Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, part II: Recent changes in prostate cancer trends and disease characteristics

Serban Negoita, Eric J Feuer, Angela Mariotto, Kathleen A Cronin, Valentina I Petkov, Sarah K Hussey, Vicki Benard, S Jane Henley, Robert N Anderson, Stacey Fedewa, Recinda L Sherman, Betsy A Kohler, Barbara J Dearmon, Andrew J Lake, Jiemin Ma, Lisa C Richardson, Ahmedin Jemal, Lynne Penberthy, Serban Negoita, Eric J Feuer, Angela Mariotto, Kathleen A Cronin, Valentina I Petkov, Sarah K Hussey, Vicki Benard, S Jane Henley, Robert N Anderson, Stacey Fedewa, Recinda L Sherman, Betsy A Kohler, Barbara J Dearmon, Andrew J Lake, Jiemin Ma, Lisa C Richardson, Ahmedin Jemal, Lynne Penberthy

Abstract

Background: Temporal trends in prostate cancer incidence and death rates have been attributed to changing patterns of screening and improved treatment (mortality only), among other factors. This study evaluated contemporary national-level trends and their relations with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing prevalence and explored trends in incidence according to disease characteristics with stage-specific, delay-adjusted rates.

Methods: Joinpoint regression was used to examine changes in delay-adjusted prostate cancer incidence rates from population-based US cancer registries from 2000 to 2014 by age categories, race, and disease characteristics, including stage, PSA, Gleason score, and clinical extension. In addition, the analysis included trends for prostate cancer mortality between 1975 and 2015 by race and the estimation of PSA testing prevalence between 1987 and 2005. The annual percent change was calculated for periods defined by significant trend change points.

Results: For all age groups, overall prostate cancer incidence rates declined approximately 6.5% per year from 2007. However, the incidence of distant-stage disease increased from 2010 to 2014. The incidence of disease according to higher PSA levels or Gleason scores at diagnosis did not increase. After years of significant decline (from 1993 to 2013), the overall prostate cancer mortality trend stabilized from 2013 to 2015.

Conclusions: After a decline in PSA test usage, there has been an increased burden of late-stage disease, and the decline in prostate cancer mortality has leveled off. Cancer 2018;124:2801-2814. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Keywords: Gleason score; incidence; mortality; prostate cancer; prostate-specific antigen; trends.

© 2018 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trends in the proportion of men aged ≥50 years who received PSA testing in the prior year in the United States in 1987‐2005 (reconstructed from data from Medicare claims and the NHIS and based on methodology in Mariotto et al12) and trends in age‐ and delay‐adjusted prostate cancer incidence rates among men of all races combined by stage at diagnosis in SEER 9 in 1975‐2014. (A) Percentage of men having at least 1 PSA test in the prior year and their first PSA test in the prior year (NHIS): ages ≥ 50 years. (B) Prostate cancer incidence rates (SEER 9): all stages and all races. (C) Prostate cancer incidence rates (SEER 9): distant stage and all races. Rates are per 100,000 persons and have been age‐adjusted to the 2000 US standard population and delay‐adjusted for age and stage at diagnosis. Note that the y‐axis ratio for panel B to panel C is 10:1. The SEER 9 registries are Atlanta, Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, San Francisco–Oakland, Seattle–Puget Sound, and Utah. ^The trend was statistically significant from 0 (P < .05). APC indicates annual percent change; NHIS, National Health Interview Survey; PSA, prostate‐specific antigen; SEER, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Trends in the proportion of men aged ≥50 years who received a PSA screening test in the prior year by age group in 2000‐2015 (NHIS) and trends in age‐ and delay‐adjusted prostate cancer incidence rates by race, age group, and stage at diagnosis from 42 registries representing 89% of the US population in 2001‐2014 (NAACCR). (A) PSA screening in the prior year: ages ≥ 50 years. (B) PSA screening in the prior year: ages of 50 to 74 years. (C) PSA screening in the prior year: ages ≥ 75 years. (D) Incidence rates and joinpoint trends: all stages and all ages. (E) Incidence rates and joinpoint trends: all stages and ages of 50 to 74 years. (F) Incidence rates and joinpoint trends: all stages and ages ≥ 75 years. (G) Incidence rates and joinpoint trends: distant stage and all ages. (H) Incidence rates and joinpoint trends: distant stage and ages of 50 to 74 years. (I) Incidence rates and joinpoint trends: distant stage and ages ≥ 75 years. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Rates are per 100,000 persons and have been delay‐adjusted for age and stage at diagnosis. Note that panels D to I have different y‐axes. ^The trend was statistically significant from 0 (P < .05). *Better ascertainment of the year in which the test was received. APC indicates annual percent change; NAACCR, North American Association for Central Cancer Registries; NHIS, National Health Interview Survey; PSA, prostate‐specific antigen.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Trends in age‐ and delay‐adjusted prostate cancer incidence rates and proportions of cases by PSA value and age category in SEER 18 in 2004‐2014. (A) Incidence rates by PSA category: all ages. (B) Proportions by PSA category: all ages. (C) Incidence rates by PSA category: ages of 50 to 74 years. (D) Proportions by PSA category: ages of 50 to 74 years. (E) Incidence rates by PSA category: ages ≥ 75 years. (F) Proportions by PSA category: ages ≥ 75 years. Rates are per 100,000 persons and have been delay‐adjusted for age and stage at diagnosis. The SEER 18 registries are Connecticut, Georgia, the Greater California, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, the Alaska Native Tumor Registry, Arizona Indians, the Cherokee Nation Cancer Registry, metropolitan Atlanta and rural Georgia, San Francisco–Oakland and San Jose–Monterey, Los Angeles, Detroit, and Seattle–Puget Sound. ^The trend was statistically significant from 0 (P < .05). APC indicates annual percent change; PSA, prostate‐specific antigen; SEER, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Trends in age‐ and delay‐adjusted prostate cancer incidence rates and proportions of cases by GS and age category in SEER 18 in 2004‐2014. (A) Incidence rates by GS category: all ages. (B) Proportions by GS category: all ages. (C) Incidence rates by GS category: ages of 50 to 74 years. (D) Proportions by GS category: ages of 50 to 74 years. (E) Incidence rates by GS category: ages ≥ 75 years. (F) Proportions by GS category: ages ≥ 75 years. Rates are per 100,000 persons and have been delay‐adjusted for age and stage at diagnosis. The SEER 18 registries are Connecticut, Georgia, the Greater California, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, the Alaska Native Tumor Registry, Arizona Indians, the Cherokee Nation Cancer Registry, metropolitan Atlanta and rural Georgia, San Francisco–Oakland and San Jose–Monterey, Los Angeles, Detroit, and Seattle–Puget Sound. ^The trend was statistically significant from 0 (P < .05). APC indicates annual percent change; GS, Gleason score; SEER, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Trends in age‐ and delay‐adjusted prostate cancer incidence rates and proportions of cases by clinical extension and age category in SEER 18 in 2004‐2014. (A) Incidence rates by cT: all ages. (B) Proportions by cT: all ages. (C) Incidence rates by cT: ages of 50 to 74 years. (D) Proportions by cT: ages of 50 to 74 years. (E) Incidence rates by cT: ages ≥ 75 years. (F) Proportions by cT: ages ≥ 75 years. Rates are per 100,000 persons and have been delay‐adjusted for age and stage at diagnosis. The SEER 18 registries are Connecticut, Georgia, the Greater California, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, the Alaska Native Tumor Registry, Arizona Indians, the Cherokee Nation Cancer Registry, metropolitan Atlanta and rural Georgia, San Francisco–Oakland and San Jose–Monterey, Los Angeles, Detroit, and Seattle–Puget Sound. ^The trend was statistically significant from 0 (P < .05). APC indicates annual percent change; SEER, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Trends in prostate cancer death rates by race in the United States in 1975‐2015 (National Center for Health Statistics). Rates are per 100,000 persons and have been age‐adjusted to the 2000 US standard population. ^The trend was statistically significant from 0 (P < .05). APC indicates annual percent change.

References

    1. Potosky AL, Miller BA, Albertsen PC, Kramer BS. The role of increasing detection in the rising incidence of prostate cancer. JAMA. 1995;273:548‐552.
    1. Brawley OW. Trends in prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012;2012:152‐6.
    1. US Preventive Services Task Force . Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:185‐191.
    1. US Preventive Services Task Force . Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:120‐134.
    1. Hu JC, Nguyen P, Mao J, et al. Increase in prostate cancer distant metastases at diagnosis in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:705‐707.
    1. Jemal A, Fedewa SA, Ma J, et al. Prostate cancer incidence and PSA testing patterns in relation to USPSTF screening recommendations. JAMA. 2015;314:2054‐2061.
    1. Houston KA, King J, Li J, Jemal A. Trends in prostate cancer incidence rates and prevalence of prostate‐specific antigen screening by socioeconomic status and regions in the US, 2004‐2013. J Urol. 2018;199:676‐682.
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network . NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. . Accessed May 7, 2018.
    1. Pettersson A, Robinson D, Garmo H, Holmberg L, Stattin P. Age at diagnosis and prostate cancer treatment and prognosis: a population‐based cohort study. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:377‐385.
    1. Clegg LX, Feuer EJ, Midthune DN, Fay MP, Hankey BF. Impact of reporting delay and reporting error on cancer incidence rates and trends. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1537‐1545.
    1. Huang L, Midthune D, Krapcho M, Zou Z, Horner MJ, Feuer EJ. Adjusting for reporting delay in cancer incidence when combining different sets of cancer registries. Biom J. 2013;55:755‐770.
    1. Mariotto AB, Etzioni R, Krapcho M, Feuer EJ. Reconstructing PSA testing patterns between black and white men in the US from Medicare claims and the National Health Interview Survey. Cancer. 2007;109:1877‐1886.
    1. National Cancer Institute . SEER‐Medicare: about the data files. . Accessed October 12, 2017.
    1. National Cancer Institute . Site recode. . Accessed October 12, 2017.
    1. NAACCR Research Application Review Workgroup . Information for CINA Deluxe Data Investigators. . Accessed October 12, 2017.
    1. North American Association of Central Cancer Registries . Registry data fitness for use by data year (1995‐2014). . Accessed October 12, 2017.
    1. Cronin KA, Lake AJ, Scott S, et al. The annual report to the nation on the status of cancer part I: national cancer statistics. Cancer. 2018;124:2785‐2800.
    1. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program . Summary Staging Guide for the Cancer Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 1977.
    1. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program . Summary Staging Guide for the Cancer Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2000.
    1. North American Association of Central Cancer Registries . Derived SS2000. . Accessed October 12, 2017.
    1. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program . Research data (1973‐2014), National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, released April 2017, based on the November 2016 submission. . Accessed October 12, 2017.
    1. Adamo MP, Boten JA, Coyle LM, et al. Validation of prostate‐specific antigen laboratory values recorded in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. Cancer. 2016;123:697‐703.
    1. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer Nature; 2016.
    1. Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Amin MB, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. Version: prostate 4.0.0.0. . Accessed October 12, 2017.
    1. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee . The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228‐1242.
    1. Adamo M, Dickie, L , Ruhl J. SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2016. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2016:100‐101.
    1. North American Association of Central Cancer Registries . Derived AJCC‐6 T. . Accessed October 12, 2017.
    1. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: J B Lippincott; 2002.
    1. Thornton ML, ed. Standards for Cancer Registries Volume II: Data Standards and Data Dictionary, Record Layout Version 16. 20th ed. Springfield, IL: North American Association of Central Cancer Registries; 2015.
    1. National Cancer Institute . Cancer incidence rates adjusted for reporting delay. . Accessed April 11, 2017.
    1. Surveillance Research Program . SEER*Stat Software. Version 8.3.4. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2017.
    1. Surveillance Research Program . Joinpoint Regression Program. Version 4.5.0.1. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2017.
    1. Berkowitz Z, Li J, Richards TB, Marcus PM. Patterns of prostate‐specific antigen test use in the U.S., 2005‐2015. Am J Prev Med. 2017;53:909‐913.
    1. Stout NK, Knudsen AB, Kong CY, McMahon PM, Gazelle GS. Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:533‐545.
    1. US Preventive Services Task Force . Prostate cancer screening draft recommendation. . Accessed October 12, 2017.
    1. Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;169:517‐523.
    1. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA. Contemporary Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41:e1‐e7.
    1. Gulati R, Tsodikov A, Etzioni R, et al. Expected population impacts of discontinued prostate‐specific antigen screening. Cancer. 2014;120:3519‐3526.
    1. James ND, de Bono JS, Spears MR, et al.; STAMPEDE Investigators . Abiraterone for prostate cancer not previously treated with hormone therapy. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:338‐351.
    1. Poorthuis MHF, Vernooij RWM, van Moorselaar RJA, de Reijke TM. First‐line non‐cytotoxic therapy in chemotherapy‐naive patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review of 10 randomised clinical trials. BJU Int. 2017;119:831‐845.
    1. Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, et al. Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19:175‐181.
    1. Shore N, Heidenreich A, Saad F. Predicting response and recognizing resistance: improving outcomes in patients with castration‐resistant prostate cancer. Urology. 2017;109:6‐18.

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj