Tobias Nordström1,2, Olof Akre3, Markus Aly4,3, Henrik Grönberg4, Martin Eklund4. 1. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, S-171 77, Sweden. tobias.nordstrom@ki.se. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, S-182 88, Sweden. tobias.nordstrom@ki.se. 3. Department of Urology, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, S-171 77, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) alone leads to un-necessary biopsying and overdiagnosis. PSA density is easily accessible, but early evidence on its use for biopsy decisions was conflicting and use of PSA density is not commonly recommended in guidelines. METHODS: We analyzed biopsy outcomes in 5291 men in the population-based STHLM3 study with PSA ≥ 3 ng/ml and ultrasound-guided prostate volume measurements by using percentages and regression models. PSA density was calculated as total PSA (ng/ml) divided by prostate volume (ml). Main endpoint was clinically significant cancer (csPCa) defined as Gleason Score ≥ 7. RESULTS: The median PSA-density was 0.10 ng/ml2 (IQR 0.075-0.14). PSA-density was associated with the risk of finding csPCa both with and without adjusting for the additional clinical information age, family history, previous biopsies, total PSA and free/total PSA (OR 1.06; 95% CI:1.05-1.07 and OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.06-1.08). Discrimination for csPCa was better when PSA density was added to a model with additional clinical information (AUC 0.75 vs. 0.73, P < 0.05). The proportion of men with Gleason Score 6 (ISUP 1) was similar across stratas of PSA-density. Omitting prostate biopsy for men with PSA-density ≤0.07 ng/ml2 would save 19.7% of biopsy procedures, while missing 6.9% of csPCa. PSA-density cutoffs of 0.10 ng/ml2 and 0.15 ng/ml2 resulted in detection of 77% (729/947) and 49% (461/947) of Gleason Score ≥7 tumors. CONCLUSIONS: PSA-density might inform biopsy decisions, and spare some men from the morbidity associated with a prostate biopsy and diagnosis of low-grade prostate cancer.
BACKGROUND: Screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) alone leads to un-necessary biopsying and overdiagnosis. PSA density is easily accessible, but early evidence on its use for biopsy decisions was conflicting and use of PSA density is not commonly recommended in guidelines. METHODS: We analyzed biopsy outcomes in 5291 men in the population-based STHLM3 study with PSA ≥ 3 ng/ml and ultrasound-guided prostate volume measurements by using percentages and regression models. PSA density was calculated as total PSA (ng/ml) divided by prostate volume (ml). Main endpoint was clinically significant cancer (csPCa) defined as Gleason Score ≥ 7. RESULTS: The median PSA-density was 0.10 ng/ml2 (IQR 0.075-0.14). PSA-density was associated with the risk of finding csPCa both with and without adjusting for the additional clinical information age, family history, previous biopsies, total PSA and free/total PSA (OR 1.06; 95% CI:1.05-1.07 and OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.06-1.08). Discrimination for csPCa was better when PSA density was added to a model with additional clinical information (AUC 0.75 vs. 0.73, P < 0.05). The proportion of men with Gleason Score 6 (ISUP 1) was similar across stratas of PSA-density. Omitting prostate biopsy for men with PSA-density ≤0.07 ng/ml2 would save 19.7% of biopsy procedures, while missing 6.9% of csPCa. PSA-density cutoffs of 0.10 ng/ml2 and 0.15 ng/ml2 resulted in detection of 77% (729/947) and 49% (461/947) of Gleason Score ≥7 tumors. CONCLUSIONS:PSA-density might inform biopsy decisions, and spare some men from the morbidity associated with a prostate biopsy and diagnosis of low-grade prostate cancer.
Authors: Jan Chandra Engel; Thorgerdur Palsdottir; Donna Ankerst; Sebastiaan Remmers; Ashkan Mortezavi; Venkatesh Chellappa; Lars Egevad; Henrik Grönberg; Martin Eklund; Tobias Nordström Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-05-19
Authors: Basil Kaufmann; Karim Saba; Tobias S Schmidli; Stephanie Stutz; Leon Bissig; Anna Jelena Britschgi; Evodia Schaeren; Alexander Gu; Nicole Langenegger; Tullio Sulser; Daniel Eberli; Etienne X Keller; Thomas Hermanns; Cédric Poyet Journal: Prostate Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 4.012
Authors: Thomas F Monaghan; Syed N Rahman; Christina W Agudelo; Alan J Wein; Jason M Lazar; Karel Everaert; Roger R Dmochowski Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-05-16 Impact factor: 2.430
Authors: Salvatore M Bruno; Ugo G Falagario; Nicola d'Altilia; Marco Recchia; Vito Mancini; Oscar Selvaggio; Francesca Sanguedolce; Francesco Del Giudice; Martina Maggi; Matteo Ferro; Angelo Porreca; Alessandro Sciarra; Ettore De Berardinis; Carlo Bettocchi; Gian Maria Busetto; Luigi Cormio; Giuseppe Carrieri Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 6.244