The change in prostate cancer presentation and diagnosis coinciding with screening recommendations.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 95-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franklin Gaylis ◽  
Jae Choi ◽  
Paul Dato ◽  
Edward Cohen ◽  
Renee Calabrese ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
The United States ◽  
Volume Number ◽  
Post Hoc Analysis ◽  
Gleason Grading ◽  
Bonferroni Adjustment ◽  
Post Hoc

95 Background: The controversy surrounding prostate cancer (PCa) screening resulted in the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) and several primary care societies to recommend against this practice. We examined the characteristics of men evaluated in a large urology practice for an elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) and the subsequent PCa diagnoses since the USPTF recommendation. Methods: Characteristics of all men presenting for an elevated PSA from August 2011 to August 2014 were prospectively collected in a database. Age at the time of biopsy, self-declared race, insurance status, family history, digital rectal examination findings, PSA within 6 months of biopsy, biopsy history, prostate volume, number of cores sampled, pathologic read (number and percent cores positive, Gleason grading) were all recorded. Kruskall-Wallis rank sum tests were used to compare across all years with post-hoc Dunn’s tests for pairwise multiple comparisons using Bonferroni adjustment. Results: The number of men referred for elevated PSA dropped from 933 in year 1 to 754 by year 3 (19%) with a concomitant drop in the number of biopsies performed in newly referred men from 461 to 370 (20%). The group’s prostate biopsy volume decreased by 15% (1,133 biopsies in year 1 compared to 958 in year 3). Median pre-biopsy PSA increased across all years from 7.0 ng/ml to 8.1 ng/ml (p = 0.0006) with a rise in the proportion of men having PSAs > 10 from 28% to 38%. In the post-hoc analysis, median pre-biopsy PSA was significantly different between years 1 and 3 (p = 0.0002) and years 2 and 3 (p = 0.017) but not years 1 and 2 (p = 0.33). The biopsy positivity rate increased slightly from 46% to 50% across all years with a rise in the proportion of men having Gleason scores (GS) ≥ 8 from 21% to 30% (p = 0.0001). In the post-hoc analysis, median GS was significantly different between year 1 and year 3 (p < 0.0001) and year 2 to year 3 (p = 0.0004) but not year 1 to year 2 (p = 0.12). Conclusions: Our findings suggest a significant grade migration coincident with recommendations against PSA screening. While possibly desirable in the short term, should this trend continue we may miss the window of curability for many men.

scholarly journals Prostate cancer screening among family physicians in Ontario: An update on attitudes and current practice

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. E53-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Paul Akerman ◽  
Christopher B. Allard ◽  
Camilla Tajzler ◽  
Anil Kapoor
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Family Physicians ◽  
Preventive Health Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Screening Practices ◽  
Psa Screening

Introduction: This study serves as an update of prostate cancer screening practices among family physicians in Ontario, Canada. Since this population was first surveyed in 2010, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released recommendations against prostate cancer screening.Methods: An online survey was developed through input from urologists and family practitioners. It was distributed via email to all members of the Ontario Medical Association’s Section on General and Family practice (11 657 family physicians). A reminder email was sent at two weeks and the survey remained active for one month.Results: A total of 1880 family physicians completed surveys (response rate 16.1%). Overall, 80.4% offered prostate cancer screening compared to 91.7% when surveyed in 2010. Physicians new to practice (two years or less) were the most likely to not offer screening (24.6%). A combination of digital rectal exam (DRE) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remained the most common form of screening (58.3%). Following the release of the CTFPHC recommendations, 45.6% of respondents said they now screen fewer patients. Participants were less familiar with national urological society guidelines compared to task force recommendations. The majority (72.6%) of respondents feel PSA screening leads to overdiagnosis and treatment. Those surveyed remained split with respect to PSA utility.Conclusions: Data suggest a decline in screening practices since 2010, with newer graduates less likely to offer screening. CFTPHC and USPSTF recommendations had the greatest impact on clinical practice. Those surveyed were divided with respect to PSA utility. Some additional considerations to PSA screening in the primary care setting, including patient-driven factors, were not captured by our concise survey.

Prostate Cancer

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan E. Rosenberg ◽  
Philip W Kantoff
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
The United States ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Clinical Staging ◽  
Specific Cancer ◽  
History Of ◽  
Cancer Of The Prostate

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed noncutaneous malignancy in men in the United States. This chapter discusses the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and diagnosis of prostate cancer, as well as risk factors, the use of digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen measurement for screening, and staging for the disease. Also reviewed are the natural history of untreated prostate cancer; the treatment of localized and advanced prostate cancer, including prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and androgen deprivation therapy; and the prevention of prostate cancer. Figures illustrate the incidence rates of prostate cancer by race, age-adjusted and/or age-specific cancer of the prostate, the risk of a diagnosis in 20 years (based on being cancer free at certain ages), the 5-year survival rate, and the overall survival in patients with early prostate cancer treated with observation or radical prostatectomy. Tables in this chapter review the clinical staging definitions and the combined-modality staging approach to prostate cancer. This chapter contains 116 references.

Prostate Cancer

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan E. Rosenberg ◽  
Philip W Kantoff
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
The United States ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Clinical Staging ◽  
Specific Cancer ◽  
History Of ◽  
Cancer Of The Prostate

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed noncutaneous malignancy in men in the United States. This chapter discusses the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and diagnosis of prostate cancer, as well as risk factors, the use of digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen measurement for screening, and staging for the disease. Also reviewed are the natural history of untreated prostate cancer; the treatment of localized and advanced prostate cancer, including prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and androgen deprivation therapy; and the prevention of prostate cancer. Figures illustrate the incidence rates of prostate cancer by race, age-adjusted and/or age-specific cancer of the prostate, the risk of a diagnosis in 20 years (based on being cancer free at certain ages), the 5-year survival rate, and the overall survival in patients with early prostate cancer treated with observation or radical prostatectomy. Tables in this chapter review the clinical staging definitions and the combined-modality staging approach to prostate cancer. This chapter contains 116 references.

scholarly journals Modalities for Imaging of Prostate Cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 2009 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. H. Hou ◽  
D. Swanson ◽  
A. B. Barqawi
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Imaging Techniques ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Rapid Evolution ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
The United States ◽  
Molecular Data ◽  
Superparamagnetic Nanoparticles ◽  
Lower Grade ◽  
Radionuclide Scintigraphy

Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer deaths among males in the United States. Prostate screening by digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen has shifted the diagnosis of prostate cancer to lower grade, organ confined disease, adding to overdetection and overtreatment of prostate cancer. The new challenge is in differentiating clinically relevant tumors from ones that may otherwise never have become evident if not for screening. The rapid evolution of imaging modalities and the synthesis of anatomic, functional, and molecular data allow for improved detection and characterization of prostate cancer. However, the appropriate use of imaging is difficult to define, as many controversial studies regarding each of the modalities and their utilities can be found in the literature. Clinical practice patterns have been slow to adopt many of these advances as a result. This review discusses the more established imaging techniques, including Ultrasonography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, MR Spectroscopy, Computed Tomography, and Positron Emission Tomography. We also review several promising techniques on the horizon, including Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI, Diffuse-Weighted Imaging, Superparamagnetic Nanoparticles, and Radionuclide Scintigraphy.

scholarly journals The Role and Significance of Bioumoral Markers in Prostate Cancer

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (23) ◽  
pp. 5932
Author(s):  
Traian Constantin ◽  
Diana Alexandra Savu ◽  
Ștefana Bucur ◽  
Gabriel Predoiu ◽  
Maria Magdalena Constantin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Blood Test ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
The United States ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Internal Organs ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Oncology Treatment

The prostate is one of the most clinically accessible internal organs of the genitourinary tract in men. For decades, the only method of screening for prostate cancer (PCa) has been digital rectal examination of 1990s significantly increased the incidence and prevalence of PCa and consequently the morbidity and mortality associated with this disease. In addition, the different types of oncology treatment methods have been linked to specific complications and side effects, which would affect the patient’s quality of life. In the first two decades of the 21st century, over-detection and over-treatment of PCa patients has generated enormous costs for health systems, especially in Europe and the United States. The Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) is still the most common and accessible screening blood test for PCa, but with low sensibility and specificity at lower values (<10 ng/mL). Therefore, in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies, several screening tests (blood, urine, or genetic) have been developed. This review analyzes the most used bioumoral markers for PCa screening and also those that could predict the evolution of metastases of patients diagnosed with PCa.

scholarly journals Prostate Cancer Screening and Determining the Appropriate Prostate-Specific Antigen Cutoff Values

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Catalona ◽  
Stacy Loeb
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
The United States ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Psa Screening ◽  
Specific Mortality ◽  
Derivatives Of

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in combination with digital rectal examination forms the basis for current prostate cancer (CaP) screening programs. Although PSA screening was recently shown to reduce CaP-specific mortality in the European randomized trial, its limitations include the risk for unnecessary prostate biopsy and the diagnosis and treatment of some CaP that might never have caused suffering or death. A potential way to minimize these pitfalls is through the use of derivatives of PSA, particularly PSA kinetics, to increase the specificity for clinically relevant CaP. CaP is the second-leading cause of cancer death in men in the United States and many other westernized countries; accordingly, judicious screening of healthy men allows for diagnosis sufficiently early that all options (i.e., treatment or surveillance) are still available in most cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document