BACKGROUND:We sought to determine the extent to which US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2012 Grade D recommendations against prostate-specific antigen screening may have impacted recent prostate cancer disease incidence patterns in the United States across stage, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groups, and age groups. METHODS: SEER*Stat version 8.3.4 was used to calculate annual prostate cancer incidence rates from 2010 to 2015 for men aged ≥50 years according to American Joint Committee on Cancer stage at diagnosis (localized vs metastatic), NCCN risk group (low vs unfavorable [intermediate or high-risk]), and age group (50-74 years vs ≥75 years). Age-adjusted incidences per 100,000 persons with corresponding year-by-year incidence ratios (IRs) were calculated using the 2000 US Census population. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2015, the incidence (per 100,000 persons) of localized prostate cancer decreased from 195.4 to 131.9 (P trend < .001) and from 189.0 to 123.4 (P trend < .001) among men aged 50-74 and ≥75 years, respectively. The largest relative year-by-year decline occurred between 2011 and 2012 in NCCN low-risk disease (IR, 0.77 [0.75-0.79, P < .0001] and IR 0.68 [0.62-0.74, P < .0001] for men aged 50-74 and ≥75 years, respectively). From 2010-2015, the incidence of metastatic disease increased from 6.2 to 7.1 (P trend < .001) and from 16.8 to 22.6 (P trend < .001) among men aged 50-74 and ≥75 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This report illustrates recent prostate cancer "reverse migration" away from indolent disease and toward more aggressive disease beginning in 2012. The incidence of localized disease declined across age groups from 2012 to 2015, with the greatest relative declines occurring in low-risk disease. Additionally, the incidence of distant metastatic disease increased gradually throughout the study period. Cancer 2020;126:717-724.

Conservative management (active surveillance or watchful waiting) for low-risk prostate cancer is an increasingly used alternative to definitive radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy. 1,2 Given the underrepresentation of black patients in clinical trials and concern about underlying aggressive disease, 3,4 expert panels advise caution when applying conservative management to black patients. 1 Therefore, we examined recent trends in the use of active surveillance or watchful waiting in black men, as compared with nonblack men, with low-risk prostate cancer in the United States.