BACKGROUND: The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) has challenged the validity of recommended prostate-specific antigen (PSA) thresholds for prostate biopsy (> 2.5 ng/ml) given the 17% prostate cancer (pCA) detection rate at PSA of 1.1-2.0. The outcome of patients treated at PSA < or = 2.5 is poorly defined, and advantages associated with such an early diagnosis are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: Compare the outcome of patients with T1c pCA with pretreatment PSA < or = 2.5 and 2.6-4.0. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Since 1998, 351 patients with clinical stage T1c and PSA < or = 4.0 have been treated at our institution; 84 (24%) of those patients had PSA < or = 2.5. Clinical information was obtained from a prospective database. Treatment was radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy, and external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in 261 (74%), 67 (19%), and 23 (7%) patients, respectively. INTERVENTION: Definitive therapy for clinically localized pCA. MEASUREMENTS: Progression-free probability and pathologic end points. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: No significant differences between the groups were observed in terms of biopsy (18% vs 22%) or specimen Gleason score 7-8 (44% vs 56%), non-organ-confined cancer (11% vs 13%), indolent cancer (34% vs 24%), or 5-yr progression-free probability (89% vs 93%; p>0.1 for all). More biologically unimportant cancers (defined as pathologically organ-confined and Gleason < or = 6) were identified among patients with PSA < or = 2.5 (55% vs 41%, p=0.050), and indolent cancers were three times more frequent than non-organ-confined cancers among these patients (p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The pathologic features and outcome of patients treated at low PSA levels are favorable and similar for patients with PSA < or = 2.5 versus 2.6-4.0. However, > 50% of the former have potentially biologically unimportant cancer. We failed to identify a therapeutic benefit to the diagnosis of cancers below accepted PSA thresholds for biopsy.
BACKGROUND: The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) has challenged the validity of recommended prostate-specific antigen (PSA) thresholds for prostate biopsy (> 2.5 ng/ml) given the 17% prostate cancer (pCA) detection rate at PSA of 1.1-2.0. The outcome of patients treated at PSA < or = 2.5 is poorly defined, and advantages associated with such an early diagnosis are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: Compare the outcome of patients with T1c pCA with pretreatment PSA < or = 2.5 and 2.6-4.0. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Since 1998, 351 patients with clinical stage T1c and PSA < or = 4.0 have been treated at our institution; 84 (24%) of those patients had PSA < or = 2.5. Clinical information was obtained from a prospective database. Treatment was radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy, and external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in 261 (74%), 67 (19%), and 23 (7%) patients, respectively. INTERVENTION: Definitive therapy for clinically localized pCA. MEASUREMENTS: Progression-free probability and pathologic end points. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: No significant differences between the groups were observed in terms of biopsy (18% vs 22%) or specimen Gleason score 7-8 (44% vs 56%), non-organ-confined cancer (11% vs 13%), indolent cancer (34% vs 24%), or 5-yr progression-free probability (89% vs 93%; p>0.1 for all). More biologically unimportant cancers (defined as pathologically organ-confined and Gleason < or = 6) were identified among patients with PSA < or = 2.5 (55% vs 41%, p=0.050), and indolent cancers were three times more frequent than non-organ-confined cancers among these patients (p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The pathologic features and outcome of patients treated at low PSA levels are favorable and similar for patients with PSA < or = 2.5 versus 2.6-4.0. However, > 50% of the former have potentially biologically unimportant cancer. We failed to identify a therapeutic benefit to the diagnosis of cancers below accepted PSA thresholds for biopsy.
Authors: Charles Dariane; Chloé Le Cossec; Sarah J Drouin; Benoit Wolff; Benjamin Granger; Pierre Mozer; Marc-Olivier Bitker; Shahrokh F Shariat; Olivier Cussenot; Morgan Rouprêt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 4.226