4.4 Article

Correlation Between Serum Prostate-specific Antigen and Cancer Volume in Prostate Glands of Different Sizes

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 76, Issue 5, Pages 1072-1076

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.11.056

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Urological Research Foundation
  2. Beckman Coulter, Inc.
  3. Prostate SPORE [P50 CA90386-05S2]
  4. Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center [P30 CA60553]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES To further evaluate the relationship of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) with prostate size and tumor volume in a contemporary surgical series. Although early studies showed a strong correlation between PSA and tumor volume, it has been suggested that PSA is no longer a valid marker for prostate cancer and only correlates with prostate size. METHODS From 2003 to 2009, 1234 men with data on prostate weight and total tumor volume underwent radical prostatectomy by a single surgeon. Prostate size was classified into tertiles: small (<= 41.2 g), medium (41.3-54.5 g), and large (>= 54.6 g). Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationship of PSA with prostate size and tumor volume across different prostate sizes. RESULTS Median preoperative PSA was 4.9 ng/mL (standard deviation +/- 4.6), mean prostate size was 51.7 g, and mean tumor volume was 5.6 cm(3). PSA had a significant correlation with prostate size only at a prostate weight >= 54.6 g (P = .02). Regardless of prostate size, PSA had a more robust significant correlation with tumor volume than with prostate size (all P <.0001). CONCLUSIONS PSA was significantly correlated with prostate size only in the largest prostate glands, but was significantly associated with tumor volume in small, medium, or large prostates. Thus, PSA continues to be a better marker for tumor volume than for prostate size. UROLOGY 76: 1072-1077, 2010. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available