Objectives. To study retrospectively whether the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity, that is, the change in PSA level over time, might serve as a screening tool in this PSA range. It is estimated that 40% of detectable prostate cancers are present in men with a PSA level of 4.0 ng/mL or less. Digital rectal examination and/or transrectal ultrasonography have been used as screening tools at these low PSA levels, but this approach is not very efficient. Methods. The possible predictors (including PSA velocity) for biopsy outcome were studied using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis in 774 men who underwent biopsy between November 1997 and January 2002 in the second screening round of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). The clinical stage of the tumors was determined, and the Gleason scores of the biopsies were studied. Results. A total of 149 cancers were found (positive predictive value 19.2%). The odds ratio for the PSA velocity determined by univariate logistic regression analysis was 2.2 (95% confidence interval 0.7 to 6.9, P = 0.19) and was 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.20 to 2.6, P = 0.64) by multivariate analysis. The distribution of the clinical stage of the detected tumors was 64.4% T1c, 32.2% T2, and 3.4% T3. The biopsy Gleason score was 6 in 84.5%, 7 in 14.2%, and 8 in 1.3%. Conclusions. The number of cancers detected in this study and the distribution of clinical stage and biopsy Gleason score confirmed that a relatively large proportion of potentially curable cancers can be found in the low PSA ranges. The PSA velocity did not appear to be a useful screening tool for the identification of these cancers.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2003.09.083, hdl.handle.net/1765/60381
Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam

Roobol-Bouts, M.J, Kranse, R, de Koning, H.J, & Schröder, F.H. (2004). Prostate-specific antigen velocity at low prostate-specific antigen levels as screening tool for prostate cancer: Results of second screening round of ERSPC (ROTTERDAM). Urology, 63(2), 309–313. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2003.09.083