Satoko Urata1, Yasuhide Kitagawa2, Satoko Matsuyama1, Renato Naito1, Kenji Yasuda3, Atsushi Mizokami1, Mikio Namiki1. 1. Department of Integrative Cancer Therapy and Urology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa University, Takaramachi 13-1, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8640, Japan. 2. Department of Integrative Cancer Therapy and Urology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa University, Takaramachi 13-1, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8640, Japan. yasukita@med.kanazawa-u.ac.jp. 3. Kanazawa Medical Association, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To optimize the rescreening schedule for men with low baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, we evaluated men with baseline PSA levels of ≤1.0 ng/mL in PSA-based population screening. METHODS: We enrolled 8086 men aged 55-69 years with baseline PSA levels of ≤1.0 ng/mL, who were screened annually. The relationships of baseline PSA and age with the cumulative risks and clinicopathological features of screening-detected cancer were investigated. RESULTS: Among the 8086 participants, 28 (0.35 %) and 18 (0.22 %) were diagnosed with prostate cancer and cancer with a Gleason score (GS) of ≥7 during the observation period, respectively. The cumulative probabilities of prostate cancer at 12 years were 0.42, 1.0, 3.4, and 4.3 % in men with baseline PSA levels of 0.0-0.4, 0.5-0.6, 0.7-0.8, and 0.9-1.0 ng/mL, respectively. Those with GS of ≥7 had cumulative probabilities of 0.42, 0.73, 2.8, and 1.9 %, respectively. The cumulative probabilities of prostate cancer were significantly lower when baseline PSA levels were 0.0-0.6 ng/mL compared with 0.7-1.0 ng/mL. Prostate cancer with a GS of ≥7 was not detected during the first 10 years of screening when baseline PSA levels were 0.0-0.6 ng/mL and was not detected during the first 2 years when baseline PSA levels were 0.7-1.0 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that men with baseline PSA levels of 0.0-0.6 ng/mL might benefit from longer screening intervals than those recommended in the guidelines of the Japanese Urological Association. Further investigation is needed to confirm the optimal screening interval for men with low baseline PSA levels.
PURPOSE: To optimize the rescreening schedule for men with low baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, we evaluated men with baseline PSA levels of ≤1.0 ng/mL in PSA-based population screening. METHODS: We enrolled 8086 men aged 55-69 years with baseline PSA levels of ≤1.0 ng/mL, who were screened annually. The relationships of baseline PSA and age with the cumulative risks and clinicopathological features of screening-detected cancer were investigated. RESULTS: Among the 8086 participants, 28 (0.35 %) and 18 (0.22 %) were diagnosed with prostate cancer and cancer with a Gleason score (GS) of ≥7 during the observation period, respectively. The cumulative probabilities of prostate cancer at 12 years were 0.42, 1.0, 3.4, and 4.3 % in men with baseline PSA levels of 0.0-0.4, 0.5-0.6, 0.7-0.8, and 0.9-1.0 ng/mL, respectively. Those with GS of ≥7 had cumulative probabilities of 0.42, 0.73, 2.8, and 1.9 %, respectively. The cumulative probabilities of prostate cancer were significantly lower when baseline PSA levels were 0.0-0.6 ng/mL compared with 0.7-1.0 ng/mL. Prostate cancer with a GS of ≥7 was not detected during the first 10 years of screening when baseline PSA levels were 0.0-0.6 ng/mL and was not detected during the first 2 years when baseline PSA levels were 0.7-1.0 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that men with baseline PSA levels of 0.0-0.6 ng/mL might benefit from longer screening intervals than those recommended in the guidelines of the Japanese Urological Association. Further investigation is needed to confirm the optimal screening interval for men with low baseline PSA levels.
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Peter C Albertsen; Michael J Barry; Ruth Etzioni; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Lynn Greene; Lars Holmberg; Philip Kantoff; Badrinath R Konety; Mohammad Hassan Murad; David F Penson; Anthony L Zietman Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Páez; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paula M Kujala; Bert G Blijenberg; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Andreas Huber; Kimmo Taari; Matti Hakama; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bernard Candas; Fernand Labrie; José Luis Gomez; Leonello Cusan; Eric Chevrette; Jacques Lévesque; Ghyslain Brousseau Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christine Bouchardy; Gerald Fioretta; Elisabetta Rapiti; Helena Maria Verkooijen; Charles Henry Rapin; France Schmidlin; Raymond Miralbell; Roberto Zanetti Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2008-07-15 Impact factor: 7.396
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