Literature DB >> 17704405

Assessing individual risk for prostate cancer.

Robert K Nam1, Ants Toi, Laurence H Klotz, John Trachtenberg, Michael A S Jewett, Sree Appu, D Andrew Loblaw, Linda Sugar, Steven A Narod, Michael W Kattan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To construct a clinical nomogram instrument to estimate individual risk for having prostate cancer (PC) for patients undergoing prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening, using all risk factors known for PC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 3,108 men who underwent a prostate biopsy, including a subset of 408 volunteers with normal PSA levels. Factors including age, family history of PC (FHPC), ethnicity, urinary symptoms, PSA, free:total PSA ratio, and digital rectal examination (DRE) were incorporated in the model. A nomogram was constructed to assess risk for any and high-grade PC (Gleason score >or= 7).
RESULTS: Of the 3,108 men, 1,304 (42.0%) were found to have PC. Among the 408 men with a normal PSA (< 4.0 ng/mL), 99 (24.3%) had PC. All risk factors were important predictors for PC by multivariate analysis (P, .01 to .0001). The area under the curve (AUC) for the nomogram in predicting cancer, which included age, ethnicity, FHPC, urinary symptoms, free:total PSA ratio, PSA, and DRE, was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.81) and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.81) for high-grade cancer. This was significantly greater than the AUC that considered using the conventional screening method of PSA and DRE only (0.62; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.66 for any cancer; 0.69; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.73 for high-grade cancer). From receiver operating characteristic analysis, risk factors including age, ethnicity, FHPC, symptoms, and free:total PSA ratio contributed significantly more predictive information than PSA and DRE.
CONCLUSION: In a PC screening program, it is important to consider age, family history of PC, ethnicity, urinary voiding symptoms, and free:total PSA ratio, in addition to PSA and DRE.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17704405     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.10.6450

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  51 in total

1.  Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman; Sarah Crane; Mark Emberton; Larry Goldenberg; Hedvig Hricak; Mike W Kattan; John Kurhanewicz; Caroline M Moore; Chris Parker; Thomas J Polascik; Peter Scardino; Nicholas van As; Arnauld Villers
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  The absence of voiding symptoms in men with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration of ≥3.0 ng/mL is an independent risk factor for prostate cancer: results from the Gothenburg Randomized Screening Trial.

Authors:  Maria Frånlund; Sigrid Carlsson; Johan Stranne; Gunnar Aus; Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-04-30       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Prostate cancer risk prediction in a urology clinic in Mexico.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Liang; Jamie C Messer; Christopher Louden; Miguel A Jimenez-Rios; Ian M Thompson; Hector R Camarena-Reynoso
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 3.498

4.  Selective detection of histologically aggressive prostate cancer: an Early Detection Research Network Prediction model to reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies with validation in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.

Authors:  Stephen B Williams; Simpa Salami; Meredith M Regan; Donna P Ankerst; John T Wei; Mark A Rubin; Ian M Thompson; Martin G Sanda
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Risk factors for prostate cancer detection after a negative biopsy: a novel multivariable longitudinal approach.

Authors:  Peter H Gann; Angela Fought; Ryan Deaton; William J Catalona; Edward Vonesh
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  A 49-year-old Hispanic male with intraepithelial neoplasia and focal atypia.

Authors:  Mark Soloway
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 7.  Critical review of prostate cancer predictive tools.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.404

8.  Image-based clinical decision support for transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: comparison of multiple logistic regression, artificial neural network, and support vector machine.

Authors:  Hak Jong Lee; Sung Il Hwang; Seok-Min Han; Seong Ho Park; Seung Hyup Kim; Jeong Yeon Cho; Chang Gyu Seong; Gheeyoung Choe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Development and Internal Validation of a Web-based Tool to Predict Sexual, Urinary, and Bowel Function Longitudinally After Radiation Therapy, Surgery, or Observation.

Authors:  Aaron A Laviana; Zhiguo Zhao; Li-Ching Huang; Tatsuki Koyama; Ralph Conwill; Karen Hoffman; Michael Goodman; Ann S Hamilton; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette Stroup; Matthew R Cooperberg; Mia Hashibe; Brock B O'Neil; Sherrie H Kaplan; Sheldon Greenfield; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2020-02-22       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 10.  Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol; Sigrid V Carlsson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.