PURPOSE: Prostate biopsy is often recommended based on increases in prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination. We investigated the stability of a single positive test during the next 3 consecutive years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2,578 participants in a San Antonio screening cohort with 2 or more consecutive annual prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination tests were identified. Occurrences of an increased prostate specific antigen (2.5 ng/ml or greater) followed by 1 or more nonincreased prostate specific antigen results were compared with similar fluctuations of digital rectal examination from abnormal to normal. RESULTS: In 2,272 men who did not have a biopsy during the study, in 23.3% of 744 incidences of an increased prostate specific antigen with 1 year of followup, the next prostate specific antigen was not increased. In 19.5% of 462 incidences of an increased prostate specific antigen with 2 years of followup, the next 2 consecutive prostate specific antigen levels were not increased. Finally, in 17.5% of 285 incidences of an increased prostate specific antigen with 3 years of followup, the next 3 consecutive prostate specific antigens were not increased. Rates were similar but lower in 221 men with 1 or more negative biopsies during the study and in 85 men in whom prostate cancer eventually developed during the study. In contrast, approximately 70% of abnormal digital rectal examinations were normal the following year even in patients with prostate cancer, and in the majority of incidences remained normal the next 2 to 3 consecutive years. CONCLUSIONS: Occurrences of reversed prostate specific antigen cut point or abnormal digital rectal examination based decisions to biopsy 1 or more years after the initial test are not uncommon, suggesting repetition of these tests.
PURPOSE: Prostate biopsy is often recommended based on increases in prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination. We investigated the stability of a single positive test during the next 3 consecutive years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2,578 participants in a San Antonio screening cohort with 2 or more consecutive annual prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination tests were identified. Occurrences of an increased prostate specific antigen (2.5 ng/ml or greater) followed by 1 or more nonincreased prostate specific antigen results were compared with similar fluctuations of digital rectal examination from abnormal to normal. RESULTS: In 2,272 men who did not have a biopsy during the study, in 23.3% of 744 incidences of an increased prostate specific antigen with 1 year of followup, the next prostate specific antigen was not increased. In 19.5% of 462 incidences of an increased prostate specific antigen with 2 years of followup, the next 2 consecutive prostate specific antigen levels were not increased. Finally, in 17.5% of 285 incidences of an increased prostate specific antigen with 3 years of followup, the next 3 consecutive prostate specific antigens were not increased. Rates were similar but lower in 221 men with 1 or more negative biopsies during the study and in 85 men in whom prostate cancer eventually developed during the study. In contrast, approximately 70% of abnormal digital rectal examinations were normal the following year even in patients with prostate cancer, and in the majority of incidences remained normal the next 2 to 3 consecutive years. CONCLUSIONS: Occurrences of reversed prostate specific antigen cut point or abnormal digital rectal examination based decisions to biopsy 1 or more years after the initial test are not uncommon, suggesting repetition of these tests.
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Chen Chi; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Ziding Feng; Howard L Parnes; Charles A Coltman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-04-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Gerald L Andriole; David L Levin; E David Crawford; Edward P Gelmann; Paul F Pinsky; David Chia; Barnett S Kramer; Douglas Reding; Timothy R Church; Robert L Grubb; Grant Izmirlian; Lawrence R Ragard; Jonathan D Clapp; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-03-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: James A Eastham; Elyn Riedel; Peter T Scardino; Moshe Shike; Martin Fleisher; Arthur Schatzkin; Elaine Lanza; Lianne Latkany; Colin B Begg Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Gary J Miller; Leslie G Ford; Michael M Lieber; R Duane Cespedes; James N Atkins; Scott M Lippman; Susie M Carlin; Anne Ryan; Connie M Szczepanek; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William J Catalona; Jerome P Richie; Frederick R Ahmann; M'Liss A Hudson; Peter T Scardino; Robert C Flanigan; Jean B DeKernion; Timothy L Ratliff; Louis R Kavoussi; Bruce L Dalkin; W Bedford Waters; Michael T MacFarlane; Paula C Southwick Journal: J Urol Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna K Pauler; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Lori M Minasian; Leslie G Ford; Scott M Lippman; E David Crawford; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Shahrokh F Shariat; Axel Semjonow; Hans Lilja; Caroline Savage; Andrew J Vickers; Anders Bjartell Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Donna P Ankerst; Brad H Pollock; Yuanyuan Liang; Nidzara Dizdarevic; Sergiy Kyrylenko; Andreas Boeck; Ian M Thompson; Robin Leach Journal: Urology Date: 2011-05-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Donna P Ankerst; Andreas Boeck; Stephen J Freedland; J Stephen Jones; Angel M Cronin; Monique J Roobol; Jonas Hugosson; Michael W Kattan; Eric A Klein; Freddie Hamdy; David Neal; Jenny Donovan; Dipen J Parekh; Helmut Klocker; Wolfgang Horninger; Amine Benchikh; Gilles Salama; Arnauld Villers; Daniel M Moreira; Fritz H Schröder; Hans Lilja; Andrew J Vickers; Ian M Thompson Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-04-22 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Steven B Zeliadt; Richard M Hoffman; Ruth Etzioni; Van Anh T Ginger; Daniel W Lin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Donna Pauler Ankerst; Jonathan Gelfond; Martin Goros; Jesus Herrera; Andreas Strobl; Ian M Thompson; Javier Hernandez; Robin J Leach Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-03-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Shea P O'Connell; Maria Frantzi; Agnieszka Latosinska; Martyn Webb; William Mullen; Martin Pejchinovski; Mark Salji; Harald Mischak; Colin S Cooper; Jeremy Clark; Daniel S Brewer Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 6.575