PURPOSE: We identified age adjusted prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen velocity cut points for prostate cancer biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 33,643 men was retrieved from the Duke Prostate Center database. Of this group 11,861 men with 2 or more prostate specific antigen values within 2 years were analyzed for age adjusted prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen velocity performance in cancer risk assessment using a receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: In the 11,861 men prostate cancer prevalence was 273 (8.0%), 659 (14.9%) and 722 (17.9%) in the groups of men 50 to 59 years old, 60 to 69 and 70 years old or older. In prostate cancer groups median prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen velocity in men 50 to 59 vs 70 years old or older were 5.6 vs 8.1 ng/ml and 1.37 vs 1.89 ng/ml per year (<0.0001). In men 50 to 59 years old the sensitivity and specificity were 82.1% and 80.7% at prostate specific antigen 2.5 ng/ml, and 84.3% and 72.4% at prostate specific antigen velocity 0.40 ng/ml per year, higher than those in men 70 years old or older at prostate specific antigen 4.0 ng/ml or prostate specific antigen velocity 0.75 ng/ml per year. Decreasing the prostate specific antigen cut point to 2.0 ng/ml and the prostate specific antigen velocity cut point to 0.40 ng/ml per year in men 50 to 59 years old improved the cancer detection rate but decreased the positive predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Current biopsy guidelines (prostate specific antigen 4.0 ng/ml or greater, or prostate specific antigen velocity 0.75 ng/ml or greater per year) underestimated cancer risk in men 50 to 59 years old. Prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen velocity cut points should be age adjusted. In men 50 to 59 years old prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen velocity cut points could be decreased to 2.0 ng/ml and 0.40 ng/ml per year, respectively. Factors of age, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and cancer prevalence are critical for obtaining the desired balance between cancer detection and negative biopsy.
PURPOSE: We identified age adjusted prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen velocity cut points for prostate cancer biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 33,643 men was retrieved from the Duke Prostate Center database. Of this group 11,861 men with 2 or more prostate specific antigen values within 2 years were analyzed for age adjusted prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen velocity performance in cancer risk assessment using a receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: In the 11,861 menprostate cancer prevalence was 273 (8.0%), 659 (14.9%) and 722 (17.9%) in the groups of men 50 to 59 years old, 60 to 69 and 70 years old or older. In prostate cancer groups median prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen velocity in men 50 to 59 vs 70 years old or older were 5.6 vs 8.1 ng/ml and 1.37 vs 1.89 ng/ml per year (<0.0001). In men 50 to 59 years old the sensitivity and specificity were 82.1% and 80.7% at prostate specific antigen 2.5 ng/ml, and 84.3% and 72.4% at prostate specific antigen velocity 0.40 ng/ml per year, higher than those in men 70 years old or older at prostate specific antigen 4.0 ng/ml or prostate specific antigen velocity 0.75 ng/ml per year. Decreasing the prostate specific antigen cut point to 2.0 ng/ml and the prostate specific antigen velocity cut point to 0.40 ng/ml per year in men 50 to 59 years old improved the cancer detection rate but decreased the positive predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Current biopsy guidelines (prostate specific antigen 4.0 ng/ml or greater, or prostate specific antigen velocity 0.75 ng/ml or greater per year) underestimated cancer risk in men 50 to 59 years old. Prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen velocity cut points should be age adjusted. In men 50 to 59 years old prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen velocity cut points could be decreased to 2.0 ng/ml and 0.40 ng/ml per year, respectively. Factors of age, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and cancer prevalence are critical for obtaining the desired balance between cancer detection and negative biopsy.
Authors: Marta Cosín-Tomás; Anna Antonell; Albert Lladó; Daniel Alcolea; Juan Fortea; Mario Ezquerra; Albert Lleó; Maria José Martí; Mercè Pallàs; Raquel Sanchez-Valle; José Luís Molinuevo; Coral Sanfeliu; Perla Kaliman Journal: Mol Neurobiol Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 5.590
Authors: Jonathan I Izawa; Laurence Klotz; D Robert Siemens; Wassim Kassouf; Alan So; John Jordan; Michael Chetner; Alla E Iansavichene Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Danil V Makarov; Stacy Loeb; Ahmed Magheli; Kevin Zhao; Elizabeth Humphreys; Mark L Gonzalgo; Alan W Partin; Misop Han Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-12-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Anna Kettermann; H Ballentine Carter; Luigi Ferrucci; E Jeffrey Metter; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 7.450