Tarek Ajami1, Jaime Durruty2, Claudia Mercader1, Leonardo Rodriguez3, Maria J Ribal1, Antonio Alcaraz1, Antoni Vilaseca4. 1. Urology Department, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, C/ Villarroel, 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Urology Department, Hospital Fuerza Aérea de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 3. Pathology Department, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Urology Department, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, C/ Villarroel, 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain. AVILASEC@clinic.cat.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In May 2012 the US Preventive Task Force issued a 'D' recommendation against routine PSA-based early detection of prostate cancer. This recommendation was implemented progressively in our health system. The aim of this study is to define its impact on prostate cancer staging at a tertiary care institution. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed from 2012 until 2015 at a single center. We analyzed the total number of biopsies performed per year and the positive biopsy rate. For those patients with positive biopsies we recorded diagnostic PSA, clinical stage, ISUP grade group, nodal involvement and metastatic status at diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 1686 biopsies were analyzed. The positive biopsy rate increased from 25% in 2012 to 40% in 2015 (p < 0.05). No change in median PSA was noticed (p = 0.627). The biopsies detected higher ISUP grades (p = 0.000). In addition, newly diagnosed prostate cancer presented a higher clinical stage (p = 0.005), higher metastatic rates (p = 0.03) and a tendency to higher lymph node involvement although not statistically significant (p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: After the 2012 recommendation, patients presented a higher probability of a prostate cancer diagnosis, with a more adverse ISUP group, clinical stage and metastatic disease. These results should be taken into consideration to implement a risk adapted strategy for prostate cancer screening.
BACKGROUND: In May 2012 the US Preventive Task Force issued a 'D' recommendation against routine PSA-based early detection of prostate cancer. This recommendation was implemented progressively in our health system. The aim of this study is to define its impact on prostate cancer staging at a tertiary care institution. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed from 2012 until 2015 at a single center. We analyzed the total number of biopsies performed per year and the positive biopsy rate. For those patients with positive biopsies we recorded diagnostic PSA, clinical stage, ISUP grade group, nodal involvement and metastatic status at diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 1686 biopsies were analyzed. The positive biopsy rate increased from 25% in 2012 to 40% in 2015 (p < 0.05). No change in median PSA was noticed (p = 0.627). The biopsies detected higher ISUP grades (p = 0.000). In addition, newly diagnosed prostate cancer presented a higher clinical stage (p = 0.005), higher metastatic rates (p = 0.03) and a tendency to higher lymph node involvement although not statistically significant (p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: After the 2012 recommendation, patients presented a higher probability of a prostate cancer diagnosis, with a more adverse ISUP group, clinical stage and metastatic disease. These results should be taken into consideration to implement a risk adapted strategy for prostate cancer screening.
Entities:
Keywords:
Prostate cancer; Prostate cancer screening; Prostate specific antigen
Authors: Roman Gulati; Alex Tsodikov; Ruth Etzioni; Rachel A Hunter-Merrill; John L Gore; Angela B Mariotto; Matthew R Cooperberg Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jim C Hu; Paul Nguyen; Jialin Mao; Joshua Halpern; Jonathan Shoag; Jason D Wright; Art Sedrakyan Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 31.777
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: Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Edward P Gelmann; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Richard B Hayes; Barnett S Kramer; Grant Izmirlian; Anthony B Miller; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John S Banerji; Erika M Wolff; John D Massman; Katherine Odem-Davis; Christopher R Porter; John M Corman Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Laura Burgess; Christopher M Aldrighetti; Anushka Ghosh; Andrzej Niemierko; Fumiko Chino; Melissa J Huynh; Jason A Efstathiou; Sophia C Kamran Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-05-02