Literature DB >> 15126793

Variation in prostate specific antigen results from 2 different assay platforms: clinical impact on 2304 patients undergoing prostate cancer screening.

Richard E Link1, Shahrokh F Shariat, Cuong V Nguyen, Anita Farr, Armin D Weinberg, Ronald A Morton, Barbara Richardson, David Bernard, Kevin M Slawin.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Urologists must contend with fluctuating prostate specific antigen (PSA) results from different assay platforms when deciding whether prostate biopsy is indicated. The contribution of cross-platform variation to these fluctuations is not well understood. To address this question we performed a cross-sectional study comparing 2 popular PSA assays during prostate cancer screening.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Baylor College of Medicine Prostate Cancer Screening Program is a community outreach program providing free screening to Houston residents. From September 18th to 23, 2000, 2,304 patients underwent digital rectal examination and parallel serum PSA assay by the Hybritech Access (Beckman Coulter, Inc., Chaska, Minnesota) and Centaur (Bayer Diagnostics, Tarrytown, New York) systems. The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used to compare results.
RESULTS: Median PSA was low for the 2 assays (Centaur 0.99 ng/ml and Access 1.09 ng/ml) and Access results were significantly higher (1.23 times) than those obtained with Centaur (p <0.001). Frozen serum from 50 patients with PSA greater than 2.5 were then re-assayed using a third methodology (third Generation Immulite, Diagnostic Products Corp., Los Angeles, California). These data were consistent with Centaur results and significantly lower than Access results (p <0.001). Using a cutoff of PSA greater than 4.0 ng/ml 55 of the 288 patients (19%) with PSA greater than 2.5 ng/ml on the 2 platforms would have been candidates for prostate biopsy based on Access but not on Centaur data.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large screening population the Access system measured consistently higher PSA than the Centaur system. These findings provide a basis for interpreting PSA results obtained from 2 commonly used clinical assays.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15126793     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000127736.86597.e7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  15 in total

1.  Best of the 2002 AUA Annual Meeting: Highlights of the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Urological Association May 25-30, 2002, Orlando, FL.

Authors: 
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2002

2.  The Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM): a global approach to promote the standardisation of clinical laboratory test results.

Authors:  David Armbruster; Richard R Miller
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2007-08

3.  Twenty Years of PSA: From Prostate Antigen to Tumor Marker.

Authors:  Gabriela De Angelis; Harry G Rittenhouse; Stephen D Mikolajczyk; L Blair Shamel; Axel Semjonow
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2007

4.  Prostate cancer: WHO standardization of PSA tests: clinical consequences.

Authors:  Carsten Stephan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  A Placebo-Controlled Double-Blinded Randomized Pilot Study of Combination Phytotherapy in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  M Diana van Die; Scott G Williams; Jon Emery; Kerry M Bone; Jeremy M G Taylor; Elizabeth Lusk; Marie V Pirotta
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 4.104

Review 6.  Tumor markers in prostate cancer I: blood-based markers.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Axel Semjonow; Hans Lilja; Caroline Savage; Andrew J Vickers; Anders Bjartell
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.089

7.  Preoperative prostate specific antigen doubling time is not a useful predictor of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Donghui Kan; Xiaoying Yu; Kimberly A Roehl; William J Catalona
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-03-29       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 8.  Screening for prostate cancer: an update.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Peter T Scardino; Hans Lilja
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 1.344

9.  Further evidence for increased macrophage migration inhibitory factor expression in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Katherine L Meyer-Siegler; Kenneth A Iczkowski; Pedro L Vera
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2005-07-06       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 10.  Clinical use of [-2]proPSA (p2PSA) and its derivatives (%p2PSA and Prostate Health Index) for the detection of prostate cancer: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Alberto Abrate; Giovanni Lughezzani; Giulio Maria Gadda; Giuliana Lista; Ella Kinzikeeva; Nicola Fossati; Alessandro Larcher; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Francesco Mistretta; Nicolòmaria Buffi; Giorgio Guazzoni; Massimo Lazzeri
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2014-07-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.