The Swedish national guidelines on prostate cancer, part 1: early detection, diagnostics, staging, patient support and primary management of non-metastatic disease

References

• Bratt O, Carlsson S, Fransson P, et al. The Swedish national guidelines on prostate cancer, part 2: recurrent, metastatic and castration resistant disease. Scand J Urol. 2022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EAU – EANM – ESTRO – ESUR – ISUP – SIOG. Guidelines on prostate cancer. European Association of Urology. 2022. https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer.
   Google Scholar
• Cazzaniga W, Ventimiglia E, Alfano M, et al. Mini review on the use of clinical cancer registers for prostate cancer: the national prostate cancer register (NPCR) of Sweden. Front Med. 2019;6:51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nugin H, Folkvaljon Y, Damber JE, et al. Work-up and treatment of prostate cancer before and after publication of the first national guidelines on prostate cancer care in Sweden. Scand J Urol. 2018;52(4):277–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stattin P, Sandin F, Sandback T, et al. Dashboard report on performance on select quality indicators to cancer care providers. Scand J Urol. 2016;50(1):21–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandaglia G, Leni R, Bray F, et al. Epidemiology and prevention of prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(6):877–892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fallara G, Sandin F, Styrke J, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis, staging, and treatment in Sweden during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Scand J Urol. 2021;55(3):184–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alterbeck M, JärburE, Bjartell A, et al. Designing and implementing a population-based organized prostate cancer testing program. Eur Urol Focus. 2022.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bratt O, Drevin L, Akre O, et al. Family history and probability of prostate cancer, differentiated by risk category: a nationwide population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(10):djw110.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK, et al. Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer–analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(2):78–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyberg T, Tischkowitz M, Antoniou AC. BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants and prostate cancer risk: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2022;126(7):1067–1081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyberg T, Govindasami K, Leslie G, et al. Homeobox B13 G84E mutation and prostate cancer risk. Eur Urol. 2019;75(5):834–845.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pradere B, Veeratterapillay R, Dimitropoulos K, et al. Nonantibiotic strategies for the prevention of infectious complications following prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2021;205(3):653–663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eyrich NW, Morgan TM, Tosoian JJ. Biomarkers for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: contemporary clinical data and future directions. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10(7):3091–3103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grönberg H, Adolfsson J, Aly M, et al. Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50-69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(16):1667–1676.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ström P, Nordström T, Aly M, et al. The stockholm-3 model for prostate cancer detection: algorithm update, biomarker contribution, and reflex test potential. Eur Urol. 2018;74(2):204–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordström T, Discacciati A, Bergman M, et al. Prostate cancer screening using a combination of risk-prediction, MRI, and targeted prostate biopsies (STHLM3-MRI): a prospective, population-based, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(9):1240–1249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):969–974.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnanapragasam VJ, Bratt O, Muir K, et al. The cambridge prognostic groups for improved prediction of disease mortality at diagnosis in primary non-metastatic prostate cancer: a validation study. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bratt O, Folkvaljon Y, Loeb S, et al. Upper limit of cancer extent on biopsy defining very low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2015;116(2):213–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hovels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(4):387–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenman C, Abrahamsson E, Redsäter M, et al. The proportions of positive abdominal computerized tomography and bone scan in men with Cambridge Prognostic Group 4 and 5 prostate cancer – a nationwide register study. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;41:123–125.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hofman MS, Lawrentschuk N, Francis RJ, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet. 2020;395(10231):1208–1216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venderbos LDF, Aluwini S, Roobol MJ, et al. Long-term follow-up after active surveillance or curative treatment: quality-of-life outcomes of men with low-risk prostate cancer. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(6):1635–1645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahlberg MS, Adami HO, Beckmann K, et al. PCASTt/SPCG-17-a randomised trial of active surveillance in prostate cancer: rationale and design. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e027860.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klotz L, Pond G, Loblaw A, et al. Randomized study of systematic biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging and targeted and systematic biopsy in men on active surveillance (ASIST): 2-year postbiopsy follow-up. Eur Urol. 2020;77(3):311–317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hettiarachchi D, Geraghty R, Rice P, et al. Can the use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging during active surveillance of prostate cancer avoid the need for prostate biopsies?-A systematic diagnostic test accuracy review. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(3):426–436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsson H, Nordstrom T, Clements M, et al. Intensity of active surveillance and transition to treatment in men with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3(5):640–647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popiolek M, Rider JR, Andren O, et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer: a final report from three decades of follow-up. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):428–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leow JJ, Leong EK, Serrell EC, et al. Systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(6):775–789.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lantz A, Bock D, Akre O, et al. Functional and oncological outcomes after open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer: 8-year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2021;80(5):650–660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyberg M, Sjoberg DD, Carlsson SV, et al. Surgeon heterogeneity significantly affects functional and oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy in the Swedish LAPPRO trial. BJU Int. 2021;127(3):361–368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preisser F, van den Bergh RCN, Gandaglia G, et al. Effect of extended pelvic lymph node dissection on oncologic outcomes in patients with D'Amico intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study. J Urol. 2020;203(2):338–343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fossati N, Willemse PM, Van den Broeck T, et al. The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;72(1):84–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallerstedt Lantz A, Stranne J, Tyritzis SI, et al. 90-Day readmission after radical prostatectomy-a prospective comparison between robot-assisted and open surgery. Scand J Urol. 2019;53(1):26–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller LE, Efstathiou JA, Bhattacharyya SK, et al. Association of the placement of a perirectal hydrogel spacer with the clinical outcomes of men receiving radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e208221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H, et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1047–1060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widmark A, Gunnlaugsson A, Beckman L, et al. Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10196):385–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris WJ, Tyldesley S, Rodda S, et al. Androgen suppression combined with elective nodal and dose escalated radiation therapy (the ASCENDE-RT Trial): an analysis of survival endpoints for a randomized trial comparing a low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost to a dose-escalated external beam boost for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98(2):275–285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kishan AU, Cook RR, Ciezki JP, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or external beam radiotherapy with brachytherapy boost and disease progression and mortality in patients with gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer. JAMA. 2018;319(9):896–905.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kishan AU, Karnes RJ, Romero T, et al. Comparison of multimodal therapies and outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer with adverse clinicopathologic features. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(7):e2115312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettersson A, Alm D, Garmo H, et al. Comparative effectiveness of different radical radiotherapy treatment regimens for prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2020;4(2):pkaa006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson EM, Kim S, Sandler HM, et al. High-dose-rate fractionated brachytherapy monotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2021;13(4):365–372.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johansson B, Olsen JS, Karlsson L, et al. High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer: long-term experience of Swedish single-center. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2021;13(3):245–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spratt DE, Malone S, Roy S, et al. Prostate radiotherapy with adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival compared to neoadjuvant ADT: an individual patient meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(2):136–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabid A, Carrier N, Vigneault E, et al. Optimizing treatment in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: secondary analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;111(3):732–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zumsteg ZS, Spratt DE, Daskivich TJ, et al. Effect of androgen deprivation on long-term outcomes of intermediate-risk prostate cancer stratified as favorable or unfavorable: a secondary analysis of the RTOG 9408 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(9):e2015083.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iversen P, McLeod DG, See WA, et al. Antiandrogen monotherapy in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer: final results from the bicalutamide early prostate cancer programme at a median follow-up of 9.7 years. BJU Int. 2010;105(8):1074–1081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLeod DG, Iversen P, See WA, et al. Bicalutamide 150 mg plus standard care vs standard care alone for early prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2006;97(2):247–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyrrell CJ, Kaisary AV, Iversen P, et al. A randomised comparison of 'Casodex' (bicalutamide) 150 mg monotherapy versus castration in the treatment of metastatic and locally advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 1998;33(5):447–456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckmann K, Garmo H, Adolfsson J, et al. Androgen deprivation therapies and changes in comorbidity: a comparison of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antiandrogen monotherapy as primary therapy in men with high-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):676–683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attard G, Murphy L, Clarke NW, et al. Abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of primary results from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol. Lancet. 2021;399(10323):447–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vale CL, Fisher D, Kneebone A, et al. Adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy for the treatment of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer: a prospectively planned systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data. Lancet. 2020;396(10260):1422–1431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widmark A, Fossa SD, Lundmo P, et al. Does prophylactic breast irradiation prevent antiandrogen-induced gynecomastia? Evaluation of 253 patients in the randomized scandinavian trial SPCG-7/SFUO-3. Urology. 2003;61(1):145–151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar