Literature DB >> 10075009

Efficiency of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination in screening, using 4.0 ng/ml and age-specific reference range as a cutoff for abnormal values.

E D Crawford1, S Leewansangtong, S Goktas, K Holthaus, M Baier.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the diagnostic efficiency of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE) testing when using either 4.0 ng/ml or an age-specific reference range (ASRR) as an abnormal cutoff PSA value.
METHODS: Between 1992-1995, 116,073 men, aged 40-79 years, were screened during Prostate Cancer Awareness Week. When using a 4.0-ng/ml cutoff PSA value, 22,014 had either an abnormal PSA, an abnormal DRE, or both. When using an ASRR cutoff PSA value, 17,561 had either an abnormal PSA, an abnormal DRE, or both. The positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity of PSA, DRE, and combined PSA and DRE tests were evaluated.
RESULTS: When using a 4.0-ng/ml cutoff PSA value, the PPVs of abnormal PSA alone, abnormal DRE alone, and combined abnormal PSA and DRE tests were 27.7%, 17.7%, and 56.0%, respectively. Sensitivities were 34.9%, 27.1%, and 38.0%, respectively. Specificities were 63.1%, 49.0%, and 87.9%, respectively. When using an ASRR cutoff PSA value, the PPVs of each category were 31.8%, 20.8%, and 63.7%, respectively. Sensitivities were 27.1%, 41.0%, and 31.8%, respectively. Specificities were 75.0%, 32.8%, and 92.2%, respectively. The PPVs of the PSA test were higher than those of the DRE. The PPVs of combined tests were highest when using either a 4.0-ng/ml cutoff PSA value or an ASRR cutoff PSA value (all P < 0.001). When using an ASRR, the PPVs of PSA, DRE, and combined tests were higher than those when using a 4.0-ng/ml without statistical significance (all P > 0.05). Sensitivity of PSA when using an ASRR was lower than when using 4.0 ng/ml.
CONCLUSIONS: Significantly higher PPVs indicated that utilizing both a PSA test and a DRE is most effective in screening for the early detection of prostate cancer. Although higher PPVs when using an ASRR cutoff PSA value suggested fewer unnecessary biopsies, lower sensitivities resulted in fewer cancers detected. Thus, we recommend that the combination of a PSA test with a cutoff value of 4.0 ng/ml and a DRE should continue to be utilized in the screening programs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10075009     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0045(19990301)38:4<296::aid-pros5>3.0.co;2-p

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate        ISSN: 0270-4137            Impact factor:   4.104


  14 in total

Review 1.  Screening for prostate cancer.

Authors:  S R Gambert
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  [-2]Proenzyme prostate specific antigen is more accurate than total and free prostate specific antigen in differentiating prostate cancer from benign disease in a prospective prostate cancer screening study.

Authors:  Brian V Le; Christopher R Griffin; Stacy Loeb; Gustavo F Carvalhal; Donghui Kan; Nikola A Baumann; William J Catalona
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 3.  Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  William J Catalona
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 5.456

4.  Modeling Disease Progression with Longitudinal Markers.

Authors:  Lurdes Y T Inoue; Ruth Etzioni; Christopher Morrell; Peter Müller
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 5.033

5.  [Parameters to improve the specificity of the prostate-specific antigen. Early detection of prostate cancer].

Authors:  C Börgermann; S Kliner; A Swoboda; H-J Luboldt; H Rübben
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 6.  Digital Rectal Examination for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Leen Naji; Harkanwal Randhawa; Zahra Sohani; Brittany Dennis; Deanna Lautenbach; Owen Kavanagh; Monica Bawor; Laura Banfield; Jason Profetto
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 5.166

7.  Development and Validation of a Multiparameterized Artificial Neural Network for Prostate Cancer Risk Prediction and Stratification.

Authors:  David A Roffman; Gregory R Hart; Michael S Leapman; James B Yu; Fangliang L Guo; Issa Ali; Jun Deng
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2018-12

8.  Critical evaluation of urinary markers for bladder cancer detection and monitoring.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Jose A Karam; Yair Lotan; Pierre I Karakiewizc
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2008

9.  Automated 3D-Printed Microfluidic Array for Rapid Nanomaterial-Enhanced Detection of Multiple Proteins.

Authors:  Karteek Kadimisetty; Spundana Malla; Ketki S Bhalerao; Islam M Mosa; Snehasis Bhakta; Norman H Lee; James F Rusling
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 6.986

10.  The role of an abnormal prostate-specific antigen level and an abnormal digital rectal examination in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A cross-sectional study in Qatar.

Authors:  Khalid Al Rumaihi; Khalid Al Jalham; Nagy Younes; Ahmad A Majzoub; Ahmed A Shokeir
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2013-10-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.