliest age for screening high-risk men (frequently defined as of African descent or with a family history of prostate cancer) is 40 years, but recommendations often defer to clinical judgement.
Population screening of asymptomatic men is not widely recommended. Instead, balancing the potential harms and benefits of PSA testing is endorsed. Variation between guidelines stems from differing interpretations of key trials and could lead to clinician-dependent screening views. The development of clinical decision aids and international consensus on guidelines may help reduce national and international variation on how men are counselled.

We compare prostate biopsy (Pbx) characteristics from 3 years prior to the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) prostate cancer (PCa) screening guidelines with those of 2018, with a focus on African American (AA) men and healthy men aged 70 to 80 years. We completed a retrospective comparative analysis of 1703 sequential patients that had had a Pbx from 2010 to 2012 (3 years) with 383 patients biopsied in 2018. Data was collected on patient age, race, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination (DRE), total number of biopsies performed, and Gleason sum score (GSS). The data was analyzed to determine whether the 2012 USPSTF screening recommendations affected PCa characteristics. Two study groups were defined as group A and B, Pbx prior to the 2012 USPSTF screening guidelines and that of 2018, respectively. The study population consisted of 71% high-risk AA patients. In Group A (pre-2012 USPSTF guidelines), 567 patients/year underwent a Pbx versus Group B, 383 patients/year, a 32% reduction post-USPSTF. The annual positive Pbx rate for Group A is 134/year versus Group B with 175/year, a 31% increase post-USPSTF. In Group B, there was a 94% relative increase in total positive biopsies. Group A had high-grade PCa (GSS 7-10) in 51.5% versus 60.5% in Group B, a 9% increase post-USPSTF. The proportion of patients with a PSA 10 ng/mL or higher was 25.4% in group A versus 29.3% in group B. The age group of 70 to 80 years demonstrated an increasing trend for patients with PSA 10 ng/mL and higher, 31% in Group A versus 38% in Group B; high-grade tumors (GSS 7-10) occurred in 61% in Group A versus 65% in Group B. After the 2012 USPSTF guidelines against PCa screening, our study shows decreased prostate cancer screening with decreased Pbx, increased PCa diagnosis, and increased high-grade (GSS 7-10) PCa. These trends were especially notable in the 70- to 80-year age group, which showed a larger proportion of total patients (compared with pre-2012 USPSTF guidelines), increased PCa grades, increased PSA levels, and a higher percentage of patients with greater than 50% positive cores. As our patient population consists of 71% AA patients, our results support aggressive PCa screening for high-risk patients, which includes AA men, men with a family history of PCa, and healthy men aged 70 to 80 years.

Background Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains as the most used biomarker in the detection of early prostate cancer (PCa). Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are produced to facilitate incorporation of evidence into clinical practice. This is particularly useful when PCa screening remains controversial and guidelines diverge among different medical institutions, although opportunistic screening is not recommended. Methods We performed a systematic review of guidelines about PCa screening using PSA. Guidelines published since 2008 were included in this study. The most updated version of these CPGs was used for the evaluation. Results Twenty-two guidelines were selected for review. In 59% of these guidelines, recommendations were graded according to level of evidence (n = 13), but only 18% of the guidelines provided clear algorithms (n = 4). Each CPG was assessed using a checklist of laboratory issues, including pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical factors. We found that laboratory medicine specialists participate in 9% of the guidelines reviewed (n = 2) and laboratory issues were frequently omitted. We remarked that information concerning the consequences of World Health Organization (WHO) standard in PSA testing was considered by only two of 22 CPGs evaluated in this study. Conclusions We concluded that the quality of PCa early detection guidelines could be improved properly considering the laboratory issues in their development.