Literature DB >> 26254722

Prostate Needle Biopsy Outcomes in the Era of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation against Prostate Specific Antigen Based Screening.

John S Banerji1, Erika M Wolff1, John D Massman1, Katherine Odem-Davis2, Christopher R Porter1, John M Corman3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We determined whether the characteristics of patients undergoing prostate needle biopsies and prostate needle biopsy results changed after the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation in 2012 against prostate specific antigen based screening for prostate cancer for men of any age.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective database of patients undergoing prostate needle biopsies at Virginia Mason from 2004 to 2014 was reviewed. Welch's t-test and chi-square tests were used to compare patients seen before to those seen after the USPSTF recommendation. Relative risks and corresponding confidence intervals were estimated by general linear regression.
RESULTS: Patients in the post-USPSTF group (310) had a higher prostate specific antigen (p <0.001), were more likely to be diagnosed with higher clinical stage (2b, p=0.003; 2c-3a, p=0.027) and D'Amico high risk prostate cancer (p=0.036), with an adjusted relative risk for high risk prostate cancer of 1.25 (95% CI 1.02-1.52) compared to those in the pre-USPSTF group (1,416). Limiting the pre-USPSTF group to the 30 months before the draft guidelines (448 patients) yielded similar results. The absolute number of biopsies performed decreased by 31%, with the majority of the decrease occurring in the detection of intermediate risk tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: In the 2 and a half years after the USPSTF recommendation against prostate specific antigen based screening, patients undergoing prostate needle biopsies were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with high risk disease. However, a reduction in the number of prostate needle biopsies performed occurred concomitantly with a decrease in the detection of intermediate risk, potentially curable prostate cancer. Future focus on informed application of screening techniques may prevent the reversal of decades of improvement in the prostate cancer mortality rate.
Copyright © 2016 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biopsy; early detection of cancer; government agencies; needle; prostate-specific antigen; prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26254722     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.07.099

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


  28 in total

1.  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 2.  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

3.  [Trivialization of prostate cancer? : Stage shift and possible causes].

Authors:  M Saar; M S K M Abdeen; C Niklas; Z T F Al-Kailani; S Siemer; M Stöckle
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Evidence-Based Versus Personalized Prostate Cancer Screening: Using Baseline Prostate-Specific Antigen Measurements to Individualize Screening.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 5.  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

6.  Perioperative outcomes following radical prostatectomy for patients with disseminated cancer: An analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.

Authors:  Raj Satkunasivam; Christopher J D Wallis; James Byrne; Azik Hoffman; Douglas C Cheung; Girish S Kulkarni; Avery B Nathens; Robert K Nam
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  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

8.  Trends in prostate biopsy in Ontario, 1992-2014: a cohort study.

Authors:  Luke T Lavallée; Rodney H Breau; Dean Fergusson; Carl van Walraven
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2016-11-21

9.  Histologic Changes in Prostate Cancer Detected Subsequent to the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Prostate Cancer Screening Recommendation.

Authors:  Carl A Olsson; Hugh J Lavery; Kamlesh K Yadav; Ann E Anderson; Deepak Kapoor
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2018

10.  [Effects of modified inclusion criteria and negative reporting about PSA screening on the number of potentially recruitable patients for the PREFERE study].

Authors:  J Mathes; M Burger; J E Gschwend; O W Hakenberg; S Krege; J Lehmann; K Miller; J Roigas; S Roth; T Kälble
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 0.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.