BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) over time (ie, PSA velocity [PSAV]) aid prostate cancer detection. Some guidelines do incorporate PSAV cut points as an indication for biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether PSAV enhances prediction of biopsy outcome in a large, representative, population-based cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: There were 2742 screening-arm participants with PSA <3 ng/ml at initial screening in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer in Rotterdam, Netherlands, or Göteborg, Sweden, and who were subsequently biopsied during rounds 2-6 due to elevated PSA. MEASUREMENTS: Total, free, and intact PSA and human kallikrein 2 were measured for 1-6 screening rounds at intervals of 2 or 4 yr. We created logistic regression models to predict prostate cancer based on age and PSA, with or without free-to-total PSA ratio (%fPSA). PSAV was added to each model and any enhancement in predictive accuracy assessed by area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: PSAV led to small enhancements in predictive accuracy (AUC of 0.569 vs 0.531; 0.626 vs 0.609 if %fPSA was included), although not for high-grade disease. The enhancement depended on modeling a nonlinear relationship between PSAV and cancer. There was no benefit if we excluded men with higher velocities, which were associated with lower risk. These results apply to men in a screening program with elevated PSA; men with prior negative biopsy were not evaluated in this study. CONCLUSIONS: In men with PSA of about ≥3 ng/ml, we found little justification for formal calculation of PSAV or for use of PSAV cut points to determine biopsy. Informal assessment of PSAV will likely aid clinical judgment, such as a sudden rise in PSA suggesting prostatitis, which could be further evaluated before biopsy.
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) over time (ie, PSA velocity [PSAV]) aid prostate cancer detection. Some guidelines do incorporate PSAV cut points as an indication for biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether PSAV enhances prediction of biopsy outcome in a large, representative, population-based cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: There were 2742 screening-arm participants with PSA <3 ng/ml at initial screening in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer in Rotterdam, Netherlands, or Göteborg, Sweden, and who were subsequently biopsied during rounds 2-6 due to elevated PSA. MEASUREMENTS: Total, free, and intact PSA and humankallikrein 2 were measured for 1-6 screening rounds at intervals of 2 or 4 yr. We created logistic regression models to predict prostate cancer based on age and PSA, with or without free-to-total PSA ratio (%fPSA). PSAV was added to each model and any enhancement in predictive accuracy assessed by area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: PSAV led to small enhancements in predictive accuracy (AUC of 0.569 vs 0.531; 0.626 vs 0.609 if %fPSA was included), although not for high-grade disease. The enhancement depended on modeling a nonlinear relationship between PSAV and cancer. There was no benefit if we excluded men with higher velocities, which were associated with lower risk. These results apply to men in a screening program with elevated PSA; men with prior negative biopsy were not evaluated in this study. CONCLUSIONS: In men with PSA of about ≥3 ng/ml, we found little justification for formal calculation of PSAV or for use of PSAV cut points to determine biopsy. Informal assessment of PSAV will likely aid clinical judgment, such as a sudden rise in PSA suggesting prostatitis, which could be further evaluated before biopsy.
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Daniel W Chan; Lori Sokoll; Donghui Kan; Jack Maggiore; Stephen D Mikolajczyk; Dana M Mondo; Chris R Griffin; William J Catalona Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: David Ulmert; Charlotte Becker; Jan-Ake Nilsson; Timo Piironen; Thomas Björk; Jonas Hugosson; Göran Berglund; Hans Lilja Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2005-12-29 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Antonio Berenguer; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Bert G Blijenberg; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Lauren P Wallner; Hal Morgenstern; Michaela E McGree; Debra J Jacobson; Jennifer L St Sauver; Steven J Jacobsen; Aruna V Sarma Journal: Urology Date: 2010-11-20 Impact factor: 2.649
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: Steven J Jacobsen; Debra J Jacobson; Michaela E McGree; Jennifer L St Sauver; George G Klee; Cynthia J Girman; Michael M Lieber Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Xiaoye Zhu; Peter C Albertsen; Gerald L Andriole; Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Cathee Till; Catherine M Tangen; Hans Lilja; Ian M Thompson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 13.506