Additional use of [−2] precursor prostate-specific antigen and “benign” PSA at diagnosis in screen-detected prostate cancer - 18/08/11
, René Raaijmakers a, Bert G. Blijenberg b, Stephan D. Mikolajczyk c, Harry G. Rittenhouse c, F.H. Schröder aAbstract |
Objectives |
To evaluate the adjuvant clinical use of [−2] precursor prostate-specific antigen ([−2]pPSA), which is associated with prostate cancer (PCa), and “benign” PSA, related to benign prostatic hyperplasia, in selecting a treatment strategy in patients with screen-detected PCa.
Methods |
Research-use immunoassays (Beckman Coulter) were used to measure [−2]pPSA, sum [−7, −5, −4, and −2]pPSA, and benign PSA from the frozen serum of participants from the screen arm of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, section Rotterdam, diagnosed with PCa with a serum PSA level lower than 15 ng/mL. We compared men with relatively benign PCa (Epstein’s criteria; group 1) and men with arbitrarily defined aggressive PCa characteristics (Gleason score greater than 4 + 4 and more than four cores with PCa invasion or pT3C disease; group 2).
Results |
The data of 61 patients were evaluated. The median age in both groups was 68 years. Total PSA performed best in a univariate analysis, although in the multivariate analysis, the combination of pPSA and percent free PSA could correctly predict 95.5% of group 1 and 82.4% of group 2. The pPSA and percent free PSA forms remained statistically significant in the multivariate analysis of a subgroup of 30 participants normalized for PSA level and prostate volume; combined they correctly identified 89.5% and 54.5% of patients identified as having relatively favorable and aggressive PCa characteristics, respectively.
Conclusions |
Adjuvant clinical use of pPSA over traditional parameters in selecting treatment strategies for men with PCa cannot yet be definitely determined. However, the promising results in a subgroup analysis warrant further investigation.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| This study was supported by grants EUR-94-869 and EUR-98-1757 (to Erasmus University, Rotterdam) from the Dutch Cancer Society and grants 002-22820 and 2000-2-1016 (to Erasmus University, Rotterdam) from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZONMw), by Fifth Framework program grant QLRI-2000-01741 (to Erasmus University, Rotterdam) from the European Union, and by Europe Against Cancer. |
Vol 65 - N° 5
P. 926-930 - mai 2005 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
