PURPOSE: Postoperative prostate specific antigen doubling time may be used as a surrogate for prostate cancer specific mortality in patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Less is known about the usefulness of preoperative prostate specific antigen doubling time for the initial prediction of prostatectomy outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative prostate specific antigen doubling time was calculated in 1,208 men from a large prostate cancer screening study who were treated with radical prostatectomy. We examined the relationship of prostate specific antigen doubling time with tumor features and biochemical progression-free survival. RESULTS: Overall prostate specific antigen doubling time was associated with nonorgan confined disease (OR 0.996, 95% CI 0.992-0.999, p = 0.013) but not with biochemical progression (HR 1.000, 95% CI 0.998-1.001, p = 0.66). Using previously published 18 and 36-month thresholds for prostate specific antigen doubling time there was no significant relationship between doubling time and specific adverse pathological features or biochemical progression. Using the concordance index prostate specific antigen doubling time did not enhance the prediction of biochemical progression beyond that achieved by a model with prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason score. CONCLUSIONS: In our series of men with newly diagnosed, clinically localized prostate cancer shorter preoperative prostate specific antigen doubling time was associated with nonorgan confined disease but not with biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy. All calculations of prostate specific antigen kinetics may not be equivalent. Caution should be exercised when using prostate specific antigen doubling time in the pretreatment setting. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: Postoperative prostate specific antigen doubling time may be used as a surrogate for prostate cancer specific mortality in patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Less is known about the usefulness of preoperative prostate specific antigen doubling time for the initial prediction of prostatectomy outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative prostate specific antigen doubling time was calculated in 1,208 men from a large prostate cancer screening study who were treated with radical prostatectomy. We examined the relationship of prostate specific antigen doubling time with tumor features and biochemical progression-free survival. RESULTS: Overall prostate specific antigen doubling time was associated with nonorgan confined disease (OR 0.996, 95% CI 0.992-0.999, p = 0.013) but not with biochemical progression (HR 1.000, 95% CI 0.998-1.001, p = 0.66). Using previously published 18 and 36-month thresholds for prostate specific antigen doubling time there was no significant relationship between doubling time and specific adverse pathological features or biochemical progression. Using the concordance index prostate specific antigen doubling time did not enhance the prediction of biochemical progression beyond that achieved by a model with prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason score. CONCLUSIONS: In our series of men with newly diagnosed, clinically localized prostate cancer shorter preoperative prostate specific antigen doubling time was associated with nonorgan confined disease but not with biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy. All calculations of prostate specific antigen kinetics may not be equivalent. Caution should be exercised when using prostate specific antigen doubling time in the pretreatment setting. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: W J Catalona; D S Smith; T L Ratliff; K M Dodds; D E Coplen; J J Yuan; J A Petros; G L Andriole Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-04-25 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Channing J Paller; Xian C Zhou; Elisabeth I Heath; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Tina Mayer; Mark N Stein; Glenn J Bubley; Roberto Pili; Tamaro Hudson; Radhika Kakarla; Muneer M Abbas; Nicole M Anders; Donna Dowling; Serina King; Ashley B Bruns; William D Wagner; Charles G Drake; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Mario A Eisenberger; Samuel R Denmeade; Michelle A Rudek; Gary L Rosner; Michael A Carducci Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Neal D Shore; Matthew P Morrow; Trevor McMullan; Kimberly A Kraynyak; Albert Sylvester; Khamal Bhatt; Jocelyn Cheung; Jean D Boyer; Li Liu; Brian Sacchetta; Samantha Rosencranz; Elizabeth I Heath; Luke Nordquist; Heather H Cheng; Scott T Tagawa; Leonard J Appleman; Ronald Tutrone; Jorge A Garcia; Young E Whang; W Kevin Kelly; David B Weiner; Mark L Bagarazzi; Jeffrey M Skolnik Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 11.454