BACKGROUND: Risk models to predict prostate cancer on biopsy, whether they include only prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or other markers, are intended for use in all men of screening age. However, the association between PSA and cancer probably depends on a man's recent screening history. METHODS: The authors examined the effect of prior screening on the ability to predict the risk of prostate cancer by using a previously reported, 4-kallikrein panel that included total PSA, free PSA, intact PSA, and human kallikrein-related peptidase 2 (hK2). The study cohort comprised 1241 men in Gothenburg, Sweden who underwent biopsy for elevated PSA during their second or later visit for the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. The predictive accuracy of the 4-kallikrein panel was calculated. RESULTS: Total PSA was not predictive of prostate cancer. The previously published 4-kallikrein model increased predictive accuracy compared with total PSA and age alone (area under the curve [AUC], 0.66 vs 0.51; P < .001) but was poorly calibrated and missed many cancers. A model that was developed with recently screened men provided important improvements in discrimination (AUC, 0.67 vs 0.56; P < .001). Using this model reduced the number of biopsies by 413 per 1000 men with elevated PSA, missed 60 of 216 low-grade cancers (Gleason score < or =6), but missed only 1 of 43 high-grade cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Previous participation in PSA screening dramatically changed the performance of statistical models that were designed to predict biopsy outcome. A 4-kallikrein panel was able to predict prostate cancer in men who had a recent screening history and provided independent confirmation that multiple kallikrein forms contribute important diagnostic information for men with elevated PSA. Cancer (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Risk models to predict prostate cancer on biopsy, whether they include only prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or other markers, are intended for use in all men of screening age. However, the association between PSA and cancer probably depends on a man's recent screening history. METHODS: The authors examined the effect of prior screening on the ability to predict the risk of prostate cancer by using a previously reported, 4-kallikrein panel that included total PSA, free PSA, intact PSA, and humankallikrein-related peptidase 2 (hK2). The study cohort comprised 1241 men in Gothenburg, Sweden who underwent biopsy for elevated PSA during their second or later visit for the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. The predictive accuracy of the 4-kallikrein panel was calculated. RESULTS: Total PSA was not predictive of prostate cancer. The previously published 4-kallikrein model increased predictive accuracy compared with total PSA and age alone (area under the curve [AUC], 0.66 vs 0.51; P < .001) but was poorly calibrated and missed many cancers. A model that was developed with recently screened men provided important improvements in discrimination (AUC, 0.67 vs 0.56; P < .001). Using this model reduced the number of biopsies by 413 per 1000 men with elevated PSA, missed 60 of 216 low-grade cancers (Gleason score < or =6), but missed only 1 of 43 high-grade cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Previous participation in PSA screening dramatically changed the performance of statistical models that were designed to predict biopsy outcome. A 4-kallikrein panel was able to predict prostate cancer in men who had a recent screening history and provided independent confirmation that multiple kallikrein forms contribute important diagnostic information for men with elevated PSA. Cancer (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
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: Ian M Thompson; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Chen Chi; M Scott Lucia; Phyllis J Goodman; John J Crowley; Howard L Parnes; Charles A Coltman Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-06 Impact factor: 56.272
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: 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: Melissa Assel; Liisa Sjöblom; Teemu J Murtola; Kirsi Talala; Paula Kujala; Ulf-Håkan Stenman; Kimmo Taari; Anssi Auvinen; Andrew Vickers; Tapio Visakorpi; Teuvo L Tammela; Hans Lilja Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2017-11-11
Authors: Ricardo A Rendon; Ross J Mason; Karim Marzouk; Antonio Finelli; Fred Saad; Alan So; Phillipe Violette; Rodney H Breau Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Andrew Vickers; Angel Cronin; Monique Roobol; Caroline Savage; Mari Peltola; Kim Pettersson; Peter T Scardino; Fritz Schröder; Hans Lilja Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-26 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Eric H Kim; Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Daniel D Sjoberg; Melissa Assel; Andrew J Vickers; Hans Lilja Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew Vickers; Emily A Vertosick; Daniel D Sjoberg; Monique J Roobol; Freddie Hamdy; David Neal; Anders Bjartell; Jonas Hugosson; Jenny L Donovan; Arnauld Villers; Stephen Zappala; Hans Lilja Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 7.450