Swedish regional population-based organised prostate cancer testing: why, what and how?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.43809Keywords:
Prostate cancer, organised testing, screening, population-based, diagnostics, quality control, performance indicators, reviewAbstract
Objective: This study aimed to describe the regional, population-based, organised prostate cancer testing (OPT) programmes that are being introduced throughout Sweden: motives, structure, target population, diagnostic algorithm, quality control, outcomes, research, and future perspectives.
Results: In 2018, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare renewed their recommendation against screening for prostate cancer. Despite this, regional OPT was considered motivated to (1) improve cost-effectiveness compared with unorganised testing, (2) improve equity by giving every man in the target population a chance to make an informed choice, and (3) gain diagnostic and organisational knowledge. The OPT programmes are provided as a regional public healthcare service. They are coordinated by a national working group. The final target population is all men aged 50–74 years. Regional OPT offices use a national administrative system to organise all steps from sending invitation letters to prostate biopsy according to a strict diagnostic algorithm. General practice is involved for blood draw only or not at all. Data are registered in a national register (SweOPT); an annual report is published with the regions’ performance on key indicators. At the end of 2024, 16 of the 21 Swedish regions had started OPT and invited 256,000 men with an average cumulative participation rate of 43%. A consortium co-ordinates OPT-related research. A general experience is that communication and organisational matters have been more challenging than medical decisions.
Conclusions: The Swedish population-based OPT programmes provide organisational experiences, diagnostic outcomes, and research results of value for future national prostate cancer screening programmes.
Downloads
References
Bergengren O, Pekala KR, Matsoukas K, et al. 2022 Update on prostate cancer epidemiology and risk factors – a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2023;84:191–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.021
Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Månsson M, et al. A 16-yr follow-up of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2019;76:43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.009
Nelson HD, Fu R, Cantor A, et al. Effectiveness of breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:244–255. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-0969 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-0969
Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, et al. Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:725–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70146-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70146-7
Bratt O, Auvinen A, Arnsrud Godtman R, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: evidence, ongoing trials, policies and knowledge gaps. BMJ Oncol. 2023;2(e000039):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000039 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000039
Rai B, Nordström T, Lantz A, et al. Spatio-temporal variation in prostate cancer testing in Stockholm: a population-based study. PLoS One. 2024;19:e0308254. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308254 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308254
Arnsrud Godtman R, Holmberg E, Lilja H, et al. Opportunistic testing versus organized prostate-specific antigen screening: outcome after 18 years in the Goteborg randomized population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol. 2015;68:354–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.006
Alterbeck M, Jarbur E, Thimansson E, et al. Designing and implementing a population-based organised Prostate Cancer Testing Pro-gramme. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8:1568–1574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2022.06.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2022.06.008
Fazekas T, Shim SR, Basile G, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2024;10:745–754. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0734 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0734
Hugosson J, Godtman RA, Wallström J, et al. Results after four years of screening for prostate cancer with PSA and MRI. N Engl J Med. 2024;391:1083–1095. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2406050 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2406050
Robinson D, Abdulkareem R, Nasrollah D, et al. Frequency of biopsy and tumor grade before vs after introduction of prostate magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6:e2330233. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.30233 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.30233
European Union Council. Council recommendation of 9 December 2022 on strengthening prevention through early detection: a new EU approach on cancer screening replacing Council Recommendation 2003/878/EC. Offic J Eur Union. 2022;C 473/1.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. EU country cancer profiles [Internet]. 2023. [cited 15th March 2025]Available from: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/eu-country-cancer-profiles_55f07000-en.html
Thimansson E, Axen E, Jäderling F, et al. A novel approach to integrated prostate cancer diagnostics: insights from MRI, prostate biopsy, and pathology reports in a pilot study. BJU Int. 2025;135:245–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16582 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16582
Hofvind S, Iqbal N, Thy JE, et al. Effect of invitation letter in language of origin on screening attendance: randomised controlled trial in BreastScreen Norway. BMJ. 2023;382:e075465. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-075465 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-075465
Carlsson SV, Arnsrud Godtman R, Pihl CG, et al. Young age on starting prostate-specific antigen testing is associated with a greater reduc-tion in prostate cancer mortality: 24-year follow-up of the Goteborg randomized population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol. 2023;83:103–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.10.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.10.006
Alberts AR, Schoots IG, Bokhorst LP, et al. Characteristics of Prostate Cancer Found at Fifth Screening in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam: Can We Selectively Detect High-grade Prostate Cancer with Upfront Multivariable Risk Stratification and Magnetic Resonance Imaging? Eur Urol. 2018;73:343-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.019
Bratt O, Carlsson S, Fransson P, et al. The Swedish national guidelines on prostate cancer, part 1: early detection, diagnostics, staging, patient support and primary management of non-metastatic disease. Scand J Urol. 2022;56:265–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2022.2094462 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2022.2094462
Stranne J. 2023/2024 update of the national prostate cancer guidelines in Sweden. Scand J Urol. 2024;59:210–211. https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.42656 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.42656
Confederation of Regional Cancer Centres. Organised prostate cancer testing (OPT): description and recommendations, Version 6.0 [Inter-net]. 2025. [cited 15th March 2025] Available from: https://cancercentrum.se/samverkan/vara-uppdrag/prevention-och-tidig-upptackt/prostatacancertestning/
Arsov C, Albers P, Herkommer K, et al. A randomized trial of risk-adapted screening for prostate cancer in young men-results of the first screening round of the PROBASE trial. Int J Cancer. 2022;150(11):1861–1869. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33940 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33940
Nordström T, Annerstedt M, Glaessgen A, et al. Repeated prostate cancer screening using prostate-specific antigen testing and magnetic resonance imaging: a secondary analysis of the STHLM3-MRI randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7:e2354577. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.54577 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.54577
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;22:1240–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00348-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00348-X
Alterbeck M, Thimansson E, Bengtsson J, et al. A pilot study of an organised population-based testing programme for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2024;133:87–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16143 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16143
Albers P, van Poppel H. Prostate cancer screening at its best: the Swedish organized prostate cancer testing program. Eur Urol. 2024;85:215–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.11.026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.11.026
Bratt O, Godtman RA, Jiborn T, et al. Population-based organised prostate cancer testing: results from the first invitation of 50-year-old men. Eur Urol. 2024;85:207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.11.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.11.013
Järbur E, Holmberg E, Björk-Eriksson T, et al. Associations between socioeconomic factors and PSA testing in a population-based organised testing programme and routine healthcare: a register-based study of 50-year-old men. BMJ Oncol. 2024;3:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000400 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000400
Järbur E, Arnsrud Godtman R, Bonander C, et al. Associations between neighbourhood characteristics and participation in a population-based organised prostate cancer testing (OPT) programme: a register-based study of 50-year-old men. PLoS One. 2025;20(4):e0322643. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322643 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322643
Helgestad ADL, Andersen B, Njor SH, Larsen MB. The association of demographic and socioeconomic variables with cancer screening partic-ipation: a national cross-sectional study of three cancer screening programs in Denmark. Heliyon. 2024;10:e31163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31163 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31163
Thimansson E, Zackrisson S, Jäderling F, et al. A pilot study of AI-assisted reading of prostate MRI in organized prostate cancer testing. Acta Oncol. 2024;63:816–821. https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2024.40475 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2024.40475
Svensson L, Stinesen Bratt K, et al. Men’s perception of being invited for prostate cancer testing and the information about its pros and cons – a survey from two population-based testing programmes. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023;52:66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.012
Arvendell M, Phillips L, Delilovic S, et al. Men’s attitudes towards participation in organised prostate cancer testing: an abductive thematic analysis. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2025;71:156–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2024.12.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2024.12.007
Svensson L, Bratt O, Hugosson J, Stinesen K. Prostate cancer screening decisions: which aspects do men value most? An interview study with men invited to a population-based program. Am J Mens Health. 2025.
Hao S, Discacciati A, Eklund M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening using magnetic resonance imaging or standard biopsy based on the STHLM3-MRI study. JAMA Oncol. 2022;9(1):88–94. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.5252 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.5252
Van Poppel H, Roobol MJ, Chandran A. Early detection of prostate cancer in the European Union: combining forces with PRAISE-U. Eur Urol. 2023;84:519–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.08.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.08.002
Bratt O. The long and winding road from guideline recommendations to improved quality of care. Eur Urol. 2023;83:402–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.01.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.01.011
Stattin P. How to improve cancer care by use of guidelines and quality registers. Scand J Urol. 2024;59:190–192. https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.42272 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.42272
Stattin P, Sandin F, Sandback T, et al. Dashboard report on performance on select quality indicators to cancer care providers. Scand J Urol. 2016;50:21–28. https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2015.1063083 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2015.1063083
Pathirana TI, Pickles K, Riikonen JM, et al. Including information on overdiagnosis in shared decision making: a review of prostate cancer screening decision aids. MDM Policy Pract. 2022;7:23814683221129875. https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221129875 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221129875
Josefsson A, Månsson M, Kohestani K, et al. Performance of 4Kscore as a reflex test to prostate-specific antigen in the GOTEBORG-2 pros-tate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol. 2024;86:223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.04.037 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.04.037
Auvinen A, Tammela TLJ, Mirtti T, et al. Prostate cancer screening with PSA, Kallikrein panel, and MRI: the ProScreen randomized trial. JAMA. 2024;331:1452–1459. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.3841 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.3841
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ola Bratt, Salma Tunå Butt, Charlotte Carlsson, Lisa Jelf-Eneqvist, Olof Gunnarsson, Alma Ihre, Thomas Jiborn, Anna Lantz, Heide Larsson, Helena Strömqvist, Johan Styrke, Nils-Erik Svedberg, Rebecka Arnsrud Godtman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As from Volume 59 (2024) all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY license, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
