Literature DB >> 20544283

Prostate-specific antigen test result interpretation when combined with risk factors for recommendation of biopsy: a survey of urologist's practice patterns.

Nathan Lawrentschuk1, Nikhil Daljeet, Clement Ma, Karen Hersey, Alexandre Zlotta, Neil Fleshner.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Recent data have suggested historical cutoff levels for prostate cancer (PC) screening using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≤ 4 ng/ml may no longer be appropriate with cancer detected at lower levels, particularly in younger men. Our aim was to conduct a contemporary survey of urologist's practice patterns toward PC detection, specifically focusing on factors determining the decision to recommend ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-BX).
METHODS: Three hundred and sixty active urologists from the Canadian Urological Association were requested to complete an online questionnaire focusing on scenarios of varying age, family history, ethnicity and PSA. Urologists indicated when to TRUS-BX.
RESULTS: Of 360 urologists, 125 (35%) completed the questionnaire. Sixty-seven percent indicated men should be screened for PC aged 50-60 with 27% preferring 40-50 years. Seventy-seven percent would continue screening >75. Considering a 65-year-old man with no risk factors and a normal digital rectal exam 56% would offer TRUS-BX at PSA 4.5; 35% at 3.5 and 10% at 2.5 ng/ml. Considering a similar 45-year-old man, 94% would at PSA 4.5; 77% at 3.5 and 33% at 2.5 ng/ml. On multivariate analysis, offering TRUS-BX appears driven significantly (P < 0.0001) more by younger age and higher PSA (OR 4.3-20.6 and 4.4-34.9, respectively) rather than family history or ethnicity (OR 3.3 and 1.8, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Age and PSA appear the driving factors in obtaining TRUS-BX. Also, a significant proportion of urologists would still not offer TRUS-BX at the traditional PSA cutoff of 4 ng/ml for men with no risk factors. Further studies are required to ascertain whether this relates to a lack of dissemination of studies into practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20544283     DOI: 10.1007/s11255-010-9772-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol        ISSN: 0301-1623            Impact factor:   2.370


  28 in total

1.  [-2]Proenzyme prostate specific antigen is more accurate than total and free prostate specific antigen in differentiating prostate cancer from benign disease in a prospective prostate cancer screening study.

Authors:  Brian V Le; Christopher R Griffin; Stacy Loeb; Gustavo F Carvalhal; Donghui Kan; Nikola A Baumann; William J Catalona
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  PSA screening among elderly men with limited life expectancies.

Authors:  Louise C Walter; Daniel Bertenthal; Karla Lindquist; Badrinath R Konety
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-11-15       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Differences between urologists in the United States and Canada in the approach to prostate cancer.

Authors:  N Fleshner; E Rakovitch; L Klotz
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Scott E Eggener; Alex Mueller; Ryan K Berglund; Raj Ayyathurai; Cindy Soloway; Mark S Soloway; Robert Abouassaly; Eric A Klein; Steven J Jones; Chris Zappavigna; Larry Goldenberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Bertrand Guillonneau
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Age-specific reference ranges for serum prostate-specific antigen.

Authors:  J R Anderson; D Strickland; D Corbin; J A Byrnes; E Zweiback
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.

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

Review 8.  Other biomarkers for detecting prostate cancer.

Authors:  Lucas Nogueira; Renato Corradi; James A Eastham
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-11-20       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Comparison of different prostate-specific antigen cutpoints for early detection of prostate cancer: results of a large screening study.

Authors:  A Reissigl; J Pointner; W Horninger; O Ennemoser; H Strasser; H Klocker; G Bartsch
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 10.  A new algorithm in patients with elevated and/or rising prostate-specific antigen level, minor lower urinary tract symptoms, and negative multisite prostate biopsies.

Authors:  Koenraad van Renterghem; Gommert Van Koeveringe; Ruth Achten; Philip van Kerrebroeck
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2009-06-03       Impact factor: 2.370

View more
  2 in total

1.  Variations in prostate biopsy practice: A quantitative questionnaire-based study.

Authors:  Matthew O Lipinski; D Robert Siemens; Patti A Groome
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Cephalosporins periprostatic injection: are really effective on infections following prostate biopsy?

Authors:  Gianna Pace; Luca Carmignani; Carlo Marenghi; Gabriella Mombelli; Giorgio Bozzini
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 2.370

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.