PURPOSE: The relationship between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and prostate cancer risk remains subject to fundamental disagreements. We hypothesized that the risk of prostate cancer on biopsy for a given PSA level is affected by identifiable characteristics of the cohort under study. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We used data from five European and three U.S. cohorts of men undergoing biopsy for prostate cancer; six were population-based studies and two were clinical cohorts. The association between PSA and prostate cancer was calculated separately for each cohort using locally weighted scatterplot smoothing. RESULTS: The final data set included 25,772 biopsies and 8,503 cancers. There were gross disparities between cohorts with respect to both the prostate cancer risk at a given PSA level and the shape of the risk curve. These disparities were associated with identifiable differences between cohorts: for a given PSA level, a greater number of biopsy cores increased the risk of cancer (odds ratio for >6- versus 6-core biopsy, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.54; P < 0.0005); recent screening led to a smaller increase in risk per unit change in PSA (P = 0.001 for interaction term) and U.S. cohorts had higher risk than the European cohorts (2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-2.30; P < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the relationship between PSA and risk of a positive prostate biopsy varies, both in terms of the probability of prostate cancer at a given PSA value and the shape of the risk curve. This poses challenges to the use of PSA-driven algorithms to determine whether biopsy is indicated.
PURPOSE: The relationship between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and prostate cancer risk remains subject to fundamental disagreements. We hypothesized that the risk of prostate cancer on biopsy for a given PSA level is affected by identifiable characteristics of the cohort under study. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We used data from five European and three U.S. cohorts of men undergoing biopsy for prostate cancer; six were population-based studies and two were clinical cohorts. The association between PSA and prostate cancer was calculated separately for each cohort using locally weighted scatterplot smoothing. RESULTS: The final data set included 25,772 biopsies and 8,503 cancers. There were gross disparities between cohorts with respect to both the prostate cancer risk at a given PSA level and the shape of the risk curve. These disparities were associated with identifiable differences between cohorts: for a given PSA level, a greater number of biopsy cores increased the risk of cancer (odds ratio for >6- versus 6-core biopsy, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.54; P < 0.0005); recent screening led to a smaller increase in risk per unit change in PSA (P = 0.001 for interaction term) and U.S. cohorts had higher risk than the European cohorts (2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-2.30; P < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the relationship between PSA and risk of a positive prostate biopsy varies, both in terms of the probability of prostate cancer at a given PSA value and the shape of the risk curve. This poses challenges to the use of PSA-driven algorithms to determine whether biopsy is indicated.
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: 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: Hans Lilja; David Ulmert; Thomas Björk; Charlotte Becker; Angel M Serio; Jan-Ake Nilsson; Per-Anders Abrahamsson; Andrew J Vickers; Göran Berglund Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dipen J Parekh; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Betsy A Higgins; Javier Hernandez; Edith Canby-Hagino; Timothy Brand; Dean A Troyer; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson Journal: Urology Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Nathan Lawrentschuk; Ants Toi; Gina A Lockwood; Andrew Evans; Antonio Finelli; Martin O'Malley; Myles Margolis; Sangeet Ghai; Neil E Fleshner Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: James A Eastham; Elyn Riedel; Peter T Scardino; Moshe Shike; Martin Fleisher; Arthur Schatzkin; Elaine Lanza; Lianne Latkany; Colin B Begg Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas A Stamey; Mitchell Caldwell; John E McNeal; Rosalie Nolley; Marci Hemenez; Joshua Downs Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Reka Pataky; Roman Gulati; Ruth Etzioni; Peter Black; Kim N Chi; Andrew J Coldman; Tom Pickles; Scott Tyldesley; Stuart Peacock Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Sigrid V Carlsson; Tiago M de Carvalho; Monique J Roobol; Jonas Hugosson; Anssi Auvinen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Arnauld Villers; Marco Zappa; Vera Nelen; Alvaro Páez; James A Eastham; Hans Lilja; Harry J de Koning; Andrew J Vickers; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Peter K F Chiu; Monique J Roobol; Jeremy Y Teoh; Wai-Man Lee; Siu-Ying Yip; See-Ming Hou; Chris H Bangma; Chi-Fai Ng Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Donna P Ankerst; Cathee Till; Andreas Boeck; Phyllis Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; Ziding Feng; Alan W Partin; Daniel W Chan; Lori Sokoll; Jacob Kagan; John T Wei; Ian M Thompson Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 7.450