4.4 Article

Large-scale study of clinical impact of PSA velocity: Long-term PSA kinetics as method of differentiating men with from those without prostate cancer

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 69, Issue 1, Pages 134-138

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.09.018

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES To assess the longitudinal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) changes in a screening population with or without prostate cancer during a 10-year period. METHODS Serial PSA measurements performed during a 10-year period were evaluated in 4272 participants of a screening program who had no evidence of prostate malignancy and 528 men who eventually developed prostate cancer. RESULTS Of the 4272 men with no evidence of prostate cancer, the mean total PSA level increased from 1.16 to 1.49 ng/mL during the 10 years, corresponding to a PSA velocity (PSAV) of 0.03 ng/mL/yr. Younger men had lower total PSA values throughout the 10-year period. Of the 528 patients with prostate cancer, the total PSA level increased from 2.19 at 10 years before diagnosis to 6.09 ng/mL at the time of positive biopsy findings, corresponding to a PSAV of 0.39 ng/mL/yr. The PSAV increased in the years before diagnosis (0.225 ng/mL/yr in the 8 to 10 years before diagnosis compared with 0.98 ng/mL/yr in the 2 years before diagnosis). The PSAV was greater in patients with Stage pT3-T4 cancer than in men with organ-confined tumors (median 0.53 versus 0.32 ng/mL/yr; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS In men with prostate cancer, the PSAV was significantly greater than in those without prostate cancer and correlated with pathologic stage and Gleason score but not with prostate volume. In the patients with prostate cancer, the PSAV increased in the years before the diagnosis. In contrast, men without prostate cancer had only slight PSA changes over time. Hence, PSA kinetics may help identify men with potentially curable prostate cancer.

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