Are Prostate Cancer Screenings Performed in Compliance with Cancer Guidelines?

Year 2023, , 41 - 49, 28.02.2023

İsmail Nalbant , Erdal Benli , Abullah Çırakoğlu , Mevlüt Keleş , İbrahim Yazıcı , Ahmet Anıl Acet

https://doi.org/10.19127/mbsjohs.1184893

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to examine whether our region's Prostate Cancer (PCa) screening programs comply with the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines.

Method: This study was conducted as a retrospective, cross-sectional study between April 2014 and July 2022. Two hundred seventy patients who applied to our clinic for various reasons and were diagnosed with PCa were included in the study. Characteristics of the patients, such as age at diagnosis, comorbidities, age at first PSA examination, and PSA values, were recorded.

Results: The mean age of the patients at the time of cancer diagnosis was 67.42±8.64 (43-91) years. PSA value (median±IQR) at the diagnosis was 9.58±19.43 (1.83-3437) ng/ml. When the distribution of cancer according to different decades of life was examined, there were 5 (%1.8) patients in the 40-50 age range, 44 (16.1%) in the 50-60 age range, 111 (40.7%) in the 60-70 age range, 86 (31.5%) in the 70-80 age range, and 24 (8.8%) after the age of 80. While 138 patients (51.1%) had local and benign tumor features, 59 (21.9%) patients were diagnosed with metastatic findings. Only 31.3% (61/195) of the patients were under regular follow-up by a specific urology doctor.

Conclusion: It was found that the screening of prostate cancer, the most common type of cancer in men, was not performed by the guidelines, and as a result, diagnosis and treatment were delayed. It was determined that many patients lost the chance of curative treatment. In this disease, where early diagnosis is vital for effective treatment and preservation of quality of life, it is essential to follow up with aging men in accordance with the guidelines. It may be beneficial to periodically train and follow up with all health professionals interested in this issue.

Keywords

EAU Guidelines, Prostate cancer, Age, Prostate Cancer Screening Programs

References

• 1. American canser society. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.
• 2. Grozescu T, Popa F. Prostate cancer between prognosis and adequate/proper therapy. J Med Life 2017;10(1):5-12.
• 3. Benli E, Yuce A, Cirakoglu A, Yazici I, Nalbant I. Comparison of Sexual Behavior and Inflammatory Parameters in Prostate Cancer Patients with Control Group: Prospective Controlled Study. Urol J 2021;19(2):101-105.
• 4. Benli E, Cirakoglu A, Ayyıldız SN, Yüce A. Comparison of serum uric acid levels between prostate cancer patients and a control group. Cent European J Urol 2018;71(2):242-247.
• 5. Ergun S, Arı F, Benli E, Altay DU, Noyan T, Erdem H, Arıcı YK. YY1 and NFYA: Potential tr-KIT Specific Transcription Factors in Prostate Cancer. Mid Blac Sea J Health Sci 2022; 8(2): 202-207.
• 6. Benli E, Bayrak A, Cirakoglu A, Bayrak T, Noyan T. Comparison of serum acetyl hydrolase (PAF-AH) and paraoxonase 1 (PON1) values between prostate cancer patients and a control group. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2017;33(11):572-577.
• 7. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):243-262.
• 8. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68(6):394-424.
• 9. Bell KJ, Del Mar C, Wright G, Dickinson J, Glasziou P. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies. Int J Cancer 2015;137(7):1749-57.
• 10. Li J, Siegel DA, King JB. Stage-specific incidence rates and trends of prostate cancer by age, race, and ethnicity, United States, 2004-2014. Ann Epidemiol 2018;28(5):328-330.
• 11. Kupelian PA, Mahadevan A, Reddy CA, Reuther AM, Klein EA. Use of different definitions of biochemical failure after external beam radiotherapy changes conclusions about relative treatment efficacy for localized prostate cancer. Urology 2006;68(3):593-8.
• 12. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al., Protect Study Group. 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375(15):1415-1424.
• 13. James ND, Spears MR, Clarke NW, Dearnaley DP, De Bono JS, Gale J, et al., Survival with Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Prostate Cancer in the "Docetaxel Era": Data from 917 Patients in the Control Arm of the STAMPEDE Trial (MRC PR08, CRUK/06/019). Eur Urol 2015 ;67(6):1028-1038.
• 14. Albright F, Stephenson RA, Agarwal N, Teerlink CC, Lowrance WT, Farnham JM, Albright LA. Prostate cancer risk prediction based on complete prostate cancer family history. Prostate 2015;75(4):390-8.
• 15. Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF. Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(14):2137-50.
• 16. EAU. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer/summary-of-changes/2021
• 17. Welch HG, Albertsen PC. Reconsidering Prostate Cancer Mortality - The Future of PSA Screening. N Engl J Med 2020;382(16):1557-1563.
• 18. Welch HG, Gorski DH, Albertsen PC. Trends in metastatic breast and prostate cancer— lessons in cancer dynamics. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1685-7.
• 19. M1. Grozescu T, Popa F. Prostate cancer between prognosis and adequate/proper therapy. J Med Life 2017;10(1):5-12.
• 20. Ayyıldız SN, Çırakoğlu A, Ayyıldız A, Benli E. PSA request analysis: how should this be interpreted? What may be overlooked. Turk J Biochem 2016: 41(2): 131-134.