Literature DB >> 18341623

Clinical and pathological features of screen vs non-screen-detected prostate cancers: is there a difference?

Alexandre E Pelzer1, Daniela Colleselli, Jasmin Bektic, Georg Schaefer, Stefano Ongarello, Christian Schwentner, Leo Pallwein, Michael Mitterberger, Eberhard Steiner, Georg Bartsch, Wolfgang Horninger.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and pathological characteristics of screen vs non-screen-detected prostate cancers, to determine if there is a difference in the same prostate-specific antigen (PSA) range. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 997 patients who had had a radical prostatectomy were evaluated; 806 were Tyrolean screening volunteers, and 191 were from outside Tyrol, representing the 'referred prostate cancer' group. PSA level, age, prostate volume and pathological characteristics were assessed, as was the amount of over- and under-diagnosis.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in patient age or PSA levels in the two groups. Even in the same PSA range there were statistically significantly more extraprostatic cancers in the referral group, at 31.7% and 17.4%, respectively. In the referred and screening groups there was over-diagnosis in 7.9% and 16.8%, and under-diagnosis in 40.8% and 27.8%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that screening volunteers have a statistically significantly higher rate of organ-confined prostate cancers, and a statistically significantly lower rate of extracapsular extension and positive surgical margins than their counterparts in the referral group even in the same PSA range. As the pathological stage and surgical margin status are significant predictors of recurrence, these findings support the concept of PSA screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18341623     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07566.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  6 in total

1.  Preoperative circulating sex hormones are not predictors of positive surgical margins at open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Andrea Salonia; Andrea Gallina; Firas Abdollah; Alberto Briganti; Umberto Capitanio; Nazareno Suardi; Matteo Ferrari; Marco Raber; Renzo Colombo; Massimo Freschi; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Historical prostate cancer screening and treatment outcomes from a single institution.

Authors:  Deanna S Cross; Mark Ritter; Douglas J Reding
Journal:  Clin Med Res       Date:  2012-04-25

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.  Measurements of cancer extent in a conservatively treated prostate cancer biopsy cohort.

Authors:  Ramzi Rajab; Gabrielle Fisher; Michael W Kattan; Christopher S Foster; Tim Oliver; Henrik Møller; Victor Reuter; Peter Scardino; Jack Cuzick; Daniel M Berney
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2010-09-09       Impact factor: 4.064

5.  Use of screening tests, diagnosis wait times, and wait-related satisfaction in breast and prostate cancer.

Authors:  M Mathews; D Ryan; V Gadag; R West
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 6.  Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic review of methods.

Authors:  Jamie L Carter; Russell J Coletti; Russell P Harris
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-01-07
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.