Literature DB >> 11377318

Age, prostate-specific antigen, and digital rectal examination as determinants of the probability of having prostate cancer.

S R Potter1, W Horniger, M Tinzl, G Bartsch, A W Partin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The decision to perform prostate biopsy has traditionally been based on an abnormal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) findings. For example, a 60-year-old man with a benign DRE and PSA level of 4.1 ng/mL would be counseled for biopsy, and the same man with a PSA level of 3.9 ng/mL might be counseled against biopsy. However, the difference in these PSA levels and in the likelihood of these two men having prostate cancer is not significant. We constructed a probability nomogram for the likelihood of detecting prostate cancer, thus aiding in the decision of whether to perform a prostate biopsy.
METHODS: Using multivariate logistic regression analysis and data from 2054 men (mean age 64 years) participating in the Tyrol Screening Project between January 9, 1993 and January 9, 1997, patient age, PSA level, and DRE findings were analyzed for their ability to determine the likelihood of finding prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy.
RESULTS: DRE was suspicious in 278 men (13.5%). Overall, 498 (24.5%) of 2054 men biopsied had prostate cancer. The probability of discovering cancer on biopsy was calculated using patient age, DRE findings, and PSA level.
CONCLUSIONS: DRE status had a large influence on the likelihood of positive biopsy across all PSA and age ranges. A combination of PSA, DRE result, and age better defined the probability of a positive biopsy than any factor alone. Using this nomogram, the decision to proceed with or defer prostate biopsy can be based on an actual probability of discovering prostate cancer rather than a single PSA-based cutpoint. These data may aid physicians and patients in decision-making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11377318     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(01)00980-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  19 in total

1.  Chinese nomogram to predict probability of positive initial prostate biopsy: a study in Taiwan region.

Authors:  Shu-Chun Kuo; Shun-Hsing Hung; Hsien-Yi Wang; Chih-Chiang Chien; Chin-Li Lu; Hung-Jung Lin; How-Ran Guo; Jian-Fang Zou; Chian-Shiung Lin; Chien-Cheng Huang
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 3.285

2.  Local property characterization of prostate glands using inhomogeneous modeling based on tumor volume and location analysis.

Authors:  Yeongjin Kim; Bummo Ahn; Jae Won Lee; Koon Ho Rha; Jung Kim
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2012-11-11       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Is quadrant biopsy sufficient in men likely to have advanced prostate cancer? Comparison with extended biopsy.

Authors:  Zoran Brnic; Slavko Gasparov; Petar Vladislav Lozo; Petar Anic; Leonardo Patrlj; Vesna Ramljak
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2005-03-31       Impact factor: 3.201

4.  Role of pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging in staging of prostate cancer specifically in patients diagnosed with clinically locally advanced tumours by digital rectal examination.

Authors:  Evanguelos Xylinas; David R Yates; Raphaële Renard-Penna; Elise Seringe; Jean-Claude Bousquet; Eva Comperat; Marc-Olivier Bitker; Philippe Grenier; Morgan Rouprêt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: can random biopsies be reduced using the 4-dimensional technique?

Authors:  Fawzi T Abul; Narayanaswamy Arun; Mona A Abu-Assi; Akram M Asbeutah
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2007-02-17       Impact factor: 2.370

6.  Are repeat prostate biopsies safe? A cohort analysis from the SEARCH database.

Authors:  Ryan P Kopp; Sean P Stroup; Florian R Schroeck; Stephen J Freedland; Frederick Millard; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Joseph C Presti; Christopher L Amling; Christopher J Kane
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-04-11       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Development and validation of a nomogram predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy based on patient age, digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen.

Authors:  Pierre I Karakiewicz; Serge Benayoun; Michael W Kattan; Paul Perrotte; Luc Valiquette; Peter T Scardino; Ilias Cagiannos; Hans Heinzer; Simon Tanguay; Armen G Aprikian; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Image-based clinical decision support for transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: comparison of multiple logistic regression, artificial neural network, and support vector machine.

Authors:  Hak Jong Lee; Sung Il Hwang; Seok-Min Han; Seong Ho Park; Seung Hyup Kim; Jeong Yeon Cho; Chang Gyu Seong; Gheeyoung Choe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  Genomic signatures associated with the development, progression, and outcome of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Prateek Mendiratta; Phillip G Febbo
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.074

10.  Prostate cancer diagnosed after repeat biopsies have a favorable pathological outcome but similar recurrence rate.

Authors:  Ernesto Lopez-Corona; Makoto Ohori; Thomas M Wheeler; Victor E Reuter; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.