OBJECTIVE: To explore whether a panel of kallikrein markers in blood: total, free and intact prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and kallikrein-related peptidase 2, could be used as a non-invasive alternative for predicting prostate cancer on biopsy in a screening setting. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study cohort comprised previously unscreened men who underwent sextant biopsy owing to elevated PSA (≥3 ng/mL) in two different centres of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam (n = 2914) and Göteborg (n = 740). A statistical model, based on kallikrein markers, was compared with one based on established clinical factors for the prediction of biopsy outcome. RESULTS: The clinical tests were found to be no better than blood markers, with an area under the curve in favour of the blood measurements of 0.766 vs. 0.763 in Rotterdam and 0.809 vs. 0.774 in Göteborg. Adding digital rectal examination (DRE) or DRE plus transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) volume to the markers improved discrimination, although the increases were small. Results were similar for predicting high-grade cancer. There was a strong correlation between the blood measurements and TRUS-estimated prostate volume (Spearman's correlation 0.60 in Rotterdam and 0.57 in Göteborg). CONCLUSIONS: In previously unscreened men, each with indication for biopsy, a statistical model based on kallikrein levels was similar to a clinical model in predicting prostate cancer in a screening setting, outside the day-to-day clinical practice. Whether a clinical approach can be replaced by laboratory analyses or used in combination with decision models (nomograms) is a clinical judgment that may vary from clinician to clinician depending on how they weigh the different advantages and disadvantages (harms, costs, time, invasiveness) of both approaches.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To explore whether a panel of kallikrein markers in blood: total, free and intact prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and kallikrein-related peptidase 2, could be used as a non-invasive alternative for predicting prostate cancer on biopsy in a screening setting. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study cohort comprised previously unscreened men who underwent sextant biopsy owing to elevated PSA (≥3 ng/mL) in two different centres of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam (n = 2914) and Göteborg (n = 740). A statistical model, based on kallikrein markers, was compared with one based on established clinical factors for the prediction of biopsy outcome. RESULTS: The clinical tests were found to be no better than blood markers, with an area under the curve in favour of the blood measurements of 0.766 vs. 0.763 in Rotterdam and 0.809 vs. 0.774 in Göteborg. Adding digital rectal examination (DRE) or DRE plus transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) volume to the markers improved discrimination, although the increases were small. Results were similar for predicting high-grade cancer. There was a strong correlation between the blood measurements and TRUS-estimated prostate volume (Spearman's correlation 0.60 in Rotterdam and 0.57 in Göteborg). CONCLUSIONS: In previously unscreened men, each with indication for biopsy, a statistical model based on kallikrein levels was similar to a clinical model in predicting prostate cancer in a screening setting, outside the day-to-day clinical practice. Whether a clinical approach can be replaced by laboratory analyses or used in combination with decision models (nomograms) is a clinical judgment that may vary from clinician to clinician depending on how they weigh the different advantages and disadvantages (harms, costs, time, invasiveness) of both approaches.
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Monique J Roobol; Heidi A van Vugt; Stacy Loeb; Xiaoye Zhu; Meelan Bul; Chris H Bangma; Arno G L J H van Leenders; Ewout W Steyerberg; Fritz H Schröder Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 20.096
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: B Djavan; M Waldert; A Zlotta; P Dobronski; C Seitz; M Remzi; A Borkowski; C Schulman; M Marberger Journal: J Urol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: W J Catalona; P C Southwick; K M Slawin; A W Partin; M K Brawer; R C Flanigan; A Patel; J P Richie; P C Walsh; P T Scardino; P H Lange; G H Gasior; K G Loveland; K R Bray Journal: Urology Date: 2000-08-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; William B Isaacs; Elizabeth A Platz; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Christopher L Amling; Joseph C Presti; Christopher J Kane Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ville Väisänen; Susann Eriksson; Kaisa K Ivaska; Hans Lilja; Martti Nurmi; Kim Pettersson Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2004-07-09 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Thomas Steuber; Paulina Nurmikko; Alexander Haese; Kim Pettersson; Markus Graefen; Peter Hammerer; Hartwig Huland; Hans Lilja Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Monique J Roobol; F H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; J Stephen Jones; Michael W Kattan; Eric A Klein; Freddie Hamdy; David Neal; Jenny Donovan; Dipen J Parekh; Donna Ankerst; George Bartsch; Helmut Klocker; Wolfgang Horninger; Amine Benchikh; Gilles Salama; Arnauld Villers; Stephen J Freedland; Daniel M Moreira; Andrew J Vickers; Hans Lilja; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: World J Urol Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Emily A Vertosick; Stephen Zappala; Sanoj Punnen; Jonas Hugosson; Stephen A Boorjian; Alexander Haese; Peter Carroll; Matthew Cooperberg; Anders Bjartell; Hans Lilja; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Urology Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 2.649