4.7 Article

Identifying patients at risk for significant versus clinically insignificant postoperative prostate-specific antigen failure

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 22, Pages 4975-4979

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.08.904

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose We evaluated whether men at risk for significant versus clinically insignificant prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure after radical prostatectomy could be identified using information available at diagnosis. Patients and Methods A prospective prostate cancer screening study that enrolled, diagnosed, and treated 1,011 men with radical prostatectomy at Barnes-Jewish Hospital (St Louis, MO) from January 1, 1989, to June 1, 2002, for localized prostate cancer formed the study cohort. Preoperative predictors of a postoperative PSA doubling time (DT) of less than 3 months and more than, 12 months or no PSA failure were identified using logistic regression. Results A preoperative PSA velocity more than 2.0 ng/mL/yr (P =.001) and biopsy Gleason score 7 (P=.006) or 8 to 10 (P=.003) were significantly associated with having a postoperative PSA DT less than 3 months. A PSA level less than 10 ng/mL (P =.005), a nonpalpable cancer (P =.001) with a Gleason score <= 6 (P =.0002), and a preoperative PSA increase that did not exceed 0.5 ng/mL/yr (P=.03) were significantly associated with a postoperative PSA DT of at least 12 months or no PSA failure. Most men with these preoperative characteristics and a postoperative PSA DT of 12 months or more had a persistent postoperative PSA level of at least 0.2 ng/mL that did not exceed 0.25 ng/mL after a median follow-up of 3.6 years. Conclusion A postoperative PSA DT less than 3 months is associated with a preoperative PSA velocity more than 2.0 ng/mL/yr and high-grade disease. Select men with a postoperative PSA DT more than 12 months may not require salvage radiation therapy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available