Literature DB >> 1377979

Prostate cancer screening: current trends and future implications.

P J Littrup1, F Lee, C Mettlin.   

Abstract

Screening for prostate cancer represents a clinical dilemma with no clear evidence to suggest decreased mortality from any diagnostic test. We now possess new knowledge regarding optimal combinations of DRE, TRUS, and PSA. While DRE and TRUS may be too subjective and PSA too nonspecific, their combined predictive values identify not only men at high risk but also those for whom continued frequent screening may not be cost effective. A monoclonal PSA decision level of no more than 4.0 ng/ml should be used, since 40 percent of cancers detected from 4.0 to 10.0 ng/ml already have extracapsular extension. Assuming that DRE is performed by experienced examiners, the combination of PSA and DRE should produce cost-effective early detection and minimize missed cancers below 4.0 ng/ml. TRUS should be reserved for those patients with either PSA elevations and/or DRE abnormalities. The use of TRUS gland volume data to further modify PSA decision levels, such as the "predicted" PSA concept, may also improve TRUS biopsy criteria and predictive values. Prostate cancer detection can then be objectively limited to a small percentage of the population and better selected for earlier, more localized disease. The ultimate decrease in mortality from screening remains to be demonstrated in randomized trials or observed only after decades of increased public awareness about prompt early detection combined with effective, definitive therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1377979     DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.42.4.198

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin        ISSN: 0007-9235            Impact factor:   508.702


  6 in total

Review 1.  Prostate cancer, screening, and prostate-specific antigen: promise or peril?

Authors:  J D Voss
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  The economic costs of early stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  Christopher S Saigal; Mark S Litwin
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Prostate cancer screening (United States).

Authors:  J W Waterbor; A J Bueschen
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 2.506

4.  Brief screens for mental disorders in primary care.

Authors:  A C Leon; M Olfson; M M Weissman; L Portera; B H Fireman; R S Blacklow; C Hoven; W E Broadhead
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Appendicular metastatic prostate cancer simulating osteosarcoma, Paget's disease, and Paget's sarcoma.

Authors:  D Igou; M Sundaram; D J McDonald; C Janney; D E Chalk
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Classification of focal prostatic lesions on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and the accuracy of TRUS to diagnose prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ho Yun Lee; Hak Jong Lee; Seok-Soo Byun; Sang Eun Lee; Sung Kyu Hong; Seung Hyup Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 3.500

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.