Urologists’ and GPs’ knowledge of hereditary prostate cancer is suboptimal for prostate cancer counseling: a nation-wide survey in The Netherlands

A family history of prostate cancer (PCa) is an established risk factor for PCa. In case of a positive family history, the balance between positive and adverse effects of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing might be different from the general population, for which the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) showed a beneficial effect on mortality. This, however, went at the cost of considerable overtreatment. This study assessed Dutch physicians’ knowledge of heredity and PCa and their ‘post-ERSPC’ attitude towards PCa testing, including consideration of family history. In January 2010, all Dutch urologists and clinical geneticists (CGs) and 300 general practitioners (GPs) were invited by email to complete an anonymous online survey, which contained questions about hereditary PCa and their attitudes towards PCa case-finding and screening. 109 urologists (31%), 69 GPs (23%) and 46 CGs (31%) completed the survey. CGs had the most accurate knowledge of hereditary PCa. All but 1 CG mentioned at least one inherited trait with PCa, compared to only 25% of urologists and 9% of GPs. CGs hardly ever counseled men about PCa testing. Most urologists and GPs discuss possible risks and benefits before testing for PCa with PSA. Remarkably, 35–40% of them do not take family history into consideration. Knowledge of urologists and GPs about heredity and PCa is suboptimal. Hence, PCa counseling might not be optimal for men with a positive family history. Multidisciplinary guidelines on this topic should be developed to optimize personalized counseling

Non-prostatic pathology on prostate needle-biopsy – colorectal carcinoid: a case report

Introduction: Prostate needle-biopsies are among the most common specimens in routine histopathological practice; in 15% colorectal tissue is also present. Rectal pathology is described to be found in 17% of this coincidentally obtained material. Case presentation: We present a case in which colorectal carcinoid was found in the rectal mucosa obtained via transrectal prostate biopsies in a screening program for prostate cancer in a 71-year old Caucasian male. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first time that such a coincidental finding was discovered. Besides a colonoscopy with polypectomy, this coincidental detection remained without any further clinical consequences for this patient until today. Conclusion: As there is a considerable chance that abnormalities are found in the rectal tissue of prostate biopsies, it is advisable for all pathologists to include this tissue in the histology evaluation and look for potential irregularities in this simultaneously collected material

Determinants of Left Ventricular Functional Recovery After Thrombolytic Therapy and/or Immediate Coronary Angioplasty in Acute Myocardial Infarction

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74934/1/j.1540-8183.1988.tb00403.x.pd

A four-kallikrein panel for the prediction of repeat prostate biopsy: data from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening in Rotterdam, Netherlands

Background: Most men with elevated levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) do not have prostate cancer, leading to a large number of unnecessary biopsies. A statistical model based on a panel of four kallikreins has been shown to predict the outcome of a first prostate biopsy. In this study, we apply the model to an independent data set of men with previous negative biopsy but persistently elevated PSA. Methods: The study cohort consisted of 925 men with a previous negative prostate biopsy and elevated PSA (≥3 ng ml-1), with 110 prostate cancers detected (12%). A previously published statistical model was applied, with recalibration to reflect the lower positive biopsy rates on rebiopsy. Results: The full-kallikrein panel had higher discriminative accuracy than PSA and DRE alone, with area under the curve (AUC) improving from 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52, 0.64) to 0.68 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.74), P<0.001, and high-grade cancer (Gleason 7) at biopsy with AUC improving from 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.89) to 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.94), P<0.003). Application of the panel to 1000 men with persistently elevated PSA after initial negative biopsy, at a 15% risk threshold would reduce the number of biopsies by 712; would miss (or delay) the diagnosis of 53 cancers, of which only 3 would be Gleason 7 and the rest Gleason 6 or less. Conclusions: Our data constitute an external validation of a previously published model. The four-kallikrein panel predicts the result of repeat prostate biopsy in men with elevated PSA while dramatically decreasing unnecessary biopsies

Perineal discomfort in prostatic adenocarcinoma

We highlight the risk of missing a high-grade\ud (Gleason Grade 7/8) transition zone adenocarcinoma\ud in a patient presenting with perineal discomfort\ud on sitting

A panel of kallikrein markers can predict outcome of prostate biopsy following clinical work-up: an independent validation study from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer screening, France

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We have previously shown that a panel of kallikrein markers - total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, intact PSA and human kallikrein-related peptidase 2 (hK2) - can predict the outcome of prostate biopsy in men with elevated PSA. Here we investigate the properties of our panel in men subject to clinical work-up before biopsy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We applied a previously published predictive model based on the kallikrein panel to 262 men undergoing prostate biopsy following an elevated PSA (≥ 3 ng/ml) and further clinical work-up during the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer screening, France. The predictive accuracy of the model was compared to a "base" model of PSA, age and digital rectal exam (DRE).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>83 (32%) men had prostate cancer on biopsy of whom 45 (54%) had high grade disease (Gleason score 7 or higher). Our model had significantly higher accuracy than the base model in predicting cancer (area-under-the-curve [AUC] improved from 0.63 to 0.78) or high-grade cancer (AUC increased from 0.77 to 0.87). Using a decision rule to biopsy those with a 20% or higher risk of cancer from the model would reduce the number of biopsies by nearly half. For every 1000 men with elevated PSA and clinical indication for biopsy, the model would recommend against biopsy in 61 men with cancer, the majority (≈80%) of whom would have low stage <it>and </it>low grade disease at diagnosis.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this independent validation study, the model was highly predictive of prostate cancer in men for whom the decision to biopsy is based on both elevated PSA and clinical work-up. Use of this model would reduce a large number of biopsies while missing few cancers.</p

Patients' and urologists' preferences for prostate cancer treatment: A discrete choice experiment

__Abstract__ Background: Patients' preferences are important for shared decision making. Therefore, we investigated patients' and urologists' preferences for treatment alternatives for early prostate cancer (PC). Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted among 150 patients who were waiting for their biopsy results, and 150 urologists. Regression analysis was used to determine patients' and urologists' stated preferences using scenarios based on PC treatment modality (radiotherapy, surgery, and active surveillance (AS)), and risks of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction.Results:The response rate was 110 out of 150 (73%) for patients and 50 out of 150 (33%) for urologists. Risk of urinary incontinence was an important determinant of both patients' and urologists' stated preferences for PC treatment (P<0.05). Treatment modality also influenced patients' stated preferences (P<0.05), whereas the risk of erectile dysfunction due to radiotherapy was mainly important to urologists (P<0.05). Both patients and urologists preferred AS to radical treatment, with the exception of patients with anxious/depressed feelings who preferred radical treatment to AS. Conclusion: Although patients and urologists generally may prefer similar treatments for PC, they showed different trade-offs between various specific treatment aspects. This implies that urologists need to be aware of potential differences compared with the patient's perspective on treatment decisions in shared decision making on PC treatment

Treatment of local-regional prostate cancer detected by PSA screening: Benefits and harms according to prognostic factors

Background:Men with screen-detected prostate cancer can choose to undergo immediate curative treatment or enter into an expectant management programme. We quantified how the benefits and harms of immediate treatment vary according to the prognostic factors of clinical T-stage, Gleason score, and patient age.Methods:A microsimulation model based on European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer data was used to predict the benefits and harms of immediate treatment versus delayed treatment of local-regional prostate cancer in men aged 55-74 years. Benefits included life-years gained and reduced probability of death from prostate cancer. Harms included lead time and probability of overdiagnosis.Results:The ratio of mean lead time to mean life-years gained ranged from 1.8 to 31.2, and the additional number of treatments required per prostate cancer death prevented ranged from 0.3 to 11.6 across the different prognostic groups. Both harm-benefit ratios were lowest, most favourable, for men aged 55-59 years and diagnosed with moderate-risk prostate cancer. Ratios were high for men aged 70-74 years regardless of clinical T-stage and Gleason score.Conclusion:Men aged 55-59 years with moderate-risk prostate cancer are predicted to derive greatest benefit from immediate curative treatment. Immediate treatment is least favourable for men aged 70-74 years with either low-risk or high-risk prostate cancer

PCA3 molecular urine assay for prostate cancer: association with pathologic features and impact of collection protocols

IntroductionPCA3 is a non-coding mRNA molecule that is overexpressed in prostate cancer. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of the PCA3 molecular urine test scores to predict adverse pathologic features and catheterized specimen collection.MethodsHundred men with clinically localized prostate cancer scheduled to undergo robotic prostatectomy were enrolled in the study following a standard consent process. The study protocol consisted of providing four urine samples. Voided urine obtained following digital rectal examination (DRE) pre-operatively (Vl), catheterized urine without DRE (V2), and l0-day and 6-week postoperative voided (V3 and V4) urine samples were collected and analyzed. These four urine specimens underwent target capture, transcription-mediated amplification, and hybridization in order to quantify both PCA3 and PSA mRNA. The PCA3 score was calculated as the ratio of PCA3 to PSA.ResultsInformative rates (sufficient mRNA for analysis) for VI, V2, V3 and V4 were 91, 85, 0 and 2%, respectively. There was no significant associations with pathological stage, Gleason score &gt;6. Higher PCA3 scores at V1 correlated with increased risk for perineural invasion (P = 0.0479).ConclusionsInformative PCA3 scores can be obtained from post-DRE voided urine as well as catheterized urine without a DRE. The PCA3 test does not seem to predict adverse pathologic features, though, may have an association with perineural invasion. The ability of PCA3 score to predict clinical outcome remains to be determined

Relationship between initial PSA density with future PSA kinetics and repeat biopsies in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance

The objective of our study is to examine the correlation between PSA density (PSAd) at the time of diagnosis with PSA velocity (PSAV), PSA doubling time and tumour progression, on repeat biopsy, in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Data from 102 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer on active surveillance in the period between 1992 and 2007, who had the necessary parameters available, were collected. PSAd was calculated and correlated with PSAV, PSA doubling time (PSADT), Gleason score at diagnosis and local progression on repeated biopsies. PSAV was 0.64 and 1.31 ng ml–1 per year (P=0.02), PSADT of 192 and 113 months (P=0.4) for PSAd below and above 0.15, respectively. The rate of detecting high Gleason score (⩾7) at diagnosis was 6 and 23% for PSAd below and above 0.15, respectively. A total of 101 patients underwent at least a second biopsy and the incidence of upgrading was 10 and 31% for PSAd below and above 0.15, respectively (P=0.001). Although low PSAd is an accepted measure for suggesting insignificant prostate cancer, our study expands its role to indicate that PSAd <0.15 may be an additional clinical parameter that may suggest indolent disease, as measured by future PSAV and repeat biopsy over time