OBJECTIVES: The prostate cancer prevention trial (PCPT) prostate cancer risk calculator was developed to aid physicians in counseling men for consideration of prostate biopsy based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and other clinical risk factors. This study investigated the role of body mass index (BMI) in this assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: BMI category was defined as < 25 (under/normal weight), 25.0-29.9 (overweight), 30.0-34.9 (obese [OB] I), 35.0-39.9 (OB II), and ≥ 40 (OB III). BMI-adjusted PSA for a man was determined by multiplying his PSA to the ratio of the geometrical mean of PSA for BMI < 25 to the geometrical mean of PSA for his BMI category. Operating characteristics of PSA and BMI-adjusted PSA were compared with PCPT risks using area underneath the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Statistical tests of differences between AUCs for different diagnostic tests were performed with the nonparametric U-statistic method. RESULTS: BMI-adjusted PSA equaled to unadjusted PSA multiplying 1.09, 1.20, 1.50, and 1.71 for men in overweight, OBI, OBII, and OBIII categories, respectively. The AUC for BMI-adjusted PSA values (0.84) did not differ from PSA; that of the PCPT calculator with BMI-adjusted PSA (0.87) did not differ from the calculator with PSA. Of 2816 men with a PSA less than or equal to 2.5 ng/mL who did not undergo biopsy, 126 (4.5%) would have a BMI-adjusted PSA exceeding 2.5 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Because of lower levels of PSA, overweight and obese men may have diminished cancer detection opportunities when undergoing PSA-based screening. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVES: The prostate cancer prevention trial (PCPT) prostate cancer risk calculator was developed to aid physicians in counseling men for consideration of prostate biopsy based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and other clinical risk factors. This study investigated the role of body mass index (BMI) in this assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: BMI category was defined as < 25 (under/normal weight), 25.0-29.9 (overweight), 30.0-34.9 (obese [OB] I), 35.0-39.9 (OB II), and ≥ 40 (OB III). BMI-adjusted PSA for a man was determined by multiplying his PSA to the ratio of the geometrical mean of PSA for BMI < 25 to the geometrical mean of PSA for his BMI category. Operating characteristics of PSA and BMI-adjusted PSA were compared with PCPT risks using area underneath the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Statistical tests of differences between AUCs for different diagnostic tests were performed with the nonparametric U-statistic method. RESULTS: BMI-adjusted PSA equaled to unadjusted PSA multiplying 1.09, 1.20, 1.50, and 1.71 for men in overweight, OBI, OBII, and OBIII categories, respectively. The AUC for BMI-adjusted PSA values (0.84) did not differ from PSA; that of the PCPT calculator with BMI-adjusted PSA (0.87) did not differ from the calculator with PSA. Of 2816 men with a PSA less than or equal to 2.5 ng/mL who did not undergo biopsy, 126 (4.5%) would have a BMI-adjusted PSA exceeding 2.5 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Because of lower levels of PSA, overweight and obesemen may have diminished cancer detection opportunities when undergoing PSA-based screening. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: S O Andersson; A Wolk; R Bergström; H O Adami; G Engholm; A Englund; O Nyrén Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1997-03-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Martha K Terris; Joseph C Presti; Christopher L Amling; Christopher J Kane; Bruce Trock; William J Aronson Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christopher L Amling; Robert H Riffenburgh; Leon Sun; Judd W Moul; Raymond S Lance; Leo Kusuda; Wade J Sexton; Douglas W Soderdahl; Timothy F Donahue; John P Foley; Andrew K Chung; David G McLeod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; William J Aronson; Christopher J Kane; Joseph C Presti; Christopher L Amling; David Elashoff; Martha K Terris Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-22 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Yuanyuan Liang; Jamie C Messer; Christopher Louden; Miguel A Jimenez-Rios; Ian M Thompson; Hector R Camarena-Reynoso Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Catherine M Tangen; Jeannette Schenk; Cathee Till; Phyllis J Goodman; Wendy Barrington; M Scott Lucia; Ian M Thompson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2019-10-19 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Donna P Ankerst; Brad H Pollock; Yuanyuan Liang; Nidzara Dizdarevic; Sergiy Kyrylenko; Andreas Boeck; Ian M Thompson; Robin Leach Journal: Urology Date: 2011-05-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Lionel L Bañez; Simone Albisinni; Stephen J Freedland; Andrea Tubaro; Cosimo De Nunzio Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: A S Parker; D D Thiel; E Bergstralh; R E Carlson; L J Rangel; R W Joseph; N Diehl; R J Karnes Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Rachel Dankner; Paolo Boffetta; Lital Keinan-Boker; Ran D Balicer; Alla Berlin; Liraz Olmer; Havi Murad; Barbara Silverman; Moshe Hoshen; Laurence S Freedman Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 10.122