Javier Hernández1, Ian M Thompson. 1. Division of Urology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 78229, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has had a tremendous impact on all aspects of the management of prostate carcinoma. Although PSA-based screening has resulted in a stage migration to more organ-confined tumors at the time of diagnosis, and has been temporally associated with a decrease in prostate carcinoma mortality, PSA screening is imperfect. A recent analysis of results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) has provided insight into the positive predictive value of PSA in the so-called "normal" range. METHODS: The history of the discovery, initial studies, and subsequent widespread application of PSA screening is reviewed. RESULTS: The application of PSA for screening preceded the development of current prostate biopsy techniques and an upper limit of normal was established without complete disease ascertainment. More recent modifications of PSA-based screening have been adopted clinically without sufficient validation. With current methods, overdiagnosis of clinically unimportant disease almost certainly occurs and high-grade, aggressive disease may not be detected sufficiently early to allow successful treatment. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, the optimal upper limit of normal for PSA for prostate carcinoma screening is unknown. New biomarkers of disease are needed; these must be linked with disease prognosis and must be validated in rigorously designed clinical trials. Copyright 2004 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: The widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has had a tremendous impact on all aspects of the management of prostate carcinoma. Although PSA-based screening has resulted in a stage migration to more organ-confined tumors at the time of diagnosis, and has been temporally associated with a decrease in prostate carcinoma mortality, PSA screening is imperfect. A recent analysis of results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) has provided insight into the positive predictive value of PSA in the so-called "normal" range. METHODS: The history of the discovery, initial studies, and subsequent widespread application of PSA screening is reviewed. RESULTS: The application of PSA for screening preceded the development of current prostate biopsy techniques and an upper limit of normal was established without complete disease ascertainment. More recent modifications of PSA-based screening have been adopted clinically without sufficient validation. With current methods, overdiagnosis of clinically unimportant disease almost certainly occurs and high-grade, aggressive disease may not be detected sufficiently early to allow successful treatment. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, the optimal upper limit of normal for PSA for prostate carcinoma screening is unknown. New biomarkers of disease are needed; these must be linked with disease prognosis and must be validated in rigorously designed clinical trials. Copyright 2004 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Timothy C Brand; Javier Hernandez; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Joseph W Basler; Ian M Thompson Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Elham Hosseini-Beheshti; Steven Pham; Hans Adomat; Na Li; Emma S Tomlinson Guns Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Hilco van Moerkerk; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; J Alfred Witjes; Ferdinand Frauscher; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-01-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hui Shen; Nathan Powers; Nitin Saini; Clay E S Comstock; Ankur Sharma; Katherine Weaver; Monica P Revelo; William Gerald; Erin Williams; Walter J Jessen; Bruce J Aronow; Gary Rosson; Bernard Weissman; Christian Muchardt; Moshe Yaniv; Karen E Knudsen Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Barış Türkbey; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N Hoang; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Lambros Stamatakis; Hong Truong; Jeffrey W Nix; Srinivas Vourganti; Kinzya B Grant; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Tanmay Chatterjee; Achim Knappik; Erin Sandford; Muneesh Tewari; Sung Won Choi; William B Strong; Evan P Thrush; Kenneth J Oh; Ning Liu; Nils G Walter; Alexander Johnson-Buck Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 11.205