Search

Unlabelled: Study Type - Prognosis (case control). Level of Evidence 3a. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Treatment of advanced PC might put patients at an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Recent studies have suggested that the excess mortality is lower among men who were diagnosed with screen detected PC in comparison to men with clinically diagnosed PC, possibly due to the use of medications for cardiovascular disease and the change to a healthier lifestyle of men with a screen detected PC. Men with clinically diagnosed PC have an increased risk of death unrelated to PC itself, i.e., the excess mortality is based on an increased risk of dying from other neoplasm and diseases of the circulatory or respiratory system., Objective: • To assess the cause-specific mortality unrelated to prostate cancer (PC) itself in patients with screen- and clinically diagnosed PC., Patients and Methods: • The present study was conducted among participants of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. • Based on consensus of the causes of death committee (CODC), all patients who died from PC were excluded. • In the intervention arm, cases were patients with a screen-detected PC, aged 55-74 years, between 1993 and 2001. • These cases were matched to two controls in whom no cancer was found after biopsy, and two controls in whom no cancer was suspected after screening. In the control arm, cases were patients with clinically diagnosed PC, aged 55-74 years, between 1993 and 2001. These cases were matched to four controls without PC. Matching was done with respect to date of birth, screening and/or diagnosis. Men were followed up to 31 December 2007., Results: • No statistically significant difference in overall mortality between cases and controls in the intervention arm was observed: relative risk (RR) 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.65; P = 0.102) and RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.86-1.47; P = 0.381). • In the control arm, the overall mortality was statistically significantly higher in cases relative to controls: RR 1.43 (95% CI 1.03-2.00; P = 0.033). • This difference was because of an increased risk of dying from neoplasms and disease of the circulatory or respiratory system among cases: RR 1.61 (95% CI 1.12-2.29; P = 0.009). • The present study was limited by the relatively small sample size., Conclusions: • Increased mortality unrelated to PC itself was observed in men with clinically diagnosed PC, but not in screen-detected PC. • The excess mortality in men with clinically diagnosed PC seems to be as a result of a significantly increased risk of dying from neoplasm and disease of the circulatory or respiratory system. • Results have to be studied more thoroughly in further clinical trials., (© 2012 BJU INTERNATIONAL.)

Objective: To assess the magnitude of prostate cancer detection by serendipity (the coincidental detection of prostate cancer during the evaluation of an abnormal screening test result) when a digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) are used as initial screening tests for prostate cancer in men with low levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA; 0.0-3.9 ng/mL)., Patients and Methods: In all, 117 participants of a population-based screening study were diagnosed with prostate cancer after a standard evaluation of an abnormal screening test result; 49 underwent radical prostatectomy. Serendipity was defined as either: (i) the presence of prostate cancer opposite to the side that raised suspicion for cancer on DRE and/or TRUS; (ii) a negative lesion-directed biopsy while cancer was present in one or more of the cores of the sextant biopsy; (iii) a tumour volume of < 0.5 mL on radical prostatectomy., Results: Depending on the definition, 27-63% of prostate cancers detected at low PSA values were detected coincidentally and not as a result of a true-positive test result. The proportion of cancers detected by serendipity was inversely correlated with serum PSA level., Conclusion: A relatively high proportion of prostate cancers diagnosed in men with low PSA levels, and in which a biopsy was prompted by a suspicious DRE and/or TRUS, are considered to be detected by chance only. As these cancers are mostly small (< 0.5 mL), with potentially low biological aggressiveness, relying on serendipity seems disadvantageous in prostate-cancer screening. The level of serendipity in prostate cancer detection, the poor performance of the screening test, and high inter-observer variability, casts further doubt on the utility of DRE (and TRUS) as initial screening tests for prostate cancer in population-based screening.

Objectives: To determine whether the ratio of free to total (F/T) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) can differentiate between men with prostate carcinoma or benign conditions in a screened population., Subjects and Methods: Total and free serum PSA (measured using Delfia PSA assays, Abbott IMx and Hybritech Tandem E methods) were determined retrospectively in 1726 men aged 55-77 years, in whom 67 prostate carcinomas were detected by screening with a digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasonography, and total serum PSA level. Predictors for a positive biopsy result were estimated as a function of total PSA, free PSA and the combination of both., Results: There was an excellent correlation between the Delfia ProStatus, the Abbott IMx and the Hybritech Tandem E assays. Compared with the total serum PSA level, the F/T ratio improved the specificity significantly only in those men with a total PSA of > or = 7 ng/mL. Using the information given by the total and free PSA values, a maximum sensitivity of 75% at a specificity of 74% was obtained for the whole PSA range from 4 to 10 ng/mL; the maximum sensitivity was 79% with a specificity of 71%., Conclusion: The optimal mathematical combination of free and total serum PSA improves the specificity of total serum PSA level in detecting prostate carcinoma more than the does the F/T PSA ratio.

Objective: To evaluate the diagnosis, outcome and final pathology of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer performed by urologists in a clinic where six urologists perform a total of 50 radical prostatectomies a year, using radical prostatectomy specimens processed routinely., Patients and Methods: Radical prostatectomy was performed in 273 patients who were followed prospectively. The radical prostatectomy specimens were evaluated for pathological stage, histological grade, capsular perforation, positive and apical margins of resection, seminal vesicle invasion, perineural invasion and vascular invasion; the lymph node status was also determined. The relationship between these variables and clinical progression, local recurrence, distant metastases, biochemical progression, overall survival and cancer-specific survival was assessed., Results: All evaluated variables were significantly predictive for clinical and biochemical progression in the univariate analyses, and all but perineural invasion and lymph node status for cancer-specific survival. Multivariate analysis showed vascular invasion to be the most important prognostic variable, followed by capsular perforation, positive margins of resection and poorly differentiated carcinoma. The overall results for the evaluated variables were comparable to the results from centres with greater experience., Conclusions: The outcome of treatment in this small clinic was similar to that from larger clinics with more experience. The routine evaluation of the radical prostatectomy specimens identified pathological variables which were important prognostic factors, with vascular invasion, capsular perforation, positive margins of resection and poorly differentiated carcinoma being the most significant. The extent of vascular invasion should be part of the routine evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens.