Skip to content

A Randomized Trial of Early Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (ProScreen)

Randomized Population-Based Pragmatic Prostate Cancer Screening Trial Based on PSA, Kallikrein Panel, and MRI

Status
Enrolling by invitation
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03423303
Acronym
ProScreen
Enrollment
17400
Registered
2018-02-06
Start date
2018-04-23
Completion date
2037-12-31
Last updated
2025-04-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Prostate Cancer

Keywords

Prostate cancer, Screening, Randomised trial, Kallikrein, Magnetic resonance imaging, Prostate-specific antigen

Brief summary

A population-based randomised trial of prostate cancer screening will be carried out. A total of approximately 117,200 men aged 50-63 in Helsinki and Tampere are randomised to intervention (screening) or control arm. A reduction in harms of screening in the form of overdiagnosis is sought, while retaining as much as possible of the mortality benefit (reduction in prostate cancer mortality). Novel methods that have been shown to increase specificity for clinically relevant prostate cancer but never tested in a randomised setting will be employed in screening and diagnostics. The main end-point is prostate cancer mortality at 10 and 15 years of follow-up.

Detailed description

Frequent adverse effects have so far tipped the balance of benefits and harms against prostate cancer screening, and therefore the investigators will focus on employing the best possible means for reducing them. The project introduces a novel concept for PC screening that minimises overdiagnosis and overtreatment, while retaining the mortality benefit to shift the balance of screening benefits and harms to a favourable net effect. The strategy for implementation as a randomised screening trial utilises three levels of risk assessment (PSA, kallikrein panel and MRI) before the diagnostic procedure (prostate biopsy), each aimed at eliminating detection of indolent disease. The study hypothesis is that by virtue of the novel three-tiered screening algorithm, the beneficial screening effect (prostate cancer mortality reduction) can be retained, while the overdiagnosis can be largely eliminated. The impact of an integrative approach has never been evaluated - each of the methods has only been assessed in isolation. The breakthrough potential of the proposal lies in combining the three novel approaches and taking them to the forefront of applied research through a randomised trial. The key impact of the study is in defining whether the overall balance of benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening can be reversed by applying the best possible methods to detect only clinically important disease. If the study hypothesis is affirmed, it opens the way to introduction of prostate cancer screening. If the balance of harms and benefits is still unfavourable, the problem of overdiagnosis in prostate cancer may be intractable.

Interventions

DIAGNOSTIC_TESTProstate cancer screening

Depending on each diagnostic test result the participants in the screening arm will undergo PSA-testing, 4Kscore determination, MRI, and MRI/US fusion biopsy only.

Sponsors

Helsinki University Central Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Tampere University Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Finnish Cancer Registry, Finland
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
University of Turku
CollaboratorOTHER
Lund University
CollaboratorOTHER
Fimlab Laboratories, Finland
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
Laboratory HUSLAB, Finland
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
University of Helsinki
CollaboratorOTHER
Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa
CollaboratorOTHER
Clinical Research Institute HUCH Ltd
CollaboratorOTHER
Tampere University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SCREENING
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Of the 112,347 men aged 50-63 years resident in Helsinki and Tampere regions, a fourth will be randomised to screening and the rest to control arm (after exclusion of prevalent cases).

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
50 Years to 63 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* 50-63-year-old men (age in 2018) residing in Tampere or Helsinki

Exclusion criteria

* Prevalent prostate cancer

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Prostate cancer (PrCa) mortalityAt 10 years of follow-up.An intention to screen analysis will be performed, with all men in the groups defined by random allocation, regardless of compliance. Follow-up starts at randomisation, and ends at death. Cox regression will be used with prostate cancer death as the outcome.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Prostate cancer (PrCa) mortality - secondary analysisAt 10 years of follow-up.A secondary analysis of prostate cancer mortality will be performed using instrumental variable/ Cuzick method with correction for contamination and selection bias due to non-compliance.
Cumulative incidence of advanced (T3-T4 or M1) prostate cancerAt approximately 5 years of follow-up.Intermediate outcomes include cumulative incidence of advanced (T3-T4 or M1) prostate cancer (number of cases relative to population size, not using incidence density to avoid the lead-time bias due to early detection by screening).
Cumulative incidence of low-risk cancer (Gleason<7)At approximately 5 years of follow-up.Intermediate outcomes include cumulative incidence of low-risk cancer (Gleason\<7) as an indicator of overdiagnosis.

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Adverse effects of prostate biopsy immediately after the biopsyDuring the first year.Adverse effects of biopsy are evaluated using a questionnaire on complications including assessment of bleeding, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), erectile dysfunction (ED), pain, and antibiotic treatment immediately after the biopsy.
Analysis of screening test performance - 4KscoreAt 2, 4, and 6 years.Diagnostic performance of 4Kscore among men with PSA\>3 in terms of predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity for clinically significant PrCa (defined as Gleason 7+ cancers - including those diagnosed within the next four years for test-negative non-biopsied men i.e. false negatives).
Cost analysis (incremental cost effectiveness ratio)At 5 (cost analysis) and 10-15 (final analysis) years of follow-up.Economic evaluation will commence with cost analysis, and the final analysis of incremental cost effectiveness ratio (with a decision analysis) will be conducted once data on both long-term cost and real outcome data on both utilities (quality-adjusted life-years) and mortality are available.
Adverse effects of prostate biopsy 30 days after the biopsyDuring the first year.Adverse effects of biopsy are evaluated with a questionnaire on complications, including assessment of bleeding, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), erectile dysfunction (ED), pain, and antibiotic treatment 30 days after the biopsy.
Analysis of screening test performance - MRIAt 2, 4, and 6 years.Diagnostic performance of MRI based on PI-RADS v2 scores among men with PSA\>3 and positive 4Kscore in terms of predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity for clinically significant PrCa (defined as Gleason 7+ cancers - including those diagnosed within the next four years for test-negative non-biopsied men i.e. false negatives).
Assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancerAt 4 years.Health-related quality of life among men diagnosed with prostate cancer will be assessed using the EPIC 26 instrument enrolling screen-detected and interval cases, as well as those diagnosed among non-participants and in the control arm.
Assessment of short-term prostate cancer (PrCa)-specific anxietyAt 4 years.Anxiety among men diagnosed with prostate cancer will be assessed using the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC), enrolling screen-detected and interval cases, as well as those diagnosed among non-participants and in the control arm.

Countries

Finland

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 8, 2026