Evaluation and Treatment for Older Men with Elevated PSA

  • Benjamin H. Press
  • Marc A. Bjurlin
  • Samir S. TanejaEmail author


The management of elderly men presenting with asymptomatic, elevated PSA levels requires careful consideration of the risks and benefits of biopsy, cancer detection, and subsequent cancer treatment. In men over the age of 75 years, presenting with elevated PSA levels, the prevalence of prostate cancer is high, but the benefit of treatment is not clear. The risk of prostate cancer mortality declines as men age and competing risks of mortality grow. As such, careful consideration of patient health and longevity is the mainstay of decision-making in this clinical scenario. If healthy, further evaluation with prostate MRI, predictive nomograms, and/or selective biomarkers may allow selection of men at greatest risk harboring cancers which potentially affect natural longevity. In this manner, not all men presenting at age 76 with modestly elevated PSA will require biopsy, but those few who remain at risk of prostate cancer mortality might still benefit from early detection.


Elevated PSA Prostate PSA results Elderly men and the PSA PSA screening Screening with the PSA USPSTF statement on PSA-based screening 


  1. 1.
    Cancer Facts and Figures. 2017. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sakr WA, Grignon D, Crissman J, Heilbrun L, Cassin B, Pontes JJE, et al. High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and prostatic adenocarcinoma between ages of 20–69: autopsy study of 249 cases. In Vivo. 1993;8:439–43.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Soos G, Tsakiris I, Szanto J, Turzo C, Haas PG, Dezso B. The prevalence of prostate carcinoma and its precursor in Hungary: an autopsy study. Eur Urol 2005;48(5):739-44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zlotta AR, Egawa S, Pushkar D, Govorov A, Kimura T, Kido M, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer on autopsy: cross-sectional study on unscreened Caucasian and Asian men. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(14):1050–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johansson JE, Andren O, Andersson SO, Dickman PW, Holmberg L, Magnuson A, et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2713–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Johansson S, Bergstrom R, Adami HO. Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer. A prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA. 1997;277(6):467–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Popiolek M, Rider JR, Andren O, Andersson SO, Holmberg L, Adami HO, et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer: a final report from three decades of follow-up. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):428–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005;293(17):2095–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DF, Barry MJ. Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):975–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, Bergdahl S, Khatami A, Lodding P, et al. Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(8):725–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klotz L. Prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2013;20(3):204–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chou R, Croswell JM, Dana T, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Fu R, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(11):762–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(11):981–90.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TLJ, Zappa M, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2014;384(9959):2027–35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(2):125–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pinsky PF, Parnes HL, Andriole G. Mortality and complications after prostate biopsy in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening (PLCO) trial. BJU Int. 2014;113(2):254–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shoag JE, Mittal S, Hu JC. Reevaluating PSA testing rates in the PLCO trial. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(18):1795–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carter HB, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, Etzioni R, Freedland SJ, Greene KL, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2013;190(2):419–26.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aslani A, Minnillo BJ, Johnson B, Cherullo EE, Ponsky LE, Abouassaly R. The impact of recent screening recommendations on prostate cancer screening in a large health care system. J Urol. 2014;191(6):1737–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ross JS, Wang R, Long JB, Gross CP, Ma X. Impact of the 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation to discontinue prostate cancer screening among male Medicare beneficiaries. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(20):1601–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Drazer MW, Huo D, Eggener SE. National Prostate Cancer Screening Rates after the 2012 US preventive services task force recommendation discouraging prostate-specific antigen-based screening. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(22):2416–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morote Robles J, Ruibal Morell A, Palou Redorta J, de Torres Mateos JA, Soler Rosello A. Clinical behavior of prostatic specific antigen and prostatic acid phosphatase: a comparative study. Eur Urol. 1988;14(5):360–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bjurlin MA, Wysock JS, Taneja SS. Optimization of prostate biopsy: review of technique and complications. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41(2):299–313.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, Tammela TL, Penson DF, Carter HB, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1046–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilt TJ, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Andriole GL, Culkin D, Wheeler T, et al. Follow-up of prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(2):132–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    NCCN Guidelines Version 3.2016.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sammon JD, Abdollah F, D’Amico A, Gettman M, Haese A, Suardi N, et al. Predicting life expectancy in men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68(5):756–65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Koch MO, Miller DA, Butler R, Lebos L, Collings D, Smith JA. Are we selecting the right patients for treatment of localized prostate cancer? Results of an actuarial analysis. Urology. 1998;51(2):197–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krahn MD, Bremner KE, Asaria J, Alibhai SM, Nam R, Tomlinson G, et al. The ten-year rule revisited: accuracy of clinicians’ estimates of life expectancy in patients with localized prostate cancer. Urology. 2002;60(2):258–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Walz J, Gallina A, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, Trinh QD, Hutterer GC, et al. Clinicians are poor raters of life-expectancy before radical prostatectomy or definitive radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2007;100(6):1254–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Leung KM, Hopman WM, Kawakami J. Challenging the 10-year rule: the accuracy of patient life expectancy predictions by physicians in relation to prostate cancer management. Can Urol Assoc J. 2012;6(5):367–73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Oesterling JE, Jacobsen SJ, Chute CG, Guess HA, Girman CJ, Panser LA, et al. Serum prostate-specific antigen in a community-based population of healthy men. Establishment of age-specific reference ranges. JAMA. 1993;270(7):860–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Carter HB, Pearson JD, Metter J, Brant LJ, Chan DW, Andres R, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of prostate-specific antigen levels in men with and without prostate disease. JAMA. 1992;267(16):2215–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Loughlin KR. PSA velocity: a systematic review of clinical applications. Urol Oncol. 2014;32(8):1116–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Verma A, St Onge J, Dhillon K, Chorneyko A. PSA density improves prediction of prostate cancer. Can J Urol. 2014;21(3):7312–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Guazzoni G, Nava L, Lazzeri M, Scattoni V, Lughezzani G, Maccagnano C, et al. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA significantly improves the prediction of prostate cancer at initial extended prostate biopsies in patients with total PSA between 2.0 and 10 ng/ml: results of a prospective study in a clinical setting. Eur Urol. 2011;60(2):214–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Loeb S, Kettermann A, Ferrucci L, Landis P, Metter EJ, Carter HB. PSA doubling time versus PSA velocity to predict high-risk prostate cancer: data from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Eur Urol. 2008;54(5):1073–80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Barayan GA, Brimo F, Begin LR, Hanley JA, Liu Z, Kassouf W, et al. Factors influencing disease progression of prostate cancer under active surveillance: a McGill University Health Center cohort. BJU Int. 2014;114(6b):E99–E104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    San Francisco IF, Werner L, Regan MM, Garnick MB, Bubley G, DeWolf WC. Risk stratification and validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. J Urol. 2011;185(2):471–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Loeb S, Han M, Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ. Accuracy of prostate weight estimation by digital rectal examination versus transrectal ultrasonography. J Urol. 2005;173(1):63–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Oesterling JE, Jacobsen SJ, Cooner WH. The use of age-specific reference ranges for serum prostate specific antigen in men 60 years old or older. J Urol. 1995;153(4):1160–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Partin AW, Criley SR, Subong EN, Zincke H, Walsh PC, Oesterling JE. Standard versus age-specific prostate specific antigen reference ranges among men with clinically localized prostate cancer: a pathological analysis. J Urol. 1996;155(4):1336–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Borer JG, Sherman J, Solomon MC, Plawker MW, Macchia RJ. Age specific prostate specific antigen reference ranges: population specific. J Urol. 1998;159(2):444–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Crawford ED, Leewansangtong S, Goktas S, Holthaus K, Baier M. Efficiency of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination in screening, using 4.0 ng/ml and age-specific reference range as a cutoff for abnormal values. Prostate. 1999;38(4):296–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Partin AW, Brawer MK, Subong EN, Kelley CA, Cox JL, Bruzek DJ, et al. Prospective evaluation of percent free-PSA and complexed-PSA for early detection of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 1998;1(4):197–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Christensson A, Björk T, Nilsson O, Dahlén U, Matikainen M-T, Cockett ATK, et al. Serum prostate specific antigen complexed to α 1-Antichymotrypsin as an indicator of prostate cancer. J Urol. 1993;150(1):100–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Slawin KM, Brawer MK, Flanigan RC, Patel A, et al. Use of the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease—a prospective multicenter clinical trial. JAMA. 1998;279(19):1542–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ankerst DP, Gelfond J, Goros M, Herrera J, Strobl A, Thompson IM Jr, et al. Serial percent free prostate specific antigen in combination with prostate specific antigen for population based early detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;196(2):355–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Loeb S, Sanda MG, Broyles DL, Shin SS, Bangma CH, Wei JT, et al. The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193(4):1163–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    de la Calle C, Patil D, Wei JT, Scherr DS, Sokoll L, Chan DW, et al. Multicenter evaluation of the prostate health index to detect aggressive prostate cancer in biopsy naive men. J Urol. 2015;194(1):65–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD, Asroff SW, Bailen JL, Cochran JS, et al. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):464–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vickers A, Cronin A, Roobol M, Savage C, Peltola M, Pettersson K, et al. Reducing unnecessary biopsy during prostate cancer screening using a four-kallikrein panel: an independent replication. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(15):2493–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Braun K, Sjoberg DD, Vickers AJ, Lilja H, Bjartell AS. A four-kallikrein panel predicts high-grade cancer on biopsy: independent validation in a community cohort. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):505–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bryant RJ, Sjoberg DD, Vickers AJ, Robinson MC, Kumar R, Marsden L, et al. Predicting high-grade cancer at ten-core prostate biopsy using four kallikrein markers measured in blood in the ProtecT study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(7).Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Russo GI, Regis F, Castelli T, Favilla V, Privitera S, Giardina R, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate health index and 4-kallikrein panel score in predicting overall and high-grade prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15(4):429–39e1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Vickers A, Vertosick EA, Sjoberg DD, Roobol MJ, Hamdy F, Neal D, et al. Properties of the 4-Kallikrein panel outside the diagnostic gray zone: meta-analysis of patients with positive digital rectal examination or prostate specific antigen 10 ng/ml and above. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Pt 1):607–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Punnen S, Nahar B, Prakash NS, Sjoberg DD, Zappala SM, Parekh DJ. The 4Kscore predicts the grade and stage of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimen: results from a multi-institutional prospective trial. Eur Urol Focus. 2017;3(1):94–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Carlsson S, Maschino A, Schroder F, Bangma C, Steyerberg EW, van der Kwast T, et al. Predictive value of four kallikrein markers for pathologically insignificant compared with aggressive prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: results from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer section Rotterdam. Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):693–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Bussemakers MJ, van Bokhoven A, Verhaegh GW, Smit FP, Karthaus HF, Schalken JA, et al. DD3: a new prostate-specific gene, highly overexpressed in prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 1999;59(23):5975–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hessels D, Klein Gunnewiek JM, van Oort I, Karthaus HF, van Leenders GJ, van Balken B, et al. DD3(PCA3)-based molecular urine analysis for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2003;44(1):8–15; discussion 6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, Bahnson RR, Castle EP, Catalona WJ, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14(5):509–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Marks LS, Fradet Y, Deras IL, Blase A, Mathis J, Aubin SM, et al. PCA3 molecular urine assay for prostate cancer in men undergoing repeat biopsy. Urology. 2007;69(3):532–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Haese A, de la Taille A, van Poppel H, Marberger M, Stenzl A, Mulders PF, et al. Clinical utility of the PCA3 urine assay in European men scheduled for repeat biopsy. Eur Urol. 2008;54(5):1081–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wei JT, Feng Z, Partin AW, Brown E, Thompson I, Sokoll L, et al. Can urinary PCA3 supplement PSA in the early detection of prostate cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(36):4066–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, et al. Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the prostate cancer prevention trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(8):529–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Thompson IM Jr, Leach RJ, Ankerst DP. Focusing PSA testing on detection of high-risk prostate cancers by incorporating patient preferences into decision making. JAMA. 2014;312(10):995–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW, Kranse R, Wolters T, van den Bergh RC, Bangma CH, et al. A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57(1):79–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Foley RW, Maweni RM, Gorman L, Murphy K, Lundon DJ, Durkan G, et al. European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators significantly outperform the prostate cancer prevention trial (PCPT) 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int. 2016;118(5):706–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Lundon DJ, Kelly BD, Foley R, Loeb S, Fitzpatrick JM, Watson RW, et al. Prostate cancer risk assessment tools in an unscreened population. World J Urol. 2015;33(6):827–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Foley RW, Lundon DJ, Murphy K, Murphy TB, Galvin DJ, Watson RW. Predicting prostate cancer: analysing the clinical efficacy of prostate cancer risk calculators in a referral population. Ir J Med Sci. 2015;184(3):701–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(10):766–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(5):1499–507.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kattan MW, Zelefsky MJ, Kupelian PA, Cho D, Scardino PT, Fuks Z, et al. Pretreatment nomogram that predicts 5-year probability of metastasis following three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(24):4568–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kattan MW, Zelefsky MJ, Kupelian PA, Scardino PT, Fuks Z, Leibel SA. Pretreatment nomogram for predicting the outcome of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(19):3352–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kattan MW, Potters L, Blasko JC, Beyer DC, Fearn P, Cavanagh W, et al. Pretreatment nomogram for predicting freedom from recurrence after permanent prostate brachytherapy in prostate cancer. Urology. 2001;58(3):393–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Le Nobin J, Wysock JS, Lepor H, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol. 2014;192(3):648–58.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, Wysock JS, et al. Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):512–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Liddell H, Jyoti R, Haxhimolla HZ. mp-MRI prostate characterised PIRADS 3 lesions are associated with a low risk of clinically significant prostate cancer—a retrospective review of 92 biopsied PIRADS 3 lesions. Curr Urol. 2015;8(2):96–100.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Rieker P, Roth W, Fenchel M, Hohenfellner M, et al. Histology core-specific evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standardised scoring system of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. BJU Int. 2013;112(8):1080–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    NiMhurchu E, O’Kelly F, Murphy IG, Lavelle LP, Collins CD, Lennon G, et al. Predictive value of PI-RADS classification in MRI-directed transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Clin Radiol. 2016;71(4):375–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Park SY, Jung DC, Oh YT, Cho NH, Choi YD, Rha KH, et al. Prostate cancer: PI-RADS version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers. Radiology. 2016;280(1):108–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Martorana E, Pirola GM, Scialpi M, Micali S, Iseppi A, Bonetti LR, et al. Lesion volume predicts prostate cancer risk and aggressiveness: validation of its value alone and matched with prostate imaging reporting and data system score. BJU Int. 2017;120(1):92–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Min JH, Park BK, Park JJ, Park SY, Kim CK. Preoperative assessment of prostate cancer using prebiopsy MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(2):341–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Bjurlin MA, Taneja SS. Prediagnostic risk assessment with prostate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy. Urol Clin North Am. 2017;44(4):535–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Mertan FV, Greer MD, Shih JH, George AK, Kongnyuy M, Muthigi A, et al. Prospective evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2016;196(3):690–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Borofsky MS, Rosenkrantz AB, Abraham N, Jain R, Taneja SS. Does suspicion of prostate cancer on integrated T2 and diffusion-weighted MRI predict more adverse pathology on radical prostatectomy? Urology. 2013;81(6):1279–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(2):343–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Giles SL, Morgan VA, Riches SF, Thomas K, Parker C, deSouza NM. Apparent diffusion coefficient as a predictive biomarker of prostate cancer progression: value of fast and slow diffusion components. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(3):586–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Tamada T, Dani H, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. The role of whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient analysis for predicting outcomes of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017;42(9):2340–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    van As NJ, de Souza NM, Riches SF, Morgan VA, Sohaib SA, Dearnaley DP, et al. A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2009;56(6):981–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    De Cobelli F, Ravelli S, Esposito A, Giganti F, Gallina A, Montorsi F, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient value and ratio as noninvasive potential biomarkers to predict prostate cancer grading: comparison with prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(3):550–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Henderson DR, de Souza NM, Thomas K, Riches SF, Morgan VA, Sohaib SA, et al. Nine-year follow-up for a study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in a prospective prostate cancer active surveillance cohort. Eur Urol. 2016;69(6):1028–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Lee H, Kim CK, Park BK, Sung HH, Han DH, Jeon HG, et al. Accuracy of preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of unfavorable pathology in patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2017;35(6):929–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Park JJ, Kim CK, Park SY, Park BK, Lee HM, Cho SW. Prostate cancer: role of pretreatment multiparametric 3-T MRI in predicting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(5):W459–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Yoon MY, Park J, Cho JY, Jeong CW, Ku JH, Kim HH, et al. Predicting biochemical recurrence in patients with high-risk prostate cancer using the apparent diffusion coefficient of magnetic resonance imaging. Investig Clin Urol. 2017;58(1):12–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Kim TH, Kim CK, Park BK, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, et al. Relationship between Gleason score and apparent diffusion coefficients of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer patients. Can Urol Assoc J. 2016;10(11–12):E377–E82.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Niu XK, He WF, Zhang Y, Das SK, Li J, Xiong Y, et al. Developing a new PI-RADS v2-based nomogram for forecasting high-grade prostate cancer. Clin Radiol. 2017;72(6):458–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Fang D, Zhao C, Ren D, Yu W, Wang R, Wang H, et al. Could magnetic resonance imaging help to identify the presence of prostate cancer before initial biopsy? The development of nomogram predicting the outcomes of prostate biopsy in the Chinese population. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(13):4284–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Bjurlin MA SS, Venkataraman R, Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Lepor H, Taneja SS. Prediction of prostate cancer risk among men undergoing combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy using novel pre-biopsy nomograms that incorporate MRI findings. Urology. 2017.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Decoster L, Van Puyvelde K, Mohile S, Wedding U, Basso U, Colloca G, et al. Screening tools for multidimensional health problems warranting a geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: an update on SIOG recommendationsdagger. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(2):288–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Extermann M, Aapro M, Bernabei R, Cohen HJ, Droz JP, Lichtman S, et al. Use of comprehensive geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: recommendations from the task force on CGA of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG). Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2005;55(3):241–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Puts MT, Hardt J, Monette J, Girre V, Springall E, Alibhai SM. Use of geriatric assessment for older adults in the oncology setting: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(15):1133–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Wildiers H, Heeren P, Puts M, Topinkova E, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Extermann M, et al. International Society of Geriatric Oncology consensus on geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(24):2595–603.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Droz JP, Albrand G, Gillessen S, Hughes S, Mottet N, Oudard S, et al. Management of Prostate Cancer in elderly patients: recommendations of a task force of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology. Eur Urol. 2017;72(4):521–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Soubeyran P, Bellera C, Goyard J, Heitz D, Cure H, Rousselot H, et al. Screening for vulnerability in older cancer patients: the ONCODAGE prospective multicenter cohort study. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e115060.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Borson S, Scanlan JM, Chen PJ, Ganguli M. The mini-cog as a screen for dementia: validation in a population-based sample. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(10):1451–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Powsner S, Powsner D. Cognition, copyright, and the classroom. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(3):627–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Tsoi KK, Chan JY, Hirai HW, Wong SY, Kwok TC. Cognitive tests to detect dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(9):1450–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Mendhiratta N, Rosenkrantz AB, Meng X, Wysock JS, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy in a consecutive cohort of men with no previous biopsy: reduction of over detection through improved risk stratification. J Urol. 2015;194(6):1601–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Fenstermaker M, Mendhiratta N, Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang R, et al. Risk stratification by urinary prostate cancer gene 3 testing before magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy among men with no history of biopsy. Urology. 2017;99:174–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin H. Press
    • 1
  • Marc A. Bjurlin
    • 2
  • Samir S. Taneja
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Rutgers—New Jersey Medical SchoolNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyNYU Langone Hospital—BrooklynBrooklynUSA
  3. 3.Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of UrologyNYU Langone HealthNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations