Literature DB >> 33744875

A Refinement of Clinical Tumor Marker Monitoring: Why Not Use an Inverse Value of Doubling Time?

Gintaras Zaleskis1, Paulius Bosas1,2, Albertas Ulys1, Daiva Dabkevičiene1, Neringa Dobrovolskiene1, Bret Andrew Hudson3, Vita Pašukoniene1,4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics - half-life time (HT), doubling time (DT), and elimination rate PSA (ePSA) in prostate cancer (PCa) monitoring. Implementation of ePSA in clinical practice could help simplify patient monitoring in the remission phase.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 49 PCa patients were examined by their PSA tests before prostatectomy and after 30 days, 91 days, and 24 months. Conventional PSA rate of change parameters (HT and DT) were compared to a new clinically understandable ePSA parameter.
RESULTS: We observed that implementation of inverse value (ePSA) rather than HT or DT has distinct advantages: (1) values are valid when PSA is unchanged (ePSA equals zero), (2) the concept of ePSA can be easily understood, as it is a growth fraction, (3) ePSA fluctuates within a narrow range and is thus easy to interpret, and (4) there are no mathematical flaws (no positive skewing).
CONCLUSION: Exploring ePSA norm as ≤0% could help spot biochemical recurrence in a timely manner. Primary health care providers tend to use an irrelevant PSA threshold, that is, 4.0 ng/mL, in postoperative follow-up. The delayed referrals of patients in remission might be reduced if ePSA testing is adopted.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer relapse; Prostate cancer; Prostate-specific antigen; Tumor markers

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33744875      PMCID: PMC8280408          DOI: 10.1159/000515977

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Princ Pract        ISSN: 1011-7571            Impact factor:   1.927


  11 in total

1.  Specific growth rate versus doubling time for quantitative characterization of tumor growth rate.

Authors:  Esmaeil Mehrara; Eva Forssell-Aronsson; Håkan Ahlman; Peter Bernhardt
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2007-04-15       Impact factor: 12.701

2.  CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound monitoring in high-risk women cannot prevent the diagnosis of advanced ovarian cancer.

Authors:  R I Olivier; M A C Lubsen-Brandsma; S Verhoef; M van Beurden
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2005-09-26       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Mario Eisenberger; Frederick J Dorey; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-07-27       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Clinical implications of a rising serum CA-125 within the normal range in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: a preliminary investigation.

Authors:  James L Wilder; Edward Pavlik; John M Straughn; Tyler Kirby; Robert V Higgins; Paul D DePriest; Frederick R Ueland; Richard J Kryscio; Ronald J Whitley; John van Nagell
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Undetectable ultrasensitive PSA after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer predicts relapse-free survival.

Authors:  A P Doherty; M Bower; G L Smith; R Miano; E M Mannion; H Mitchell; T J Christmas
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Early detection of metastatic disease in asymptomatic breast cancer patients with whole-body imaging and defined tumour marker increase.

Authors:  D Di Gioia; P Stieber; G P Schmidt; D Nagel; V Heinemann; A Baur-Melnyk
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Primary care follow-up of radical prostatectomy patients: A regional New Zealand experience.

Authors:  Omid Yassaie; Ben McLaughlin; Marlon Perera; Todd Manning; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Andrew Malcolm
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2016-07-29

8.  Association between PSA values and surveillance quality after prostate cancer surgery.

Authors:  Christina Hunter Chapman; Megan E V Caram; Archana Radhakrishnan; Alexander Tsodikov; Curtiland Deville; Jennifer Burns; Alexander Zaslavsky; Michael Chang; John T Leppert; Timothy Hofer; Anne E Sales; Sarah T Hawley; Brent K Hollenbeck; Ted A Skolarus
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 4.452

9.  Assessing lead time of selected ovarian cancer biomarkers: a nested case-control study.

Authors:  Garnet L Anderson; Martin McIntosh; Lieling Wu; Matt Barnett; Gary Goodman; Jason D Thorpe; Lindsay Bergan; Mark D Thornquist; Nathalie Scholler; Nam Kim; Kathy O'Briant; Charles Drescher; Nicole Urban
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-12-30       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Performance of seven criteria to assess CA125 increments among ovarian cancer patients monitored during first-line chemotherapy and the post-therapy follow-up period.

Authors:  Suher O Abu Hassan; Dorte L Nielsen; Malgorzata K Tuxen; Per H Petersen; György Sölétormos
Journal:  Future Sci OA       Date:  2017-07-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.