Prostate cancer diagnostic pathway in men with lower urinary tract symptoms or performing opportunistic screening: The Italian Society of Urology (SIU) position paper
Vincenzo Ficarra,Riccardo Bartoletti,Marco Borghesi,Cosimo DE Nunzio,Ugo G Falagario,Giorgio Gandaglia,Gianluca Giannarini,Andrea Minervini,Vincenzo Mirone,Francesco Porpiglia,Bernardo Rocco,Andrea Salonia,Paolo Verze,Giuseppe Carrieri,Italian Society of Urology (SIU) panel,Enrico Checcucci,Jeanlou Collavino,Alessandro Crestani,Mario DE Angelis,Stefano DE Luca,Massimo DI Maio,Ettore DI Trapani,Mauro Gacci,Barbara A Jereczek,Roberto LA Rocca,Lorenzo Lo Monaco,Nicola Longo,Fabrizio Maida,Andrea Mari,Luciana Mariani,Luigi Napolitano,Matteo Pacini,Marta Rossanese,Nazareno Suardi,Giorgia Tema,Carlo Terrone,Andrea Tubaro,Alessandro Zucchi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.24.06118-4
Abstract:Background: Voluntary PCa screening frequently results in excessive use of unnecessary diagnostic tests and an increasing risk of detection of indolent PCa and unaffordable costs for the various national health systems. In this scenario, the Italian Society of Urology (Società Italiana di Urologia, SIU) proposes an organized flow chart guiding physicians to improve early diagnosis of significant PCa avoiding unnecessary diagnostic tests and prostate biopsy. Methods: According to available evidence and international guidelines [i.e., European Association of Urology (EAU), American Association of Urology (AUA) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)] on PCa, a Panel of expert urologists selected by Italian Society of Urology (SIU, Società Italiana di Urologia) proposed some indications to develop a stepwise diagnostic pathway based on the diagnostic tests mainly used in the clinical practice. The final document was submitted to six expert urologists for external revision and approval. Moreover, the final document was shared with patient advocacy groups. Results: In voluntary men and symptomatic patients with elevated PSA value (>3 ng/mL), the Panel strongly discourage the use of antibiotic agents in absence of urinary tract infection confirmed by urine culture. DRE remains a key part of the urologic physical examination helping urologists to correctly interpret PSA elevation and prioritizing the execution of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) in presence of suspicious PCa. Men with negative mpMRI and low clinical suspicion of PSA (PSA density < 0.20 ng/mL/cc, negative DRE findings, no family history) can be further monitored. Men with negative mpMRI and a higher risk of PCa (familial history, suspicious DRE, PSAD>0.20 ng/mL/cc or PSA>20 ng/mL) should be considered for systematic prostate biopsy. While PI-RADS 4-5 lesions represent a strong indication for prostate biopsy, PI-RADS 3 lesions should be further stratified according to PSAD values and prostate biopsy performed when PSAD is higher than 0.20. Accreditation, certification, and quality audits of radiologists and centers performing prostatic mpMRI should be strongly considered. The accessibility and/or the waiting list for MRI examinations should be also evaluated in the diagnostic pathway. The panel suggests performing transperineal or transrectal targeted plus systematic biopsies as standard of care. Conclusions: Scientific societies must support the use of shared diagnostic pathway with the aim to increase the early detection of significant PCa reducing a delayed diagnosis of advanced PCa. Moreover, a shared diagnostic pathway can reduce the incorrect use of antibiotic, the number of unnecessary laboratory and radiologic examinations as well as of prostate biopsies.