Literature DB >> 15998892

Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/ml or lower.

Ian M Thompson1, Donna Pauler Ankerst, Chen Chi, M Scott Lucia, Phyllis J Goodman, John J Crowley, Howard L Parnes, Charles A Coltman.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Three fourths of US men older than 50 years have been screened with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for PSA. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Calculation of PSA ROC curves in the placebo group of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, a randomized, prospective study conducted from 1993 to 2003 at 221 US centers. Participants were 18 882 healthy men aged 55 years or older without prostate cancer and with PSA levels less than or equal to 3.0 ng/mL and normal digital rectal examination results, followed up for 7 years with annual PSA measurement and digital rectal examination. If PSA level exceeded 4.0 ng/mL or rectal examination result was abnormal, a prostate biopsy was recommended. After 7 years of study participation, an end-of-study prostate biopsy was recommended in all cancer-free men. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operating characteristics of PSA for prostate cancer detection, including sensitivity, specificity, and ROC curve.
RESULTS: Of 8575 men in the placebo group with at least 1 PSA measurement and digital rectal examination in the same year, 5587 (65.2%) had had at least 1 biopsy; of these, 1225 (21.9%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Of 1213 cancers with Gleason grade recorded, 250 (20.6%) were Gleason grade 7 or greater and 57 (4.7%) were Gleason grade 8 or greater. The areas under the ROC curve (AUC) for PSA to discriminate any prostate cancer vs no cancer, Gleason grade 7 or greater cancer vs no or lower-grade cancer, and Gleason grade 8 or greater cancer vs no or lower-grade cancer were 0.678 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.666-0.689), 0.782 (95% CI, 0.748-0.816), and 0.827 (95% CI, 0.761-0.893), respectively (all P values <.001 for AUC vs 50%). For detecting any prostate cancer, PSA cutoff values of 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, and 4.1 ng/mL yielded sensitivities of 83.4%, 52.6%, 32.2%, and 20.5%, and specificities of 38.9%, 72.5%, 86.7%, and 93.8%, respectively. Age-stratified analyses showed slightly better performance of PSA in men younger than 70 years vs those 70 years or older with AUC values of 0.699 (SD, 0.013) vs 0.663 (SD, 0.013) (P = .03).
CONCLUSION: There is no cutpoint of PSA with simultaneous high sensitivity and high specificity for monitoring healthy men for prostate cancer, but rather a continuum of prostate cancer risk at all values of PSA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15998892     DOI: 10.1001/jama.294.1.66

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  186 in total

Review 1.  Prostate cancer detection strategies.

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

2.  Prostate-specific antigen, risk factors, and prostate cancer: confounders nestled in an enigma.

Authors:  Ian M Thompson; Donna P Ankerst; Catherine M Tangen
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Prospective evaluation of operating characteristics of prostate cancer detection biomarkers.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Liang; Donna P Ankerst; Norma S Ketchum; Barbara Ercole; Girish Shah; John D Shaughnessy; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  The Testosterone Trials: Seven coordinated trials of testosterone treatment in elderly men.

Authors:  Peter J Snyder; Susan S Ellenberg; Glenn R Cunningham; Alvin M Matsumoto; Shalender Bhasin; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Thomas M Gill; John T Farrar; David Cella; Raymond C Rosen; Susan M Resnick; Ronald S Swerdloff; Jane A Cauley; Denise Cifelli; Laura Fluharty; Marco Pahor; Kristine E Ensrud; Cora E Lewis; Mark E Molitch; Jill P Crandall; Christina Wang; Matthew J Budoff; Nanette K Wenger; Emile R Mohler; Diane E Bild; Nakela L Cook; Tony M Keaveny; David L Kopperdahl; David Lee; Ann V Schwartz; Thomas W Storer; William B Ershler; Cindy N Roy; Leslie J Raffel; Sergei Romashkan; Evan Hadley
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Polymorphisms in the non-muscle myosin heavy chain 9 gene (MYH9) are strongly associated with end-stage renal disease historically attributed to hypertension in African Americans.

Authors:  Barry I Freedman; Pamela J Hicks; Meredith A Bostrom; Mary E Cunningham; Yongmei Liu; Jasmin Divers; Jeffrey B Kopp; Cheryl A Winkler; George W Nelson; Carl D Langefeld; Donald W Bowden
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  2009-01-28       Impact factor: 10.612

Review 6.  Prostate-specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ian M Thompson; Donna P Ankerst
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2007-06-19       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  Discovery and preliminary confirmation of novel early detection biomarkers for triple-negative breast cancer using preclinical plasma samples from the Women's Health Initiative observational study.

Authors:  Christopher I Li; Justin E Mirus; Yuzheng Zhang; Arturo B Ramirez; Jon J Ladd; Ross L Prentice; Martin W McIntosh; Samir M Hanash; Paul D Lampe
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-08-19       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Detection of life-threatening prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen velocity during a window of curability.

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter; Luigi Ferrucci; Anna Kettermann; Patricia Landis; E James Wright; Jonathan I Epstein; Bruce J Trock; E Jeffrey Metter
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Akt/cAMP-responsive element binding protein/cyclin D1 network: a novel target for prostate cancer inhibition in transgenic adenocarcinoma of mouse prostate model mediated by Nexrutine, a Phellodendron amurense bark extract.

Authors:  Addanki P Kumar; Shylesh Bhaskaran; Manonmani Ganapathy; Katherine Crosby; Michael D Davis; Peter Kochunov; John Schoolfield; I-Tien Yeh; Dean A Troyer; Rita Ghosh
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2007-05-01       Impact factor: 12.531

10.  Diagnostic accuracy of predicting somatization from patients' ICD-9 diagnoses.

Authors:  Robert C Smith; Joseph C Gardiner; Zhehui Luo; Kathryn Rost
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 4.312

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.