PURPOSE: We have developed a statistical prediction model for prostate cancer based on four kallikrein markers in blood: total, free, and intact prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and kallikrein-related peptidase 2 (hK2). Although this model accurately predicts the result of biopsy in unscreened men, its properties for men with a history of PSA screening have not been fully characterized. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A total of 1,501 previously screened men with elevated PSA underwent initial biopsy during rounds 2 and 3 of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam, with 388 cancers diagnosed. Biomarker levels were measured in serum samples taken before biopsy. The prediction model developed on the unscreened cohort was then applied and predictions compared with biopsy outcome. RESULTS: The previously developed four-kallikrein prediction model had much higher predictive accuracy than PSA and age alone (area under the curve of 0.711 versus 0.585, and 0.713 versus 0.557 with and without digital rectal exam, respectively; both P < 0.001). Similar statistically significant enhancements were seen for high-grade cancer. Applying the model with a cutoff of 20% cancer risk as the criterion for biopsy would reduce the biopsy rate by 362 for every 1,000 men with elevated PSA. Although diagnosis would be delayed for 47 cancers, these would be predominately low-stage and low-grade (83% Gleason 6 T(1c)). CONCLUSIONS: A panel of four kallikreins can help predict the result of initial biopsy in previously screened men with elevated PSA. Use of a statistical model based on the panel would substantially decrease rates of unnecessary biopsy. (c) 2010 AACR.
PURPOSE: We have developed a statistical prediction model for prostate cancer based on four kallikrein markers in blood: total, free, and intact prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and kallikrein-related peptidase 2 (hK2). Although this model accurately predicts the result of biopsy in unscreened men, its properties for men with a history of PSA screening have not been fully characterized. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A total of 1,501 previously screened men with elevated PSA underwent initial biopsy during rounds 2 and 3 of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam, with 388 cancers diagnosed. Biomarker levels were measured in serum samples taken before biopsy. The prediction model developed on the unscreened cohort was then applied and predictions compared with biopsy outcome. RESULTS: The previously developed four-kallikrein prediction model had much higher predictive accuracy than PSA and age alone (area under the curve of 0.711 versus 0.585, and 0.713 versus 0.557 with and without digital rectal exam, respectively; both P < 0.001). Similar statistically significant enhancements were seen for high-grade cancer. Applying the model with a cutoff of 20% cancer risk as the criterion for biopsy would reduce the biopsy rate by 362 for every 1,000 men with elevated PSA. Although diagnosis would be delayed for 47 cancers, these would be predominately low-stage and low-grade (83% Gleason 6 T(1c)). CONCLUSIONS: A panel of four kallikreins can help predict the result of initial biopsy in previously screened men with elevated PSA. Use of a statistical model based on the panel would substantially decrease rates of unnecessary biopsy. (c) 2010 AACR.
Authors: Josep Villanueva; David R Shaffer; John Philip; Carlos A Chaparro; Hediye Erdjument-Bromage; Adam B Olshen; Martin Fleisher; Hans Lilja; Edi Brogi; Jeff Boyd; Marta Sanchez-Carbayo; Eric C Holland; Carlos Cordon-Cardo; Howard I Scher; Paul Tempst Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Ina L Deras; Sheila M J Aubin; Amy Blase; John R Day; Seongjoon Koo; Alan W Partin; William J Ellis; Leonard S Marks; Yves Fradet; Harry Rittenhouse; Jack Groskopf Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: B J Martin; C D Cheli; K Sterling; M Ward; S Pollard; D Lifsey; D Mercante; L Martin; W Rayford Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Edward P Gelmann; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Richard B Hayes; Barnett S Kramer; Grant Izmirlian; Anthony B Miller; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David Ulmert; Angel M Serio; Matthew F O'Brien; Charlotte Becker; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Thomas Björk; Göran Berglund; Andrew J Vickers; Hans Lilja Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; David Ulmert; Angel M Serio; Thomas Björk; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Göran Berglund; Hans Lilja Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Gunnar Aus; Carl-Gustav Pihl; Charlotte Becker; Kim Pettersson; Peter T Scardino; Jonas Hugosson; Hans Lilja Journal: BMC Med Date: 2008-07-08 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman; Sarah Crane; Mark Emberton; Larry Goldenberg; Hedvig Hricak; Mike W Kattan; John Kurhanewicz; Caroline M Moore; Chris Parker; Thomas J Polascik; Peter Scardino; Nicholas van As; Arnauld Villers Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 5.588
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: 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