Validation of the Stockholm3 test for prostate cancer detection in a nationwide Finnish private primary care cohort
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v61.46418Keywords:
Biomarker, diagnostic test, prostate cancer, prostate cancer screening, prostate-specific antigen, Stockholm3Abstract
Objective: The Stockholm3 test combines clinical variables and biomarkers to improve the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). We aimed to validate and compare its performance to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based decision-making.
Material and methods: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study at a nationwide Finnish private primary care provider between July 2017 and February 2018. We included 1,379 men scheduled for PSA tests, excluding 74 men with missing PSA results or previously diagnosed prostate cancer. The clinical assessment was based on the PSA value and other clinical parameters, with clinicians unaware of the Stockholm3 result. We compared PSA-based decision-making with counterfactual Stockholm3 reflex testing.
Results: Among the 1,305 men, the median age was 58 (interquartile range [IQR]: 51–64). PSA was ≥3 ng/mL in 209/1,305 (16%) men and above the age-specific reference limit in 119/1,305 (9%) men. Among men with PSA ≥1.5 ng/mL, a Stockholm3 Risk Score ≥15% would have selected 44% fewer men for further diagnostic evaluation than PSA ≥3 ng/mL (117/469 vs. 209/469). Over 6 years of registry-based follow-up, men with a Stockholm3 Risk Score ≥15% despite PSA below the age-specific reference limit represented a clinically relevant subgroup with subsequent csPCa diagnoses. The main limitation of this study was its observational design.
Conclusions: The hypothetical clinical implementation of Stockholm3 reflex testing would have reduced referrals, helped standardise decision-making, and identified a different group of men for further diagnostic evaluation.
Downloads
References
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
Finnish Cancer Registry. Cancer in Finland 2020 [Internet]; 2022 [cited 2025 Nov 18]. Available from: https://cancerregistry.fi/
Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;319:1901–1913. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.3710
Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65:1046–1055. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062
Kerro O, Kalalahti I, Lokman U, et al. Erectile and urinary function in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer: results from the Finnish arm of the PRIAS trial. Scand J Urol. 2025;60:213–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.45022
EUR-Lex. Official Journal of the European Union, 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 [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2025 Nov 18]. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2022:473:TOC
Enblad AP, Bergengren O, Andrén O, et al. PSA testing patterns in a large Swedish cohort before the implementation of organized PSA testing. Scand J Urol. 2020;54:376–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2020.1797871
Auvinen A, Tammela TLJ, Mirtti T, et al; ProScreen trial investigators. Prostate cancer screening with PSA, Kallikrein panel, and MRI: the ProScreen randomized trial. JAMA. 2024;331:1452–1459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.3841
Mistry K, Cable G. Meta-analysis of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination as screening tests for prostate carcinoma. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2003;16:95–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.16.2.95
Sanghera S, Coast J, Martin RM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review of decision-analytical models. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3974-1
Bratt O, Butt ST, Carlsson C, et al. Swedish regional population-based organised prostate cancer testing: why, what and how? Scand J Urol. 2025;60:97–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.43809
Brøchner Pedersen T, Hvid Poulsen M, Lund M, et al. Prospective validation study of a combined urine and plasma test for predicting high-grade prostate cancer in biopsy naïve men. Scand J Urol. 2025;60:8–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.42752
Grönberg H, Adolfsson J, Aly M, et al. Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50–69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1667–1676. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00361-7
Nordström T, Discacciati A, Bergman M, et al; STHLM3 study group. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00348-X
Oesterling JE, Jacobsen SJ, Chute CG, et al. Serum prostate-specific antigen in a community-based population of healthy men. Establishment of age-specific reference ranges. JAMA. 1993;270:860–864. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1993.03510070082041
Waldén M, Aldrimer M, Lagerlöf JH, et al. A head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer diagnostic strategies using the Stockholm3 test, magnetic resonance imaging, and swedish national guidelines: results from a prospective population-based screening study. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;38:32–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.01.010
Fredsøe J, Sandahl M, Vedsted P, et al; PRIMA Study Group. Results from the PRIMA Trial: comparison of the STHLM3 test and prostate-specific antigen in general practice for detection of prostate cancer in a biopsy-naïve population. Eur Urol Oncol. 2023;6:484–492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.07.006
Palsdottir T, Söderbäck H, Jäderling F, et al. The Capio prostate cancer center model for prostate cancer diagnostics-real-world evidence from 2018 to 2022. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2024;61:29–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2024.01.012
Viste E, Vinje CA, Lid TG, et al. Effects of replacing PSA with Stockholm3 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in a healthcare system – the Stavanger experience. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2020;38:315–322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2020.1802139
Nelis M, Esko T, Mägi R, et al. Genetic structure of Europeans: a view from the North-East. PLoS One. 2009;4:e5472. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005472
Elyan A, Saba K, Sigle A, et al. Prospective multicenter validation of the Stockholm3 test in a central European Cohort. Eur Urol Focus. 2024;10:620–626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2023.09.016
Vigneswaran HT, Eklund M, Discacciati A, et al; SEPTA STHLM3 Study Group. Stockholm3 in a multiethnic cohort for prostate cancer detection (SEPTA): a prospective multicentered trial. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42:3806–3816. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.24.00152
Tilki D, Rejek N, Nohe F, et al. External validation of Stockholm3 in a retrospective german clinical cohort. Eur Urol Focus. 2025;11:82–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2024.07.009
Käypä hoito. Prostate cancer. Current Care Guidelines [Internet]. Working group set up by the Finnish Medical Society Duodecim and the Finnish Urological Association. Helsinki: The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim; 2023 [cited 2025 Nov 18]. Available from: https://www.kaypahoito.fi/
Eklund M, Nordström T, Aly M, et al. The Stockholm-3 (STHLM3) model can improve prostate cancer diagnostics in men aged 50-69 yr compared with current prostate cancer testing. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4:707–710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.10.009
Soeterik TFW, Wu X, Van den Bergh RCN, et al; EAU-YAU Prostate Cancer Working Party. Personalised prostate cancer diagnosis: evaluating biomarker-based approaches to reduce unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy procedures. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2025;75:106–119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2025.03.006
Bratt O, Lilja H. Modern prostate cancer diagnostics reduce overdiagnosis – will they open up for population-based screening? Scand J Urol. 2021;55:491–492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2021.1980608
McLeod OD, Palsdottir T, Walz J, et al. Cost analysis of prostate cancer care using a biomarker-enhanced diagnostic strategy with Stockholm3. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2024;66:26–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2024.05.010
Discacciati A, Abbadi A, Clements MS, et al. Repeat prostate cancer screening using blood-based risk prediction or prostate-specific antigen in the era of magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies: a secondary analysis of the STHLM3-MRI randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol Oncol. 2025;8:1466–1473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2024.10.016
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Henrikki Santti, Mika Matikainen, Kristina Hotakainen
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.
