Literature DB >> 15711261

Prostate biopsy following a positive screen in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial.

Paul F Pinsky1, Gerald L Andriole, Barnett S Kramer, Richard B Hayes, Philip C Prorok, John K Gohagan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The benefit of prostate specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE) screening for prostate cancer is under evaluation in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Followup of positive screens in PLCO is done by subject personal physicians and it is outside of trial control. We describe the pattern of prostate biopsy in men with positive screens in PLCO.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined all men with positive baseline PSA or DRE screens and men with positive post-baseline screens occurring by December 2000.
RESULTS: Of 2,717 men with positive PSA (greater than 4 ng/ml) at baseline 41% and 64% underwent biopsy within 1 and 3 years, respectively. A screening PSA of 7 to 10 and greater than 10 ng/ml at baseline was associated with significantly higher biopsy rates (HR 1.9 and 2.6, respectively) compared to PSA 4 to 7 ng/ml. The 1,793 in men whom the first positive PSA was after baseline had a lower overall biopsy rate (50% within 3 years). Furthermore, PSA above 7 ng/ml were not associated with higher biopsy rates in this group. The 4,449 men with positive DRE screens and negative PSA had a 3-year biopsy rate of 27%. Men with positive DRE at diagnostic followup had a biopsy rate of around 90%. However, few men, even of those with positive DRE screens, had positive diagnostic DREs.
CONCLUSIONS: : These biopsy rates following positive PSA and DRE screens are likely to be representative of national rates. These results suggest that PLCO is evaluating the effects of screening in a contemporary and robust manner.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15711261     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000152697.25708.71

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


  36 in total

1.  Calibrating disease progression models using population data: a critical precursor to policy development in cancer control.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Lurdes Inoue; Jeffrey Katcher; William Hazelton; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 5.899

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.  Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati; Leslie Mallinger; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 4.  Prostate kallikrein markers in diagnosis, risk stratification and prognosis.

Authors:  David Ulmert; M Frank O'Brien; Anders S Bjartell; Hans Lilja
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Randomized trials of prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2009

6.  Expected population impacts of discontinued prostate-specific antigen screening.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Alex Tsodikov; Ruth Etzioni; Rachel A Hunter-Merrill; John L Gore; Angela B Mariotto; Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Factors associated with adherence to an end-of-study biopsy: lessons from the prostate cancer prevention trial (SWOG-Coordinated Intergroup Study S9217).

Authors:  Ellen R Gritz; Kathryn B Arnold; Carol M Moinpour; Allison M Burton-Chase; Catherine M Tangen; Jeffrey F Probstfield; William A See; Michael M Lieber; Vincent Caggiano; Sarah Moody-Thomas; Connie Szczepanek; Anne Ryan; Susie Carlin; Shannon Hill; Phyllis J Goodman; Rose Mary Padberg; Lori M Minasian; Frank L Meyskens; Ian M Thompson
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Evaluating Parameter Uncertainty in a Simulation Model of Cancer Using Emulators.

Authors:  Tiago M de Carvalho; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Luc Coffeng; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Comparative effectiveness of alternative prostate-specific antigen--based prostate cancer screening strategies: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; John L Gore; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.

Authors:  Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Edward P Gelmann; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Richard B Hayes; Barnett S Kramer; Grant Izmirlian; Anthony B Miller; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 91.245

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.