4.1 Article

US Preventive Services Task Force prostate-specific antigen screening guidelines result in higher Gleason score diagnoses

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE AND CLINICAL UROLOGY
卷 58, 期 6, 页码 423-428

出版社

KOREAN UROLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.4111/icu.2017.58.6.423

关键词

Diagnosis; Gleason score; Prostate neoplasms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the impact that the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening guidelines have had on the diagnosis of prostate cancer, we compared the incidence and distribution of new cases diagnosed in 2011-before the USPSTF PSA screening recommendations versus 2014 at which time the guidelines were widely adopted. Materials and Methods: We identified all prostate biopsies performed by a large urology group practice utilizing a centralized pathology lab. We examined total biopsies performed, percentage of positive biopsies, and for those with positive biopsies examined for differences in patient age, PSA, and Gleason score. Results: A total of 4,178 biopsies were identified -2,513 in 2011 and 1,665 in 2014. The percentage of positive biopsies was 27% in 2011 versus 34% in 2014 (p<0.0001). Among patients with positive biopsies, we found statistically significant differences between the 2 cohorts in the median ages and Gleason scores. Patients were about 1 year younger in 2014 compared to 2011 (t-test; p=0.043). High Gleason scores (8-10) were diagnosed in 19% of the 2014 positive biopsies versus 9% in the 2011 positive biopsies (chi square; p<0.0001). Conclusions: After the widespread implementation of the 2011 USPTF PSA screening guidelines, 34% fewer biopsies were performed with a 29% increase in positive biopsy rates. We found a significantly higher incidence of high grade disease in 2014 compared with 2011. The percentage of patients with positive biopsies having Gleason scores 8-10 more than doubled in 2014. The higher incidence of these more aggressive cancers must be part of the discussion regarding PSA screening.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据