Prostate cancer incidence and mortality in Europe and implications for screening activities: population based study

Abstract

Abstract Objective To provide a baseline comparative assessment of the main epidemiological features of prostate cancer in European populations as background for the proposed EU screening initiatives. Design Population based study. Setting 26 European countries, 19 in the EU, 1980-2017. National or subnational incidence data were extracted from population based cancer registries from the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s Global Cancer Observatory, and mortality data from the World Health Organization. Population Men aged 35-84 years from 26 eligible countries. Results Over the past decades, incidence rates for prostate cancer varied markedly in both magnitude and rate of change, in parallel with temporal variations in prostate specific antigen testing. The variation in incidence across countries was largest around the mid-2000s, with rates spanning from 46 (Ukraine) to 336 (France) per 100 000 men. Thereafter, incidence started to decline in several countries, but with the latest rates nevertheless remaining raised and increasing again in the most recent quinquennium in several countries. Mortality rates during 1980-2020 were much lower and less variable than incidence rates, with steady declines in most countries and lesser temporal differences between countries. Overall, the up to 20-fold variation in prostate cancer incidence contrasts with a corresponding fivefold variation in mortality. Also, the inverse U-shape of the age specific curves for incidence contrasted with the mortality pattern, which increased progressively with age. The difference between the highest and lowest incidence rates across countries ranged from 89.6 per 100 000 men in 1985 to 385.8 per 100 000 men in 2007, while mortality rates across countries ranged from 23.7 per 100 000 men in 1983 to 35.6 per 100 000 men in 2006. Conclusions The epidemiological features of prostate cancer presented here are indicative of overdiagnosis varying over time and across populations. Although the results are ecological in nature and must be interpreted with caution, they do support previous recommendations that any future implementation of prostate cancer screening must be carefully designed with an emphasis on minimising the harms of overdiagnosis.