Donna P Ankerst1, Cathee Till, Andreas Boeck, Phyllis J Goodman, Catherine M Tangen, Ian M Thompson. 1. Department of Urology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX; Departments of Mathematics, Technical University Munich, Garching, Germany; Department of Life Sciences, Technical University Munich, Garching, Germany. Electronic address: ankerst@uthscsa.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of prostate volume, number of biopsy cores, and American Urological Association symptom score (AUASS) for prostate cancer risk assessment among men receiving finasteride in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. METHODS: Data from 4509 men on the finasteride arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial who were on treatment at thetime of their AUASS and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement before biopsy were included in multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS:Six hundred eighty-two (15.1%) participants had prostate cancer; 257 (37.7%) of these had high-grade disease. For prostate cancer risk, the model included PSA (odds ratio corresponding to a 2-fold increase in PSA: 2.70; P <.0001), digital rectal examination (2.53; P <.0001), age (1.03; P = .001), and prostate volume (odds ratio 0.54 for a 2-fold increase in volume; P <.0001). For high-grade disease, PSA (3.39; P <.0001), digital rectal examination (2.75; P <.0001), age (1.05; P = .001), and volume (0.55; P <.0001) were statistically significant. AUASS was not statistically significant in any of the models that included prostate volume, but was in models in which volume was not included. The number of biopsy cores did not significantly improve risk assessment in any of the models considered. CONCLUSION: Although in the general population, obtaining a cancer diagnosis is improved by assessing prostate volume and increasing the number of biopsy cores, neither steps are required in men receivingfinasteride. Obtaining fewer biopsy cores in men receivingfinasteride preserves biopsy sensitivity and will likely reduce cost and morbidity.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of prostate volume, number of biopsy cores, and American Urological Association symptom score (AUASS) for prostate cancer risk assessment among men receiving finasteride in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. METHODS: Data from 4509 men on the finasteride arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial who were on treatment at the time of their AUASS and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement before biopsy were included in multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Six hundred eighty-two (15.1%) participants had prostate cancer; 257 (37.7%) of these had high-grade disease. For prostate cancer risk, the model included PSA (odds ratio corresponding to a 2-fold increase in PSA: 2.70; P <.0001), digital rectal examination (2.53; P <.0001), age (1.03; P = .001), and prostate volume (odds ratio 0.54 for a 2-fold increase in volume; P <.0001). For high-grade disease, PSA (3.39; P <.0001), digital rectal examination (2.75; P <.0001), age (1.05; P = .001), and volume (0.55; P <.0001) were statistically significant. AUASS was not statistically significant in any of the models that included prostate volume, but was in models in which volume was not included. The number of biopsy cores did not significantly improve risk assessment in any of the models considered. CONCLUSION: Although in the general population, obtaining a cancer diagnosis is improved by assessing prostate volume and increasing the number of biopsy cores, neither steps are required in men receiving finasteride. Obtaining fewer biopsy cores in men receiving finasteride preserves biopsy sensitivity and will likely reduce cost and morbidity.
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: G Igor Pinkhasov; Yu-Kuan Lin; Ricardo Palmerola; Paul Smith; Frank Mahon; Matthew G Kaag; J Edward Dagen; Lewis E Harpster; Carl T Reese; Jay D Raman Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 5.588
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
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: Ian M Thompson; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Chen Chi; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; Scott M Lippman; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Charles A Coltman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-20 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: M Scott Lucia; Jonathan I Epstein; Phyllis J Goodman; Amy K Darke; Victor E Reuter; Francisco Civantos; Catherine M Tangen; Howard L Parnes; Scott M Lippman; Francisco G La Rosa; Michael W Kattan; E David Crawford; Leslie G Ford; Charles A Coltman; Ian M Thompson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-09-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Donna P Ankerst; Johanna Straubinger; Katharina Selig; Lourdes Guerrios; Amanda De Hoedt; Javier Hernandez; Michael A Liss; Robin J Leach; Stephen J Freedland; Michael W Kattan; Robert Nam; Alexander Haese; Francesco Montorsi; Stephen A Boorjian; Matthew R Cooperberg; Cedric Poyet; Emily Vertosick; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 20.096