Literature DB >> 17499308

Under diagnosis and over diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Theresa Graif1, Stacy Loeb, Kimberly A Roehl, Sara N Gashti, Christopher Griffin, Xiaoying Yu, William J Catalona.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We quantified the rates of over and under diagnosis of prostate cancer in 2 large patient cohorts during the last 15 years.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2,126 men with clinical stage T1c prostate cancer were treated with radical prostatectomy during 1 of the 3 periods 1989 to 1995, 1995 to 2001 and 2001 to 2005. The respective proportions of men with a tumor that met our criteria for over diagnosis (0.5 cm3 or less, confined to the prostate with clear surgical margins and no Gleason pattern 4 or 5) and under diagnosis (nonorgan confined, pathological stage T3 or greater, or positive surgical margins) were examined.
RESULTS: The proportion of men with an over diagnosed tumor was 1.3% to 7.1%. The proportion with prostate cancer that was under diagnosed was 25% to 30%. An ancillary finding was that decreasing the prostate specific antigen threshold for biopsy from 4.0 to 2.5 ng/ml in the screened population resulted in a lower rate of under diagnosis from 30% to 26%, a higher rate of over diagnosis from 1.3% to 7.1% and an increase in the 5-year progression-free survival rate from 85% to 92%. Men who were 55 years or younger were significantly more likely to meet our criteria for over diagnosed cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Under diagnosis of prostate cancer continues to occur more frequently than over diagnosis. Lowering the prostate specific antigen threshold for recommending biopsy to 2.5 ng/ml resulted in a lower rate of under diagnosis and a higher progression-free survival rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17499308     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.017

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


  17 in total

1.  Computer-aided diagnosis prior to conventional interpretation of prostate mpMRI: an international multi-reader study.

Authors:  Matthew D Greer; Nathan Lay; Joanna H Shih; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Discrimination between the human prostate normal cell and cancer cell by using a novel electrical impedance spectroscopy controlling the cross-sectional area of a microfluidic channel.

Authors:  Giseok Kang; Young-Jae Kim; Hong-Sang Moon; Jeong-Woo Lee; Tag-Keun Yoo; Kwangsung Park; Jong-Hyun Lee
Journal:  Biomicrofluidics       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 2.800

Review 3.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Marc A Bjurlin; Joseph Nicholson; Teuvo L Tammela; David F Penson; H Ballentine Carter; Peter Carroll; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Prostate cancer detection from multi-institution multiparametric MRIs using deep convolutional neural networks.

Authors:  Yohan Sumathipala; Nathan Lay; Baris Turkbey; Clayton Smith; Peter L Choyke; Ronald M Summers
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-12-15

Review 5.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a review.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.092

6.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: patient selection and management.

Authors:  L Klotz
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.677

7.  The modified prostate health index (PHI) outperforms PHI density in the detection of clinical prostate cancer within the PSA grey zone.

Authors:  Haojie Chen; Bowen Shi; Yanyuan Wu; Yuhang Qian; Jiatong Zhou; Xi Zhang; Jie Ding; Yongjiang Yu
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 8.  [Active surveillance for prostate cancer].

Authors:  M Graefen; S Ahyai; R Heuer; G Salomon; T Schlomm; H Isbarn; L Budäus; H Heinzer; H Huland
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 0.639

9.  Low prostate-specific antigen and no Gleason score upgrade despite more extensive cancer during active surveillance predicts insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jeong S Han; Adam D Toll; Ali Amin; H Ballentine Carter; Patricia Landis; Stephen Lee; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Modified Prostate Health Index Density Significantly Improves Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) Detection.

Authors:  Haojie Chen; Yuhang Qian; Yanyuan Wu; Bowen Shi; Jiatong Zhou; Fajun Qu; Zhengqin Gu; Jie Ding; Yongjiang Yu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 5.738

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.