BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements are increasingly used to monitor men with localised prostate cancer (PCa), but there is little consensus about the method to use. OBJECTIVE: To apply age-specific predictions of PSA level (developed in men without cancer) to one cohort of men with clinically identified PCa and one cohort of men with PSA-detected PCa. We hypothesise that among men with clinically identified cancer, the annual increase in PSA level would be steeper than in men with PSA-detected cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 (SPCG-4) cohort consisted of 321 men assigned to the watchful waiting arm of the SPCG-4 trial. The UK cohort consisted of 320 men with PSA-detected PCa in the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study who opted for monitoring. Multilevel models describing changes in PSA level were fitted to the two cohorts, and average PSA level at age 50, change in PSA level with age, and predicted PSA values were derived. MEASUREMENTS: PSA level. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the SPCG-4 cohort, mean PSA at age 50 was similar to the cancer-free cohort but with a steeper yearly increase in PSA level (16.4% vs 4.0%). In the UK cohort, mean PSA level was higher than that in the cancer-free cohort (due to a PSA biopsy threshold of 3.0 ng/ml) but with a similar yearly increase in PSA level (4.1%). Predictions were less accurate for the SPCG-4 cohort (median difference between observed and predicted PSA level: -2.0 ng/ml; interquartile range [IQR]: -7.6-0.7 ng/ml) than for the UK cohort (median difference between observed and predicted PSA level: -0.8 ng/ml; IQR: -2.1-0.1 ng/ml). CONCLUSIONS: In PSA-detected men, yearly change in PSA was similar to that in cancer-free men, whereas in men with symptomatic PCa, the yearly change in PSA level was considerably higher. Our method needs further evaluation but has promise for refining active monitoring protocols. 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND:Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements are increasingly used to monitor men with localised prostate cancer (PCa), but there is little consensus about the method to use. OBJECTIVE: To apply age-specific predictions of PSA level (developed in men without cancer) to one cohort of men with clinically identified PCa and one cohort of men with PSA-detected PCa. We hypothesise that among men with clinically identified cancer, the annual increase in PSA level would be steeper than in men with PSA-detected cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 (SPCG-4) cohort consisted of 321 men assigned to the watchful waiting arm of the SPCG-4 trial. The UK cohort consisted of 320 men with PSA-detected PCa in the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study who opted for monitoring. Multilevel models describing changes in PSA level were fitted to the two cohorts, and average PSA level at age 50, change in PSA level with age, and predicted PSA values were derived. MEASUREMENTS: PSA level. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the SPCG-4 cohort, mean PSA at age 50 was similar to the cancer-free cohort but with a steeper yearly increase in PSA level (16.4% vs 4.0%). In the UK cohort, mean PSA level was higher than that in the cancer-free cohort (due to a PSA biopsy threshold of 3.0 ng/ml) but with a similar yearly increase in PSA level (4.1%). Predictions were less accurate for the SPCG-4 cohort (median difference between observed and predicted PSA level: -2.0 ng/ml; interquartile range [IQR]: -7.6-0.7 ng/ml) than for the UK cohort (median difference between observed and predicted PSA level: -0.8 ng/ml; IQR: -2.1-0.1 ng/ml). CONCLUSIONS: In PSA-detected men, yearly change in PSA was similar to that in cancer-free men, whereas in men with symptomatic PCa, the yearly change in PSA level was considerably higher. Our method needs further evaluation but has promise for refining active monitoring protocols. 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Authors: J Donovan; F Hamdy; D Neal; T Peters; S Oliver; L Brindle; D Jewell; P Powell; D Gillatt; D Dedman; N Mills; M Smith; S Noble; A Lane Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2003 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Grace Lu-Yao; Peter C Albertsen; Janet L Stanford; Therese A Stukel; Elizabeth S Walker-Corkery; Michael J Barry Journal: BMJ Date: 2002-10-05
Authors: Katja Fall; Hans Garmo; Ove Andrén; Anna Bill-Axelson; Jan Adolfsson; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson; Lars Holmberg Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-04-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Frej Filén; Mirja Ruutu; Hans Garmo; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Stefan Bratell; Anders Spångberg; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-08-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Simon M Collin; Richard M Martin; Chris Metcalfe; David Gunnell; Peter C Albertsen; David Neal; Freddie Hamdy; Peter Stephens; J Athene Lane; Rollo Moore; Jenny Donovan Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-04-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jing Xia; Bruce J Trock; Matthew R Cooperberg; Roman Gulati; Steven B Zeliadt; John L Gore; Daniel W Lin; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Julia Wade; Sian Noble; Kirsty Garfield; Grace Young; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Jane Blazeby; Richard Bryant; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Owen Hughes; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Edgar Paez; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek Rosario; Edward Rowe; David Neal Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: C Metcalfe; K Tilling; M Davis; J A Lane; R M Martin; H Kynaston; P Powell; D E Neal; F Hamdy; J L Donovan Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 7.640