Literature DB >> 25481037

Impact of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against prostate specific antigen screening on prostate biopsy and cancer detection rates.

Bimal Bhindi1, Muhammad Mamdani2, Girish S Kulkarni3, Antonio Finelli4, Robert J Hamilton4, John Trachtenberg4, Alexandre R Zlotta4, Andrew Evans5, Theodorus H van der Kwast5, Ants Toi6, Neil E Fleshner4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We determined if the USPSTF recommendation against prostate specific antigen screening was associated with a change in biopsy and cancer detection rates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a time series analysis (October 2008 to June 2013) of prostate biopsies performed at University Health Network (Toronto). Biopsies for active surveillance or solely targeting magnetic resonance imaging detected lesions were excluded from study. Interventional ARIMA models with step functions were used to examine changes in the number of biopsies performed and cancers detected per month. Low risk prostate cancer was defined as no Gleason pattern 4 or greater, 3 or fewer cores involved, or 1/3 or less of the total number of cores involved, and no core with greater than 50% cancer involvement. Intermediate to high grade prostate cancer was defined as Gleason 7-10.
RESULTS: A total of 3,408 biopsies were performed and 1,601 (47.0%) prostate cancers were detected (low risk prostate cancer 563 [16.5%], intermediate to high grade prostate cancer 914 [26.8%]). The median number of biopsies per month decreased from 58.0 (IQR 54.5-63.0) before the recommendations to 35.5 (IQR 27.0-41.0) afterward (p=0.003), while the median number of patients undergoing first-time biopsy decreased from 42.5 (IQR 37.5-45.5) to 24.0 (IQR 19.0-32.5, p=0.025). The median number of low risk prostate cancers detected per month decreased from 8.5 (IQR 6.5-10.5) to 5.5 (IQR 4.0-7.0, p=0.012), while the median number of intermediate to high grade prostate cancers per month decreased from 17.5 (IQR 14.5-21.5) to 10.0 (IQR 9.0-12.0, p <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: After the USPSTF recommendation the number of biopsies performed (total and first-time), based on referrals from our catchment area, has decreased. This is likely due to decreased use of prostate specific antigen screening. Although it is encouraging that fewer low risk prostate cancers are being diagnosed, the sudden decrease in the detection rate of Gleason 7-10 prostate cancers is concerning.
Copyright © 2015 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biopsy; early detection of cancer; prostate; prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25481037     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.11.096

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  35 in total

1.  Prostate cancer: Growth of AS in the USA signals reduction in overtreatment.

Authors:  Declan G Murphy; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  "Off-Label" Usage of Testicular Self-Examination (TSE): Benefits Beyond Cancer Detection.

Authors:  Michael J Rovito; James E Leone; Chase T Cavayero
Journal:  Am J Mens Health       Date:  2015-05-19

3.  Implications of prostate-specific antigen screening guidelines on clinical practice at a Canadian regional community hospital.

Authors:  Todd M Webster; Erika Lau; Ken J Newell
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 4.  The effect of the USPSTF PSA screening recommendation on prostate cancer incidence patterns in the USA.

Authors:  Katherine Fleshner; Sigrid V Carlsson; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Modern-day prostate cancer is not meaningfully associated with lower urinary tract symptoms: Analysis of a propensity score-matched cohort.

Authors:  Amar Bhindi; Bimal Bhindi; Girish S Kulkarni; Robert J Hamilton; Ants Toi; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Andrew Evans; Alexandre R Zlotta; Antonio Finelli; Neil E Fleshner
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 6.  African-American Prostate Cancer Disparities.

Authors:  Zachary L Smith; Scott E Eggener; Adam B Murphy
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 7.  What's new in screening in 2015?

Authors:  Sigrid V Carlsson; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.309

8.  Recommandations de l'Association des urologues du Canada sur le dépistage et le diagnostic précoce du cancer de la prostate.

Authors:  Ricardo A Rendon; Ross J Mason; Karim Marzouk; Antonio Finelli; Fred Saad; Alan So; Phillipe Violette; Rodney H Breau
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.862

9.  Prostate Cancer Screening and the Goldilocks Principle: How Much Is Just Right?

Authors:  Izak Faiena; Stuart Holden; Mathew R Cooperberg; Stuart Holden; Howard R Soule; Jonathan W Simons; Todd M Morgan; David F Penson; Alicia K Morgans; Maha Hussain
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  The initiation of a multidisciplinary bladder cancer clinic and the uptake of neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A time-series analysis.

Authors:  Madhur Nayan; Bimal Bhindi; Julie L Yu; Muhammad Mamdani; Neil E Fleshner; Thomas Hermanns; Peter Chung; Michael Milosevic; Robert Bristow; Padraig Warde; Robert J Hamilton; Antonio Finelli; Michael A S Jewett; Alexandre R Zlotta; Srikala S Sridhar; Girish S Kulkarni
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.