PURPOSE: Patients with end stage renal disease plus prostate cancer are ineligible to receive a renal transplant at most centers until an acceptable cancer-free period is demonstrated. To our knowledge previously established prostate specific antigen reference ranges have not been validated in patients with end stage renal disease. We determined age stratified 95th percentile prostate specific antigen reference ranges and the prostate cancer detection rate at specific prostate specific antigen intervals for patients with end stage renal disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 775 male patients with end stage renal disease on the waiting list for a renal transplant who had undergone a serum prostate specific antigen test. Prostate specific antigen was stratified by age at the time of the blood test and 95th percentile reference ranges were calculated for each decade. A total of 80 patients underwent prostate biopsy for increased prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination. The cancer detection rate was calculated for specific prostate specific antigen reference ranges. RESULTS: The age specific 95th percentile prostate specific antigen references ranges were 0 to 4.0 ng/ml for ages 40 to 49 in 137 patients, 0 to 5.3 ng/ml for ages 50 to 59 in 257, 0 to 10.5 ng/ml for ages 60 to 69 in 265 and 0 to 16.6 ng/ml for ages 70 to 79 years in 69. The cancer detection rate was 44%, 38% and 67% for prostate specific antigen 2.5 to 4.0, 4 to 10 and greater than 10 ng/ml, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our study population of patients with end stage renal disease age stratified prostate specific antigen was higher than in the general population. The cancer detection rate was increased in our patients with end stage renal disease compared to that in patients with normal renal function at specific prostate specific antigen intervals. Lower prostate specific antigen cutoffs may be appropriate to recommend prostate biopsy in patients with end stage renal disease.
PURPOSE:Patients with end stage renal disease plus prostate cancer are ineligible to receive a renal transplant at most centers until an acceptable cancer-free period is demonstrated. To our knowledge previously established prostate specific antigen reference ranges have not been validated in patients with end stage renal disease. We determined age stratified 95th percentile prostate specific antigen reference ranges and the prostate cancer detection rate at specific prostate specific antigen intervals for patients with end stage renal disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 775 male patients with end stage renal disease on the waiting list for a renal transplant who had undergone a serum prostate specific antigen test. Prostate specific antigen was stratified by age at the time of the blood test and 95th percentile reference ranges were calculated for each decade. A total of 80 patients underwent prostate biopsy for increased prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination. The cancer detection rate was calculated for specific prostate specific antigen reference ranges. RESULTS: The age specific 95th percentile prostate specific antigen references ranges were 0 to 4.0 ng/ml for ages 40 to 49 in 137 patients, 0 to 5.3 ng/ml for ages 50 to 59 in 257, 0 to 10.5 ng/ml for ages 60 to 69 in 265 and 0 to 16.6 ng/ml for ages 70 to 79 years in 69. The cancer detection rate was 44%, 38% and 67% for prostate specific antigen 2.5 to 4.0, 4 to 10 and greater than 10 ng/ml, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our study population of patients with end stage renal disease age stratified prostate specific antigen was higher than in the general population. The cancer detection rate was increased in our patients with end stage renal disease compared to that in patients with normal renal function at specific prostate specific antigen intervals. Lower prostate specific antigen cutoffs may be appropriate to recommend prostate biopsy in patients with end stage renal disease.
Authors: Gerardo A Vitiello; Blayne A Sayed; Marla Wardenburg; Sebastian D Perez; Christopher G Keith; Daniel J Canter; Kenneth Ogan; Thomas C Pearson; Nicole Turgeon Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Benjamin A Sherer; Krishnan Warrior; Karl Godlewski; Martin Hertl; Oyedolamu Olaitan; Ajay Nehra; Leslie Allan Deane Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2017 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Sung Han Kim; Jae Young Joung; Yoon Seok Suh; Young Ae Kim; Jin Hyuk Hong; Tong Sun Kuark; Eun Sook Lee; Kang Hyun Lee Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-07-22
Authors: Juan Manuel Ochoa-López; Bernardo Gabilondo-Pliego; Sylvain Collura-Merlier; Jaime O Herrera-Cáceres; Mariano Sotomayor de Zavaleta; Francisco Tomás Rodríguez-Covarrubias; Guillermo Feria-Bernal; Fernando Gabilondo-Navarro; Ricardo Alonso Castillejos-Molina Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2018 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.541