Prostate-specific Antigen-based Prostate Cancer Screening Research Articles

Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Prostate Cancer Screening: One for All or Individualized for Each Race? – A Narrative Review

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer globally. However, significant disparities in incidence and mortality exist between countries, especially between Western and Asian regions. This review discusses the applicability of Western-based randomized controlled trials on prostate-specific antigen-based PCa screening in other regions such as Korea, where PCa is less frequently diagnosed but tends to present more aggressive features compared to Western countries. The paper also reviews major guidelines and landmark trials, emphasizing the importance of an individualized approach in the context of regional diversity in PCa incidence and mortality.

MP58-20 USE OF LOW-VALUE PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN SCREENING AMONG YOUNG MEN WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022MP58-20 USE OF LOW-VALUE PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN SCREENING AMONG YOUNG MEN WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE Jeffrey Vehawn, Suzanne Lange, Mouneeb Choudry, Jacob Ambrose, Benjamin Haaland, Jonathan Chipman, Heidi A. Hanson, and Brock O'Neil Jeffrey VehawnJeffrey Vehawn More articles by this author , Suzanne LangeSuzanne Lange More articles by this author , Mouneeb ChoudryMouneeb Choudry More articles by this author , Jacob AmbroseJacob Ambrose More articles by this author , Benjamin HaalandBenjamin Haaland More articles by this author , Jonathan ChipmanJonathan Chipman More articles by this author , Heidi A. HansonHeidi A. Hanson More articles by this author , and Brock O'NeilBrock O'Neil More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002641.20AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Debate remains about the value of Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based prostate cancer screening among men aged 55-69 (USPSTF Grade C). However, no professional society or guideline recommends PSA based prostate cancer screening in men younger than age 40. This study aims to understand the risk of PSA testing exposure in young men, and we hypothesize that substantial low-value testing occurs in this population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of claims data from the MarketScan database to identify men aged 18 to 39 without prostate cancer who received a PSA test from 2008 to 2017. For the primary analysis, men were required to be continuously in the database for least 5 years. Age groups were stratified to include: men less than 25, 25-29, 30-34, and 35-39 years.Secondary analysis did not limit subjects to those with 5 years of continuous data and explored the association of Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), lower urinary tract symptoms, erectile dysfunction, depression/anxiety, prostate cancer screening, infertility, and hypogonadism with PSA testing in young men. We used logistic regression to determine which of the factors were associated with PSA testing in young men. RESULTS: We identified claims for 40,164,773 adult men who met study criteria. Of these men, 3,230,748 were continuously in the Marketscan database for at least 5 years. The cumulative risk for receiving a PSA over 5 years for men under 40 is 2.5%. Stratified by age, men aged 35-39 are at highest risk. Logistic multivariable regression showed that, relative to all men between 18 and 40, patients in this age group who received a PSA were more likely to be diagnosed with hypogonadism (OR 20.55, 95% CI 20.39-20.71) or lower urinary tract symptoms (OR 9.34, 95% CI 9.26-9.41). Higher CCIs appeared to correlate with a decreased rate of PSA testing. This population was not significantly more likely to be diagnosed with infertility, depression, or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: PSA screening for men under 40 is not uncommon, especially when associated with concomitant genitourinary symptoms. At a population level, this represents substantial low-value testing. Interventions aimed at clarifying the relationship between common urologic conditions and prostate cancer, the extremely low incidence of prostate cancer in this age group, and the lack of guidelines supporting this practice may help decrease low-value PSA testing. Source of Funding: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K08CA234431. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e1000 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jeffrey Vehawn More articles by this author Suzanne Lange More articles by this author Mouneeb Choudry More articles by this author Jacob Ambrose More articles by this author Benjamin Haaland More articles by this author Jonathan Chipman More articles by this author Heidi A. Hanson More articles by this author Brock O'Neil More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...

Low-value prostate cancer screening among young men with private insurance.

240 Background: Debate remains about the value of Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based prostate cancer screening among men aged 55-69 (USPSTF Grade C). However, no professional society or guideline recommends PSA based prostate cancer screening in men younger than age 40. This study aims to understand the risk of PSA testing exposure in young men, and we hypothesize that substantial low-value testing occurs in this population. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of claims data from the MarketScan database to identify men aged 18 to 39 without prostate cancer who received a PSA test from 2008 to 2017. For the primary analysis, men were required to be continuously in the database for least 5 years. Age groups were stratified to include: men less than 25, 25-29, 30-34, and 35-39 years. Secondary analysis did not limit subjects to those with 5 years of continuous data and explored the association of Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), lower urinary tract symptoms, erectile dysfunction, depression/anxiety, prostate cancer screening, infertility, and hypogonadism with PSA testing in young men. We used logistic regression to determine which of the factors were associated with PSA testing in young men. Results: We identified claims for 40,164,773 adult men who met study criteria. Of these men, 3,230,748 were continuously in the Marketscan database for at least 5 years. The cumulative risk for receiving a PSA over 5 years for men under 40 is 2.5%. Stratified by age, men aged 35-39 are at highest risk (Table). Logistic multivariable regression showed that, relative to all men between 18 and 40, patients in this age group who received a PSA were more likely to be diagnosed with hypogonadism (OR 20.55, 95% CI 20.39-20.71) or lower urinary tract symptoms (OR 9.34, 95% CI 9.26-9.41). Higher CCIs appeared to correlate with a decreased rate of PSA testing. This population was not significantly more likely to be diagnosed with infertility, depression, or anxiety. Conclusions: PSA screening for men under 40 is not uncommon, especially when associated with concomitant genitourinary symptoms. At a population level, this represents substantial low-value testing. Interventions aimed at clarifying the relationship between common urologic conditions and prostate cancer, the extremely low incidence of prostate cancer in this age group, and the lack of guidelines supporting this practice may help decrease low-value PSA testing. Funding: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K08CA234431. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.[Table: see text]

Abrogation of survival disparity between insured and uninsured individuals after the USPSTF's 2012 prostate-specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening recommendation.

77 Background: In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer. Studies have found that insured patients with prostate cancer have better outcomes than uninsured patients. We examined the recommendation’s effects on survival disparities based on insurance status as well as socioeconomic quintile, marital status, and housing (urban/rural). Methods: Using the SEER18 database, we examined prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) based on diagnostic time period and one of four factors: insurance status, socioeconomic quintile, marital status, and housing (urban/rural). The SEER-designated socioeconomic quintile was based on variables including median household income and education index. Patients were designated as belonging to the pre-USPSTF era if diagnosed in 2010-2012 or post-USPSTF era if diagnosed in 2014-2016. Disparities were measured with the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: We identified 282,994 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer. During the pre-USPSTF era, uninsured patients experienced worse PCSS compared to insured patients (adjusted HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06-1.58, p = 0.01). This survival disparity narrowed during the post-USPSTF era as a result of decreased PCSS among insured patients combined with unchanged PCSS among uninsured patients. Moreover, the survival disparity was no longer observed during the post-USPSTF era (aHR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61-1.38, p = 0.67). The survival disparity based on socioeconomic quintile also narrowed but remained significant. In contrast, the survival disparity based on marital status widened, while housing status was not associated with survival disparities in either era. Conclusions: From the pre- to the post-USPSTF era, insured patients with prostate cancer observed a significant decrease in survival that made their survival outcomes similar to that of uninsured patients. Although the underlying reasons are not clear, the USPSTF’s 2012 PSA screening recommendation may have hindered insured patients from being regularly screened for prostate cancer and selectively led to worse outcomes for insured patients without improving the survival of uninsured patients.[Table: see text]

Tumour markers in prostate cancer: The post-prostate-specific antigen era.

Although prostate-specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening had a positive impact in reducing prostate cancer mortality, it also led to overdiagnosis, overtreatment and a significant number of unnecessary biopsies. In the post-prostate-specific antigen era, new biomarkers have emerged that can complement the information given by prostate-specific antigen, towards a better cancer diagnostic specificity, and also allowing a better estimate of the aggressiveness of the disease and its clinical outcome. That means those markers have the potential to assist the clinician in the decision-making processes, such as whether or not to perform a biopsy, and to make the best treatment choice among the new therapeutic options available, including active surveillance in lower risk disease. In this article, we will review several of those more recent diagnostic markers (4Kscore®, [-2]proPSA and Prostate Health Index, SelectMDx®, ConfirmMDx®, Progensa® Prostate Cancer Antigen 3, Mi-Prostate Score, ExoDx™ Prostate Test, the Stockholm3 test and ERSPC risk calculators) and prognostic markers (OncotypeDX® Genomic Prostate Score, Prolaris®, Decipher® and ProMark®). We will also address some new liquid biopsy approaches - circulating tumour cells and cell-free DNA - with a potential role in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and will briefly give some future perspectives, mostly outlooking epigenetic markers.

Abstract 5739: Caring through the controversy: Primary care provider practice patterns and attitudes towards PSA based prostate cancer screening in a high risk area

Abstract Prostate cancer remains the leading cancer diagnosis among men in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Furthermore, the incidence and mortality of prostate cancer in the Bronx, NY is in the highest quintile in New York State. Prostate cancer screening is accomplished mainly through measurement of serum prostate specific antigen (PSA). However, most prostate cancers detected by screening are not aggressive, and can be monitored under active surveillance, with no interventions required. Unfortunately, many men diagnosed with prostate cancer experience anxiety and pressure to seek treatment, resulting in overtreatment of clinically insignificant disease. Guidelines for prostate cancer screening with PSA measurement have changed several times in the past 10 years, with the leading recommending groups frequently disagreeing on recommendations. National data suggests that this has resulted in inconsistent prostate cancer screening practices and current screening rates at our institution are low (23%). Current recommendations are to screen healthy men aged 55-69 with an emphasis on shared decision making with the patient. The authors administered an anonymous, voluntary paper survey to medical providers in the Departments of Family and Internal Medicine at BronxCare. In total, 91 anonymous surveys were collected. 50% of respondents had ordered a PSA in the past 2 years, most frequently because of patient age (34%), urological symptoms (26%) or because the patient had asked (27%). They most frequently decided against PSA testing in certain patients because of patient age (25%) or health status (23%). 46% of medical practitioners stated that they at least occasionally screen their healthy patients for prostate cancer and they screen patients at all age ranges from 35-80+ years, even though 73% say that they intend to follow current USPSTF guidelines. Notably, in response to questions about comfort with PSA testing, feelings about the scientific validity and importance of PSA testing, medical provider responses were nearly evenly distributed across the Likert Scale, while most (68%) were comfortable with shared decision making with there patients. Importantly, the majority (79%) felt that they wanted more information on prostate cancer screening. Regardless of demographics or training level, primary care providers at BronxCare approach PSA testing in many ways. The majority intend to follow USPSTF guidelines while most are not actually in practice. Given the high need for prostate cancer screening among our patients, and the desire of PCPs for additional information on PSA testing, a Quality Improvement project is underway. The intervention will include an educational module developed in conjunction with the Departments of Internal Medicine, Urology and the BronxCare Cancer Center and changes to the electronic medical record to spur prostate cancer screening discussions and guide PCPs and patients through the shared decision making process are being developed. Citation Format: Asona Lui, Jose Tiburcio, Douglas Reich. Caring through the controversy: Primary care provider practice patterns and attitudes towards PSA based prostate cancer screening in a high risk area [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 5739.

Factors Related to Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: Retrospective Cohort Study of 120,587 French Men Over the Age of 50 Years.

BackgroundInternational guidelines recommend avoiding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening in the elderly when life expectancy is less than 10 years. For younger men, most recommendations encourage a shared decision-making process taking into account patient comorbidities.ObjectiveThe objective was to assess the performance of PSA-based prostate cancer screening in men older than 74 years and assess whether the presence (vs absence) of comorbidities was related to the performance of PSA testing in younger men aged 50 to 74 years who were eligible for screening.MethodsWe analyzed data from the French national health care database (Loire-Atlantique geographic area). We reported the follow-up of two cohorts of men from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2016: 22,480 men aged over 74 years and 98,107 men aged 50 to 74 years. We analyzed whether these patients underwent PSA testing after 2 years of follow-up and whether PSA testing performance was related to the following patient-related variables: age, low income, proxy measures indicative of major comorbidities (repeated ambulance transportation, having one of 30 chronic diseases, taking 5 or more drugs per day), or proxy measures indicative of specific comorbidities (cancer diseases, cardiovascular diseases, or psychiatric disorders). Statistical analysis was based on a multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression.ResultsThe proportion of patients who underwent a PSA-based screening test was 41.35% (9296/22,480) among men older than 74 years versus 41.05% (40,275/98,107) among men aged 50 to 74 years. The following factors were associated with less frequent PSA testing in men older than 74 years—age (odds ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.88-0.89), low income (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.69), suffering from a chronic disease (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76-0.88), repeated ambulance transportation (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31-0.44), diabetes requiring insulin (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43-0.60), dementia (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.84), and antipsychotic treatment (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.75)—whereas cardiovascular drug treatment was associated with more frequent PSA testing (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.53-1.84). The following factors were associated with less frequent PSA testing in men aged 50 to 74 years—low income (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.55-0.68); nonspecific conditions related to frailty: suffering from a chronic disease (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.76-0.83), repeated ambulance transportation (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.23-0.38), or chronic treatment with 5 or more drugs (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.96); and various specific comorbidities: anticancer drug treatment (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.83), diabetes requiring insulin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.49-0.61), and antiaggregant treatment (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.96)—whereas older age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.07-1.08) and treatment with other cardiovascular drugs (OR 2.23, 95% CI 2.15-2.32) were associated with more frequent PSA testing.ConclusionsIn this study, 41.35% (9296/22,480) of French men older than 74 years had a PSA-based screening test. Although it depends on patient comorbidities, PSA testing remains inappropriate in certain populations.

Outcomes of Prostate-specific Antigen-based Prostate Cancer Screening Among Men Using Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs

BackgroundThe Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC), the largest component of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), showed a smaller, nonsignificant reduction in prostate cancer–specific mortality by systematic prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening compared with the overall ERSPC results. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce inflammation and also PSA elevations due to intraprostatic inflammation. ObjectiveTo explore whether NSAID usage modifies the effects of PSA-based screening on prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Design, setting, and participantsA cohort of 78 165 men from the FinRSPC were linked to a comprehensive national prescription database to obtain information on NSAID reimbursements prior to screening. Outcome measurements and statistical analysisProstate cancer risk and mortality were compared between the FinRSPC screening arm and the control arm among NSAID users and nonusers using an age-adjusted Cox regression model. Results and limitationsScreening increased the detection of Gleason 6 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47–1.72 and HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.26–1.54) and localized prostate tumors (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18–1.32 and HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03–1.20) more among baseline NSAID nonusers than among users, respectively (p for interaction <0.04 for both). This difference was observed in all three screening rounds. Detection of metastatic prostate cancer was similar in both NSAID users and nonusers. Screening decreased prostate cancer mortality among men using NSAIDs at FinRSPC randomization (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49–0.90) but not among nonusers (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81–1.12); p for interaction=0.04. ConclusionsScreening detected fewer well-differentiated localized tumors among NSAID users than among nonusers. This suggests that PSA screening may cause less overdiagnosis within this subgroup, whereas mortality benefit may be greater among NSAID users. Patient summaryProstate cancer screening causes less overdiagnosis of well-differentiated localized prostate tumors among men who use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Racial differences in prostate-specific antigen–based prostate cancer screening: State-by-state and region-by-region analyses

ObjectiveBlack men are more prone to harbor prostate cancer. They are more likely to succumb to this tumor than their White counterparts and may benefit from early detection and treatment. In this study, we assess the nationwide and regional disparity in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer between Black men and non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs). MethodsA total of 247,079 (weighted 55,185,102) men, aged 40 to 99 years, who responded to the 2012 and 2014 behavioral risk factor surveillance system surveys were used for our analysis. End points consisted of self-reported PSA screening and self-reported nonrecommended PSA screening within 12 months of the interview. The latter was defined as screening in men with <10-year life expectancy. Available sociodemographic variables were used to predict these end points. The independent predictors from multivariate models were used to calculate the adjusted prevalence of PSA screening and nonrecommended PSA screening on a nationwide and regional level. These numbers were calculated for Blacks and NHWs separately and were compared between the 2 groups. ResultsPrevalence of PSA screening was 30.7% in NHWs vs. 28.1% in Blacks (P<0.001). On a region-based analysis, New England, Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic, East North Central, East South Central, West South Central, and Mountain showed a significantly higher rate of PSA screening in NHWs as compared to Blacks (all P<0.001). Middle Atlantic had a significantly higher prevalence of nonrecommended screening in NHWs as compared to Blacks, whereas South Atlantic, West South Central, and Pacific had a significantly higher prevalence of nonrecommended screening in Blacks as compared to NHWs (all P<0.001). Overall, 43 states performed screening more frequently to NHWs, whereas only 8 states performed it more frequently to Black men. The nonrecommended screening was performed more frequently to NHWs in 19 states, whereas 24 states performed it more frequently to Black men. ConclusionOur study demonstrates that on a regional-level (and state-level), there are significant racial differences in overall and nonrecommended PSA screening across the United States. Further research is necessary to identify the reasons for the differences and help overcoming it.

Evidence of prostate cancer “reverse stage migration” toward more advanced disease at diagnosis: Data from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry

PurposeThe widespread adoption of prostate-specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening caused a stage migration toward earlier stage disease at diagnosis. We investigated whether this stage migration has persisted in a contemporary analysis of a population-based statewide cancer registry. Materials and methodsWe analyzed the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry, a statewide registry of all newly diagnosed cancers. Data were collected on prostate cancers diagnosed between 1992 and 2012. We determined age-adjusted prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates, as well as the distribution of tumor stage (localized, regional, or metastatic) at diagnosis, and assessed for changes in these variables over time using joinpoint analysis. ResultsBetween 1992 and 2012, 210,831 new cases of prostate cancer were diagnosed in Pennsylvania, and 33,948 men died of disease. Age-adjusted prostate cancer incidence rates, and specifically the incidence of localized disease, have decreased dramatically since 2007 to 2008. Due to the decreased diagnosis of localized disease, regional and metastatic tumors have made up a greater percentage of all prostate cancer diagnoses in recent years, despite a relatively stable incidence of these advanced stage tumors. ConclusionsOver the past 2 decades, age-adjusted prostate cancer incidence rates in Pennsylvania have decreased, primarily because of the decreased detection of early-stage disease. There has been a corresponding shift toward more advanced disease at diagnosis. These findings may be explained by the decreased use of prostate-specific antigen-based screening, among other factors. The 2012 United States Preventative Services Task Force recommendations against prostate cancer screening may exacerbate this concerning trend, potentially resulting in an increase in prostate cancer-specific mortality.

Prostate-specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening: Past and future.

Prostate-specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening remains a controversial topic. Up to now, there is worldwide consensus on the statement that the harms of population-based screening, mainly as a result of overdiagnosis (the detection of clinically insignificant tumors that would have never caused any symptoms), outweigh the benefits. However, worldwide opportunistic screening takes place on a wide scale. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer showed a reduction in prostate cancer mortality through prostate-specific antigen based-screening. These population-based data need to be individualized in order to avoid screening in those who cannot benefit and start screening in those who will. For now, lacking a more optimal screening approach, screening should only be started after the process of shared decision-making. The focus of future research is the reduction of unnecessary testing and overdiagnosis by further research to better biomarkers and the value of the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, potentially combined in already existing prostate-specific antigen-based multivariate risk prediction models.

Prostate-specific Antigen–Based Prostate Cancer Screening: Reduction of Prostate Cancer Mortality After Correction for Nonattendance and Contamination in the Rotterdam Section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

BackgroundLarge randomized screening trials provide an estimation of the effect of screening at a population-based level. The effect of screening for individuals, however, is diluted by nonattendance and contamination in the trial arms. ObjectiveTo determine the prostate cancer (PCa) mortality reduction from screening after adjustment for nonattendance and contamination. Design, setting, and participantsA total of 34 833 men in the core age group, 55–69 yr, were randomized to a screening or control arm in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing was offered to all men in the screening arm at 4-yr intervals. A prostate biopsy was offered to men with an elevated PSA. The primary end point was PCa-specific mortality. Outcome measurements and statistical analysisNonattendance was defined as nonparticipation in the screening arm. Contamination in the control arm was defined as receiving asymptomatic PSA testing or a prostate biopsy in the absence of symptoms. Relative risks (RRs) were calculated with an intention to screen (ITS) analysis and after correction for nonattendance and contamination using a method that preserves the benefits obtained by randomization. Results and limitationsThe ITS analysis resulted in an RR of 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53–0.89) in favor of screening at a median follow-up of 13 yr. Correction for both nonattendance and contamination resulted in an RR of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.27–0.87) in favor of screening. ConclusionsPCa screening as conducted in the Rotterdam section of the ERSPC can reduce the risk of dying from PCa up to 51% for an individual man choosing to be screened repeatedly compared with a man who was not screened. This benefit of screening should be balanced against the harms of overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment. Trial registrationISRCTN49127736.

THE EFFECT OF PROSTATE VOLUME, AGE, TOTAL PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN LEVEL AND ACUTE INFLAMMATION ON THE PERCENTAGE OF FREE SERUM PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN LEVELS IN MEN WITHOUT CLINICALLY DETECTABLE PROSTATE CANCER

Purpose We determine the influence of age, prostate volume, total serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) level and histological evidence of acute inflammation in biopsy specimens on the percent free serum PSA level in men without clinically detectable prostate cancer. Materials and Methods We studied 70 men with total PSA levels of 2.6 to 9.9 ng./ml. who had undergone at least 3 sets of prostate biopsies that were negative for cancer as part of our PSA based prostate cancer screening program. Total and free PSA levels were measured using Hybritech immunoassays. Prostate volume and the presence of acute inflammation were determined from the most recent transrectal ultrasonography and prostate needle biopsy. Results Percent free PSA levels correlated significantly with age (r = 0.48, p = 0.0001) and prostate volume (r = 0.44, p = 0.0002) but not with total PSA (r = 0.04, p = 0.7). The mean percent free PSA did not differ for those with or without acute inflammation. Multivariate regression models demonstrated that age and prostate volume were significant predictors of percent free PSA. Conclusions Among men without detectable prostate cancer and a total PSA level between 2.6 and 9.9 ng./ml. percent free serum PSA was higher in older men and in men with a larger prostate gland but was not influenced by total PSA level or the presence of acute inflammation in the prostatic biopsy specimen.