Literature DB >> 8863571

Prospective evaluation of prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen density in the detection of nonpalpable and stage T1C carcinoma of the prostate.

J C Presti1, R Hovey, P R Carroll, K Shinohara.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We evaluated prospectively prostate specific antigen (PSA) and prostate specific antigen density in the detection of prostate cancer in patients with normal findings on digital rectal examination with and without normal transrectal ultrasound.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients (184) with an elevated serum PSA and normal digital rectal examination underwent transrectal ultrasound with lesion directed and systematic biopsies (6 if prostatic volume was 50 cc or less and 12 if volume was more than 50 cc). Receiver operating characteristic curves, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated for PSA and PSA density.
RESULTS: Of the 184 patients 50 (27%) with a normal digital rectal examination had cancer compared to 30 of 112 (27%) with a normal digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound. Median PSA or PSA density did not differ between the positive and negative biopsy groups among patients with a normal digital rectal examination (8.4 versus 7.1 and 0.22 versus 0.14 ng./ml., respectively) or a normal digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound (8.2 versus 7.5 and 0.21 versus 0.14 ng./ml., respectively). PSA density was superior to PSA by receiver operating characteristic analysis for cancer detection when all PSA values or those between 4 and 20 ng./ml. were considered. However, the significance was lost for a PSA of 4 to 10 ng./ml. Likelihood ratios demonstrated insignificant changes in the post-test probability if PSA density was used to determine the need for biopsy and many cancers would have been missed.
CONCLUSIONS: PSA density should not be used to determine the need for biopsy in patients with a normal digital rectal examination and/or transrectal ultrasound.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8863571

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


  6 in total

Review 1.  Three-dimensional magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging of brain and prostate cancer.

Authors:  J Kurhanewicz; D B Vigneron; S J Nelson
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2000 Jan-Apr       Impact factor: 5.715

2.  Screening for prostate cancer: a controversy or fact.

Authors:  S Stavridis; S Saidi; Lj Lekovski; S Dohcev; G Spasovski
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 0.471

3.  Does prostate specific antigen density correlates with aggressiveness of the prostate cancer?

Authors:  S Saidi; V Georgiev; S Stavridis; D Petrovski; S Dohcev; L Lekovski; Z Popov; S Banev; G Spasovski
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 0.471

4.  Diagnosis of relevant prostate cancer using supplementary cores from magnetic resonance imaging-prompted areas following multiple failed biopsies.

Authors:  Daniel N Costa; B Nicolas Bloch; David F Yao; Martin G Sanda; Long Ngo; Elizabeth M Genega; Ivan Pedrosa; William C DeWolf; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 2.546

Review 5.  Combined magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopic imaging approach to molecular imaging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  John Kurhanewicz; Mark G Swanson; Sarah J Nelson; Daniel B Vigneron
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Assessment of the potential of pathological stains in human prostate cancer.

Authors:  Anchit Khanna; Rani Patil; Abhay Deshmukh
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2014-01-12
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.