PURPOSE: To compare the performance of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in obese and non-obese Chinese men. METHODS: The results of transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsies of Chinese men with PSA <20 ng/mL were reviewed. Parameters including age, body mass index (BMI), TRUS prostate volume, and TRUS biopsy results were recorded. The diagnostic yields of PSA density (>0.15 ng/mL as positive) in obese and non-obese men with PSA <20 ng/mL were compared. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 27 kg/m(2) according to WHO recommendation for Hong Kong Chinese. RESULTS: TRUS biopsy, BMI, and PSA density data were available for 854 men (mean age 65.9 ± 7.3). The mean PSA values for the obese and non-obese patients were 7.9 ± 3.7 and 8.2 ± 4.1 ng/mL, respectively (p = 0.416). TRUS volumes in obese and non-obese men were 63.2 ml and 51.6 ml, respectively (t test, p < 0.001), and PSA density was significantly lower in obese men (0.145 vs. 0.188, p < 0.001). For obese men, positive PSA density was associated with four times (41.1 vs. 9.5 %, p < 0.001) the risk of prostate cancer, compared to only twice the risk (18.8 vs. 9.7 %, p = 0.001) in non-obese men. The specificity and area under the curve of PSA density were 74.2 % and 0.731, respectively, for obese men, and 51.4 % and 0.653, respectively, for non-obese men. Among patients with a diagnosis of prostate cancer, the obese patient group had a significantly higher proportion of patients with Gleason 7-10 prostate cancer than the non-obese patient group (48.9 vs. 32.7 %, Chi-square test, p = 0.035), and a trend toward a higher proportion of bilateral lobe involvement. CONCLUSION: PSA density had better performance in obese men. Positive PSA density in obese men was associated with four times the risk of prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in obese and non-obese Chinese men. METHODS: The results of transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsies of Chinese men with PSA <20 ng/mL were reviewed. Parameters including age, body mass index (BMI), TRUS prostate volume, and TRUS biopsy results were recorded. The diagnostic yields of PSA density (>0.15 ng/mL as positive) in obese and non-obesemen with PSA <20 ng/mL were compared. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 27 kg/m(2) according to WHO recommendation for Hong Kong Chinese. RESULTS: TRUS biopsy, BMI, and PSA density data were available for 854 men (mean age 65.9 ± 7.3). The mean PSA values for the obese and non-obesepatients were 7.9 ± 3.7 and 8.2 ± 4.1 ng/mL, respectively (p = 0.416). TRUS volumes in obese and non-obesemen were 63.2 ml and 51.6 ml, respectively (t test, p < 0.001), and PSA density was significantly lower in obesemen (0.145 vs. 0.188, p < 0.001). For obesemen, positive PSA density was associated with four times (41.1 vs. 9.5 %, p < 0.001) the risk of prostate cancer, compared to only twice the risk (18.8 vs. 9.7 %, p = 0.001) in non-obesemen. The specificity and area under the curve of PSA density were 74.2 % and 0.731, respectively, for obesemen, and 51.4 % and 0.653, respectively, for non-obesemen. Among patients with a diagnosis of prostate cancer, the obesepatient group had a significantly higher proportion of patients with Gleason 7-10 prostate cancer than the non-obesepatient group (48.9 vs. 32.7 %, Chi-square test, p = 0.035), and a trend toward a higher proportion of bilateral lobe involvement. CONCLUSION:PSA density had better performance in obesemen. Positive PSA density in obesemen was associated with four times the risk of prostate cancer.
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: Boyd A Swinburn; Gary Sacks; Kevin D Hall; Klim McPherson; Diane T Finegood; Marjory L Moodie; Steven L Gortmaker Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-08-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth A Platz; Joseph C Presti; William J Aronson; Christopher L Amling; Christopher J Kane; Martha K Terris Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: M Bazinet; A W Meshref; C Trudel; S Aronson; F Péloquin; M Nachabe; L R Bégin; M M Elhilali Journal: Urology Date: 1994-01 Impact factor: 2.649
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: Robert L Grubb; Amanda Black; Grant Izmirlian; Thomas P Hickey; Paul F Pinsky; Jerome E Mabie; Thomas L Riley; Lawrence R Ragard; Philip C Prorok; Christine D Berg; E David Crawford; Timothy R Church; Gerald L Andriole Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-03-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Matteo Ferro; Dario Bruzzese; Sisto Perdonà; Ada Marino; Claudia Mazzarella; Giuseppe Perruolo; Vittoria D'Esposito; Vincenzo Cosimato; Carlo Buonerba; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Gennaro Musi; Ottavio De Cobelli; Felix K Chun; Daniela Terracciano Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-07-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Oscar Campuzano; Olallo Sanchez-Molero; Anna Fernandez; Irene Mademont-Soler; Monica Coll; Alexandra Perez-Serra; Jesus Mates; Bernat Del Olmo; Ferran Pico; Laia Nogue-Navarro; Georgia Sarquella-Brugada; Anna Iglesias; Sergi Cesar; Esther Carro; Juan Carlos Borondo; Josep Brugada; Josep Castellà; Jordi Medallo; Ramon Brugada Journal: Sports Med Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 11.136