PURPOSE: Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) dynamics (PSA velocity and PSA doubling time) are widely advocated as useful prognostic markers in prostate cancer. We aimed to assess the published evidence for the clinical utility of PSA dynamics in this population. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies published before March 2007 in which a PSA dynamic (velocity or doubling time) was calculated in patients before definitive treatment, a subsequent event (such as biopsy or recurrence) was ascertained, and the association between the two was analyzed. Our principal end point was the type of analysis reported, particularly whether the predictive accuracy of a statistical model that included both absolute PSA level and a PSA dynamic was compared with that of a model that included only PSA. RESULTS: Eighty-seven articles were eligible for analysis. The most common end points were biopsy (42 articles), and either recurrence (14 articles) or metastases or death (14 articles) after definitive therapy. Although PSA dynamics were generally found to be associated with outcome, only one article compared predictive accuracy of models with and without a PSA dynamic: this reported that PSA velocity improved prediction slightly (from 0.81 to 0.83), but was subject to verification bias. No article used decision analytic methods to examine the clinical impact of PSA dynamics. CONCLUSION: There is little evidence that calculation of PSA velocity or doubling time in untreated patients provides predictive information beyond that provided by absolute PSA level alone. We see no justification for the use of PSA dynamics in clinical decision making before treatment in early-stage prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) dynamics (PSA velocity and PSA doubling time) are widely advocated as useful prognostic markers in prostate cancer. We aimed to assess the published evidence for the clinical utility of PSA dynamics in this population. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies published before March 2007 in which a PSA dynamic (velocity or doubling time) was calculated in patients before definitive treatment, a subsequent event (such as biopsy or recurrence) was ascertained, and the association between the two was analyzed. Our principal end point was the type of analysis reported, particularly whether the predictive accuracy of a statistical model that included both absolute PSA level and a PSA dynamic was compared with that of a model that included only PSA. RESULTS: Eighty-seven articles were eligible for analysis. The most common end points were biopsy (42 articles), and either recurrence (14 articles) or metastases or death (14 articles) after definitive therapy. Although PSA dynamics were generally found to be associated with outcome, only one article compared predictive accuracy of models with and without a PSA dynamic: this reported that PSA velocity improved prediction slightly (from 0.81 to 0.83), but was subject to verification bias. No article used decision analytic methods to examine the clinical impact of PSA dynamics. CONCLUSION: There is little evidence that calculation of PSA velocity or doubling time in untreated patients provides predictive information beyond that provided by absolute PSA level alone. We see no justification for the use of PSA dynamics in clinical decision making before treatment in early-stage prostate cancer.
Authors: H B Carter; J D Pearson; E J Metter; L J Brant; D W Chan; R Andres; J L Fozard; P C Walsh Journal: JAMA Date: 1992 Apr 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Tineke Wolters; Caroline J Savage; Angel M Cronin; M Frank O'Brien; Monique J Roobol; Gunnar Aus; Peter T Scardino; Jonas Hugosson; Fritz H Schröder; Hans Lilja Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Anna E Kettermann; Luigi Ferrucci; Bruce J Trock; E Jeffrey Metter; Stacy Loeb; H Ballentine Carter Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 5.588
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: Michael K Felten; Khaled Khatab; Lars Knoll; Thomas Schettgen; Hendrik Müller-Berndorff; Thomas Kraus Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Eric Stern; Aleksandar Vacic; Nitin K Rajan; Jason M Criscione; Jason Park; Bojan R Ilic; David J Mooney; Mark A Reed; Tarek M Fahmy Journal: Nat Nanotechnol Date: 2009-12-13 Impact factor: 39.213