1804: Should Complexed Prostate-Specific Antigen be the First Line Test for Prostate Cancer Early Detection: Impact on Sensitivity, Rate of Unnecessary Biopsies and Direct Biopsy Costs

2004 ◽  
Vol 171 (4S) ◽  
pp. 477-477
Author(s):  
Herbert A. Fritsche ◽  
Yoshio Naya ◽  
Carol D. Cheli ◽  
Richard J. Babaian
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew R Cooperberg

Prostate cancer early detection based on screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been a highly controversial topic over the years. Early detection and treatment of high-risk prostate cancer explains a large proportion of greater than 50% reduction in age-standardized prostate cancer mortality observed since the early 1990s. However, this public health success has come at the cost of high levels of overdiagnosis of low-risk tumors, and many men have suffered from overtreatment of these entirely indolent lesions. Data from randomized trials increasingly clearly indicate a prostate cancer mortality advantage with screening. Other cohort studies, moreover, suggest that an early, baseline PSA test around age 45 or 50 years can predict cancer risk over years and decades, potentially allowing subsequent screening intervals to be personalized, further reducing both over- and underdiagnosis. Other aspects of a smarter screening paradigm include focused attention on men at higher risk based on ancestry, family history, and other factors; consideration of other variables together with PSA; selective use of secondary testing with emerging blood and urine tests; and reservation of treatment only for men at risk of prostate cancer mortality. Such an approach should be able to reduce further prostate cancer morbidity and mortality, while minimizing the harms of over-diagnosis and overtreatment.    This review contains 4 figures, 1 table, and 88 references. Key Words: Prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen, early detection, cancer screening, guidelines, risk stratification, epidemiology, PLCO, ERSPC, USPSTF, CISNET


Urology ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 31-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Horninger ◽  
Carol D Cheli ◽  
Richard J Babaian ◽  
Herbert A Fritsche ◽  
Herbert Lepor ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphane Bolduc ◽  
Brant A. Inman ◽  
Louis Lacombe ◽  
Yves Fradet ◽  
Roland R. Tremblay

Purpose: We assessed the role of urinary prostate-specific antigen(uPSA) in the follow-up of prostate cancer after retropubic radicalprostatectomy (RRP) for the early detection of local recurrences.Methods: We recruited 50 patients previously treated for prostatecancer with RRP and who had not experienced a prostatespecificantigen (PSA) recurrence within their first postoperativeyear into a cross-sectional laboratory assessment and prospective6-year longitudinal follow-up study. We defined biochemicalfailure as a serum PSA (sPSA) of 0.3 μg/L or greater. Patientsprovided blood samples and a 50-mL sample of first-voided urine.We performed Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher exact tests for statisticalanalysis.Results: The median sPSA was 0.13 μg/L. The median uPSA was0.8 μg/L, and was not significantly different when comparingGleason scores or pathological stages. Of the 50 patients, 27 initiallyhad a nondetectable sPSA but a detectable uPSA, and11 patients experienced sPSA failure after 6 years. Six patients haddetectable sPSA and uPSA initially. Fifteen patients were negativefor both sPSA and uPSA, and 13 remained sPSA-free after 6 years.The odds ratio (OR) of having sPSA failure given a positive uPSAtest was 4.5 if sPSA was undetectable, but was reduced to 2.6 ifsPSA was detectable. The pooled Mantel–Haenszel OR of 4.2 suggestedthat a detectable uPSA quadrupled the risk of recurrence,independent of whether sPSA was elevated or not. The sensitivityof uPSA for detecting future sPSA recurrences was 81% andspecificity was 45%.Conclusion: Urinary PSA could contribute to an early detection oflocal recurrences of prostate cancer after a radical prostatectomy.Objectif : Nous avons évalué le rôle de l’antigène prostatiquespécifique (APS) urinaire dans le suivi du cancer de la prostateaprès prostatectomie radicale rétropubienne (PRR) pour le dépistageprécoce de récidives locales.Méthodes : Cinquante patients atteints de cancer de la prostatetraités par PRR et n’ayant présenté aucune récidive avec anomaliede l’APS dans l’année suivant l’intervention chirurgicale ontété inscrits à une étude transversale par épreuves de laboratoireavec suivi longitudinal prospectif sur 6 ans. L’échec sur le planbiochimique était défini comme un taux d’APS sérique de 0,3 μg/Lou plus. Les patients devaient fournir des échantillons de sanget un échantillon d’urine du matin de 50 mL. Les analyses statistiquesreposaient sur le test de Wilcoxon et la méthode exactede Fisher.Résultats : La valeur médiane de l’APS sérique était de 0,13 μg/L.La valeur médiane de l’APS urinaire était de 0,8 μg/L; la différenceétait non significative quand on tenait compte des scores deGleason ou des stades pathologiques. Sur les 50 patients,27 présentaient des taux d’APS sérique non décelables au début,mais des taux d’APS urinaire décelables; 11 patients ont présentéun échec quant aux taux d’APS sérique après 6 ans. Six patientsavaient des taux d’APS sérique et urinaire décelables au départ.Quinze patients n’avaient aucun taux décelable d’APS sérique ouurinaire, et aucun APS sérique n’était toujours décelable chez13 patients après 6 ans. Le rapport de risque d’un échec quantaux taux d’APS sérique après détection d’APS urinaire est de 4,5en l’absence d’un taux d’APS sérique décelable, mais diminueà 2,6 en présence d’un taux d’APS sérique décelable. Le rapportde risque cumulé de 4,21 calculé par la méthode deMantel–Haenszel porte à croire que des taux d’APS urinaire décelablesquadruplent le risque de présenter une récidive, queles taux sériques soient élevés ou non. La sensibilité du test dedépistage de l’APS urinaire pour la détection des récidives avecanomalie des taux sériques était de 81 %, et la spécificité, de 45 %.Conclusion : Le taux d’APS urinaire peut contribuer à un dépistageprécoce des récidives locales après une prostatectomie radicale.


1993 ◽  
Vol 149 (4) ◽  
pp. 787-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Stamey ◽  
Howard C.B. Graves ◽  
Nancy Wehner ◽  
Michelle Ferrari ◽  
Fuad S. Freiha

1995 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 225-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Ciatto ◽  
Rita Bonardi ◽  
Antonia Mazzotta ◽  
Claudio Lombardi ◽  
Roberto Santoni ◽  
...  

Aims and background To evaluate the performance and feasibility of screening for prostate cancer by comparing screening modalities. Methods Prospective study of two comparable cohorts of healthy resident males aged 60 to 75 years. Screening attenders in the two invited cohorts were screened either by digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS), or by serum prostate-specific antigen determination (PSA: cutoff 4 ng/ml). Attendance and biopsy rates, predictive values, prevalence of screen-detected cancers, as well as screening costs were determined, and the efficiency of the two screening modalities was compared. Results 1425 subjects were screened by DRE + TRUS. Attendance rate was 33.7%, the biopsy rate was 2.7%, and the prevalence of detected cancers was 1.82%. A total of 1315 subjects was screened by PSA. Attendance rate was 66.9%, the biopsy rate was 2.8%, and the prevalence of detected cancers was 1.67%. Screen-detected cancer stage was more favorable than observed in clinical practice, and early detection was evident, with the prevalence/incidence ratio higher than 10:1 in both programs. The cost per subject screened was about 34,000 Lire for DRE + TRSU and about 30,000 Lire for PSA program. Conclusions The study confirms that early detection of prostate cancer is possible and that screening is practically feasible. Both screening modalities achieved comparable results as regards early detection, but screening by PSA had a higher compliance and lower costs. PSA seems the ideal test to be used in prospective controlled studies aimed at demonstrating screening efficacy.


2007 ◽  
Vol 99 (20) ◽  
pp. 1510-1515 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. D. Etzioni ◽  
D. P. Ankerst ◽  
N. S. Weiss ◽  
L. Y. T. Inoue ◽  
I. M. Thompson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document