Journals / Üroonkoloji Bülteni / 2016 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 3

Role of Prostate Specific Antigen Density for the Prediction of Radical Therapy Requirement in Localized Prostate Cancer

Prostat Spesifik Antijen Dansitesinin Lokalize Prostat Kanserinde Radikal Tedavi Gerekliliğini Öngörmedeki Rolü

Pages
103–106
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We suggest that predictive models including dPSA would better help decide for active surveillance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Prostate specific antigen (PSA) PSA density (dPSA) is a PSA derivative used for increasing the accuracy of PSA. dPSA is calculated by dividing the prostate volume measured with transrectal ultrasonography by the total PSA value.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, we evaluated the role of dPSA in the prediction of radical therapy requirement in localised prostate cancer.Materials and Methods: A total of 398 patients, who underwent radical prostatectomy in our department, were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We suggest that predictive models including dPSA would better help decide for active surveillance.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Prostate specific antigen (PSA) PSA density (dPSA) is a PSA derivative used for increasing the accuracy of PSA. dPSA is calculated by dividing the prostate volume measured with transrectal ultrasonography by the total PSA value. In this study, we evaluated the role of dPSA in the prediction of radical therapy requirement in localised prostate cancer.Materials and Methods: A total of 398 patients, who underwent radical prostatectomy in our department, were included in the study. Preoperative data of the patients (demographic data, total PSA, prostate volume, dPSA and tumor percent IE on biopsy) were evaluated retrospectively. D'Amico risk stratification was performed according to the radical prostatectomy pathological examination. Evaluated parameters were compared between low-risk group (Group 1), who were candidates for active surveillance, and intermediate-high-risk group (Group 2) who were candidates for radical therapies. A dPSA cut-off value was investigated for the prediction of radical therapy requirement for patients with ROC curve analysis.Results: Mean age of the patients was similar between the two groups (62.6±6.6 vs. 62.6±58; p=0.999). PSA (8.9±6.9 vs. 5.5±1.5; p<0.05), dPSA (0.19±0.1 vs. 0.08±0.03; p<0.05) and tumor percent on biopsy (40.8±32.6 vs. 10.7±11.7; p<0.05) were significantly higher in Group 2 when compared to Group 1. ROC curve analysis revealed that patients with a dPSA value higher than 0.10 were more likely to have intermediatehigh-risk disease according to postoperative the D'Amico risk stratification with 71% sensitivity and 86% specificity (AUC=0.782). Conclusion: As a result, it has been shown that a significant portion of patients with a dPSA level of >=0.1 was included in the intermediate-highrisk group requiring radical therapies according to the postoperative pathological results. We suggest that predictive models including dPSA would better help decide for active surveillance.

Özet

Amaç: Prostat spesifik antijen (PSA) PSA dansitesi (dPSA), PSA'nın etkinliğini artırmaya yönelik olarak kullanılan PSA türevidir. dPSA toplam PSA düzeyinin transrektal ultrasonografi ile ölçülen prostat hacmine bölünmesi ile hesaplanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada dPSA'nın lokalize prostat kanserinde radikal tedavi gerekliliğini öngörmedeki rolünü değerlendirdik. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kliğinimizde radikal prostatektomi yapılan 398 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastaların preoperatif verileri (demografik verileri, toplam PSA, prostat hacmi, dPSA ve biyopsideki tümör yüzdesi) retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Radikal prostatektomi patolojik evresine göre D'Amico risk sınıflaması yapıldı. Değerlendirilen parametreler aktif izlem adayı düşük risk grubu (Grup 1, n=29) ve radikal tedavi gereken orta-yüksek risk grubu (Grup 2, n=369) arasında karşılaştırıldı. Sonrasında ROC (reciever operator characteristics) curve analizi yardımı ile dPSA'nın radikal tedavi gerekecek hastaları belirlemesi için (orta-yüksek risk grubu) gerekli sınır değer araştırıldı. Bulgular: Her iki grubun yaş ortalaması benzerdi (62,6±6,6 vs. 62,6±5,8, p=0,999). Grup 2, Grup 1 ile kıyaslandığında PSA (8,9±6,9 vs. 5,5±1,5; p =0,1 olan hastaların önemli bir kesiminin postoperatif dönem patoloji sonuçlarına göre orta-yüksek risk grubunda ve radikal tedavinin gerekli olacağı grupta yer aldığı görülmüştür. dPSA'nın da içinde yer alacağı prediktif modellerin aktif izleme karar vermede daha faydalı olacağını düşünmekteyiz.

🔖

Cite This Article

BOZKURT, O., ÇÖMEZ, K., GÜRBOĞA, Ö., DEMİR, Ö., ASLAN, G., ESEN, A. A. (2016). Role of Prostate Specific Antigen Density for the Prediction of Radical Therapy Requirement in Localized Prostate Cancer. Üroonkoloji Bülteni, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 3, 103–106. https://ajindex.com/articles/334892

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:277-300.
  2. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994;271:368-374.
  3. Bozkurt O, Demir Ö. Düşük riskli prostat kanserinde aktif izlem. Bulletin of Urooncology 2013;12:76-79.
  4. Mottet CN, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt RCN. (Patient Representative). Disease Management Active Surveillance. Guidelines On Prostate Cancer 2016:31. Ongun S, Celik S, Niflioglu GG, et al. Are active surveillance criteria sufficient for predicting advanced stage prostate cancer patients? Actas Urol Esp 2014;38:499-505.
  5. Ilic D, O'Connor D, Green S, Wilt T. Screening for prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review. Cancer Causes Control 2007;18:279-285.
  6. Benson MC, Whang IS, Pantuck A, et al. Prostate specific antigen density: a means of distinguishing benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer. J Urol 1992;147:815-816.
  7. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969-974.
  8. Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 2012;61:1079-1092.
  9. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;367:203-213.
  10. Romero-Otero J, García-Gómez B, Duarte-Ojeda, JM et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2016;23:211-218.
  11. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al. Combination of prostate- specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997;277:1445-1451.
  12. Tosoian JJ, JohnBull E, Trock BJ, et al. Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. J Urol 2013;190:1218-1222.
  13. Duffield AS, Lee TK, Miyamoto H, et al. Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails. J Urol 2009;182:2274-2278.
  14. Loeb S, Bruinsma SM, Nicholson J, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur Urol 2015;67:619-626.
  15. Aslan G, Irer B, Kefi A, et al. The value of PSA, free-to-total PSA ra