BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Urological Association guidelines on early detection of prostate cancer recommend biopsy on the basis of high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity, even in the absence of other indications such as an elevated PSA or a positive digital rectal exam (DRE). METHODS: To evaluate the current guideline, we compared the area under the curve of a multivariable model for prostate cancer including age, PSA, DRE, family history, and prior biopsy, with and without PSA velocity, in 5519 men undergoing biopsy, regardless of clinical indication, in the control arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. We also evaluated the clinical implications of using PSA velocity cut points to determine biopsy in men with low PSA and negative DRE in terms of additional cancers found and unnecessary biopsies conducted. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Incorporation of PSA velocity led to a very small increase in area under the curve from 0.702 to 0.709. Improvements in predictive accuracy were smaller for the endpoints of high-grade cancer (Gleason score of 7 or greater) and clinically significant cancer (Epstein criteria). Biopsying men with high PSA velocity but no other indication would lead to a large number of additional biopsies, with close to one in seven men being biopsied. PSA cut points with a comparable specificity to PSA velocity cut points had a higher sensitivity (23% vs 19%), particularly for high-grade (41% vs 25%) and clinically significant (32% vs 22%) disease. These findings were robust to the method of calculating PSA velocity. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the recommendation that men with high PSA velocity should be biopsied in the absence of other indications; this measure should not be included in practice guidelines.
BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Urological Association guidelines on early detection of prostate cancer recommend biopsy on the basis of high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity, even in the absence of other indications such as an elevated PSA or a positive digital rectal exam (DRE). METHODS: To evaluate the current guideline, we compared the area under the curve of a multivariable model for prostate cancer including age, PSA, DRE, family history, and prior biopsy, with and without PSA velocity, in 5519 men undergoing biopsy, regardless of clinical indication, in the control arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. We also evaluated the clinical implications of using PSA velocity cut points to determine biopsy in men with low PSA and negative DRE in terms of additional cancers found and unnecessary biopsies conducted. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Incorporation of PSA velocity led to a very small increase in area under the curve from 0.702 to 0.709. Improvements in predictive accuracy were smaller for the endpoints of high-grade cancer (Gleason score of 7 or greater) and clinically significant cancer (Epstein criteria). Biopsying men with high PSA velocity but no other indication would lead to a large number of additional biopsies, with close to one in seven men being biopsied. PSA cut points with a comparable specificity to PSA velocity cut points had a higher sensitivity (23% vs 19%), particularly for high-grade (41% vs 25%) and clinically significant (32% vs 22%) disease. These findings were robust to the method of calculating PSA velocity. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the recommendation that men with high PSA velocity should be biopsied in the absence of other indications; this measure should not be included in practice guidelines.
Authors: Mark H Kawachi; Robert R Bahnson; Michael Barry; J Erik Busby; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; William J Catalona; Michael S Cookson; Jonathan I Epstein; Ruth B Etzioni; Veda N Giri; George P Hemstreet; Richard J Howe; Paul H Lange; Hans Lilja; Kevin R Loughlin; James Mohler; Judd Moul; Robert B Nadler; Stephen G Patterson; Joseph C Presti; Antoinette M Stroup; Robert Wake; John T Wei Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Luigi Ferrucci; Anna Kettermann; Patricia Landis; E James Wright; Jonathan I Epstein; Bruce J Trock; E Jeffrey Metter Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kirsten L Greene; Peter C Albertsen; Richard J Babaian; H Ballentine Carter; Peter H Gann; Misop Han; Deborah Ann Kuban; A Oliver Sartor; Janet L Stanford; Anthony Zietman; Peter Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Grace L Lu-Yao; Peter C Albertsen; Dirk F Moore; Weichung Shih; Yong Lin; Robert S DiPaola; Michael J Barry; Anthony Zietman; Michael O'Leary; Elizabeth Walker-Corkery; Siu-Long Yao Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Matthew Frank O'Brien; Angel M Cronin; Paul A Fearn; Brandon Smith; Jason Stasi; Bertrand Guillonneau; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Andrew J Vickers; Hans Lilja Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-06-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Gary J Miller; Leslie G Ford; Michael M Lieber; R Duane Cespedes; James N Atkins; Scott M Lippman; Susie M Carlin; Anne Ryan; Connie M Szczepanek; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; John J Crowley; Susan M Carlin; Anne Ryan; Charles A Coltman; Leslie G Ford; Ian M Thompson Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2004-04
Authors: Sigrid Carlsson; Andrew J Vickers; Monique Roobol; James Eastham; Peter Scardino; Hans Lilja; Jonas Hugosson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Scott E Eggener; Ketan Badani; Daniel A Barocas; Glen W Barrisford; Jed-Sian Cheng; Arnold I Chin; Anthony Corcoran; Jonathan I Epstein; Arvin K George; Gopal N Gupta; Matthew H Hayn; Eric C Kauffman; Brian Lane; Michael A Liss; Moben Mirza; Todd M Morgan; Kelvin Moses; Kenneth G Nepple; Mark A Preston; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Matthew J Resnick; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Jonathan Silberstein; Eric A Singer; Geoffrey A Sonn; Preston Sprenkle; Kelly L Stratton; Jennifer Taylor; Jeffrey Tomaszewski; Matt Tollefson; Andrew Vickers; Wesley M White; William T Lowrance Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-04-04 Impact factor: 7.450