Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prostate-specific antigen test result interpretation when combined with risk factors for recommendation of biopsy: a survey of urologist’s practice patterns

  • Urology – Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Recent data have suggested historical cutoff levels for prostate cancer (PC) screening using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≤ 4 ng/ml may no longer be appropriate with cancer detected at lower levels, particularly in younger men. Our aim was to conduct a contemporary survey of urologist’s practice patterns toward PC detection, specifically focusing on factors determining the decision to recommend ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-BX).

Methods

Three hundred and sixty active urologists from the Canadian Urological Association were requested to complete an online questionnaire focusing on scenarios of varying age, family history, ethnicity and PSA. Urologists indicated when to TRUS-BX.

Results

Of 360 urologists, 125 (35%) completed the questionnaire. Sixty-seven percent indicated men should be screened for PC aged 50–60 with 27% preferring 40–50 years. Seventy-seven percent would continue screening >75. Considering a 65-year-old man with no risk factors and a normal digital rectal exam 56% would offer TRUS-BX at PSA 4.5; 35% at 3.5 and 10% at 2.5 ng/ml. Considering a similar 45-year-old man, 94% would at PSA 4.5; 77% at 3.5 and 33% at 2.5 ng/ml. On multivariate analysis, offering TRUS-BX appears driven significantly (P < 0.0001) more by younger age and higher PSA (OR 4.3–20.6 and 4.4–34.9, respectively) rather than family history or ethnicity (OR 3.3 and 1.8, respectively).

Conclusions

Age and PSA appear the driving factors in obtaining TRUS-BX. Also, a significant proportion of urologists would still not offer TRUS-BX at the traditional PSA cutoff of 4 ng/ml for men with no risk factors. Further studies are required to ascertain whether this relates to a lack of dissemination of studies into practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL III et al (2009) Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360:1310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360:1320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Le BV, Griffin CR, Loeb S, Carvalhal GF, Kan D, Baumann NA, Catalona WJ (2010) [-2]Proenzyme prostate specific antigen is more accurate than total and free prostate specific antigen in differentiating prostate cancer from benign disease in a prospective prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 183(4):1355–1359

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Stopiglia RM, Ferreira U, Silva MM Jr et al (2010) Prostate specific antigen decrease and prostate cancer diagnosis: antibiotic versus placebo prospective randomized clinical trial. J Urol 183:940

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tang P, Sun L, Uhlman MA et al (2010) Initial prostate specific antigen 1.5 ng/ml or greater in men 50 years old or younger predicts higher prostate cancer risk. J Urol 183:946

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Thaxton CS, Loeb S, Roehl KA, Kan D, Catalona WJ (2010) Treatment outcomes of radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for 3 published active surveillance protocols. Urology 75(2):414–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Niederberger C (2010) Paternalism, probability and prostate specific antigen. J Urol 183:848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Loeb S (2010) Prostate biopsy: a risk-benefit analysis. J Urol 183:852

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y et al (2010) Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 183:963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Reis LO, Reinato JAS, Silva DC et al (2010) The impact of core biopsy fragmentation in prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol. doi:10.1007/s11255-010-9720-0

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tang P, Xie KJ, Wang B et al (2010) Antibacterial therapy improves the effectiveness of prostate cancer detection using prostate-specific antigen in patients with asymptomatic prostatitis. Int Urol Nephrol 42:13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. van Renterghem K, Van Koeveringe G, Achten R et al (2010) A new algorithm in patients with elevated and/or rising prostate-specific antigen level, minor lower urinary tract symptoms, and negative multisite prostate biopsies. Int Urol Nephrol 42:29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C et al (2006) Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the prostate cancer prevention trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Thompson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM et al (2003) The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 349:215

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Loeb S, Catalona WJ (2007) Prostate-specific antigen in clinical practice. Cancer Lett 249:30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stamey TA (2004) The era of serum prostate specific antigen as a marker for biopsy of the prostate and detecting prostate cancer is now over in the USA. BJU Int 94:963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Carroll P, Albertsen P, Greene K et al (2009) AUA Prostate-specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update. American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc

  18. Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK et al (2009) A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 181:1635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nogueira L, Corradi R, Eastham JA (2010) Other biomarkers for detecting prostate cancer. BJU Int 105(2):166–169

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Walter LC, Bertenthal D, Lindquist K et al (2006) PSA screening among elderly men with limited life expectancies. JAMA 296:2336

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Schaeffer EM, Carter HB, Kettermann A et al (2009) Prostate specific antigen testing among the elderly–when to stop? J Urol 181:1606

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Fleshner N, Rakovitch E, Klotz L (2000) Differences between urologists in the United States and Canada in the approach to prostate cancer. J Urol 163:1461

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Screening for prostate cancer (2008) US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 149:185

    Google Scholar 

  24. Greene KL, Albertsen PC, Babaian RJ et al (2009) Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update. J Urol 182:2232

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Oesterling JE, Jacobsen SJ, Chute CG et al (1993) Serum prostate-specific antigen in a community-based population of healthy men. Establishment of age-specific reference ranges. JAMA 270:860

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Anderson JR, Strickland D, Corbin D et al (1995) Age-specific reference ranges for serum prostate-specific antigen. Urology 46:54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Choo R, DeBoer G, Klotz L et al (2001) PSA doubling time of prostate carcinoma managed with watchful observation alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:615

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Reissigl A, Pointner J, Horninger W et al (1995) Comparison of different prostate-specific antigen cutpoints for early detection of prostate cancer: results of a large screening study. Urology 46:662

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Plawker MW, Fleisher JM, Vapnek EM et al (1997) Current trends in prostate cancer diagnosis and staging among United States urologists. J Urol 158:1853

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Staff at the Canadian Urological Association office for their assistance with the administration of the survey, in particular Tiffany Pizioli and Marie-Soleil Cordeau.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, 610 University Ave 3-130, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, USA

    Nathan Lawrentschuk, Nikhil Daljeet, Clement Ma, Karen Hersey, Alexandre Zlotta & Neil Fleshner

Authors
  1. Nathan Lawrentschuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nikhil Daljeet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Clement Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karen Hersey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alexandre Zlotta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Neil Fleshner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan Lawrentschuk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lawrentschuk, N., Daljeet, N., Ma, C. et al. Prostate-specific antigen test result interpretation when combined with risk factors for recommendation of biopsy: a survey of urologist’s practice patterns. Int Urol Nephrol 43, 31–37 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-010-9772-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-010-9772-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation