Purpose
For patients who elect to have prostate cancer screening, the optimal time to discontinue screening is unknown. Our objective was to describe rates and predictors of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening among older men in the United States.
Methods
Data were extracted from the population-based 2000 and 2005 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). PSA screening was defined as a PSA test as part of a routine exam within the past year. Demographic, socioeconomic, and functional characteristics were collected, and a validated 5-year estimated life expectancy was calculated. Age-specific rates of PSA screening were determined, and sampling weight-adjusted multivariate regressions were fitted to determine predictors of screening among men age 70 years or older.
Results
The PSA screening rate was 24.0% in men age 50 to 54 years, and it increased steadily with age until a peak of 45.5% among age 70 to 74 years. Screening rates then gradually declined by age, and 24.6% of men age 85 years or older reported being screened. Among men age 70 years or older, screening rates varied by estimated 5-year life expectancy: rates were 47.3% in men with high life expectancies (≤ 15% probability of 5-year mortality), 39.2% in men with intermediate life expectancies (16% to 48% probability), and 30.7% in men with low life expectancies (> 48% probability; P < .001). In multivariate analysis, estimated life expectancy and age remained independently associated with PSA screening (P < .001 for each).
Conclusion
Rates of PSA screening in the United States are associated with age and estimated life expectancy, but excessive PSA screening in elderly men with limited life expectancies remains a significant problem. The merits and limitations of PSA should be discussed with all patients considering prostate cancer screening.
In our experience there is an acceptable probability of achieving continence and potency after robotic radical prostatectomy in selected elderly patients.
BACKGROUND
Serum/glucocorticoid-regulated kinase 1 (SGK1), a known target of the androgen receptor (AR) and glucocorticoid receptor (GR), is reported to enhance cell survival. This study sought to better define the role of SGK1 and GR in prostate cancer.
METHODS
Immunohistochemistry was performed for AR, GR, and SGK1 on primary prostate cancers (n = 138) and 18 prostate cancers from patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy. Relative staining intensity was compared utilizing a Fisher’s exact test. Univariate analyses were performed using log-rank and chi-squared tests to evaluate prostate cancer recurrence with respect to SGK1 expression.
RESULTS
SGK1 expression was strong (3+) in 79% of untreated cancers versus 44% in androgen-deprived cancers (P = 0.003). Conversely, GR expression was present in a higher proportion of androgen-deprived versus untreated cancers (78% vs. 38%, P = 0.002). High-grade cancers were nearly twice as likely to have relatively low (0 to 2+) SGK1 staining compared to low-grade cancers (13.8% vs. 26.5%, P = 0.08). Low SGK1 expression in untreated tumors was associated with increased risk of cancer recurrence (adjusted log-rank test P = 0.077), 5-year progression-free survival 47.8% versus 72.6% (P = 0.034).
CONCLUSIONS
SGK1 expression is high in most untreated prostate cancers and declines with androgen deprivation. However, these data suggest that relatively low expression of SGK1 is associated with higher tumor grade and increased cancer recurrence, and is a potential indicator of aberrant AR signaling in these tumors. GR expression increased with androgen deprivation, potentially providing a mechanism for the maintenance of androgen pathway signaling in these tumors. Further study of the AR/GR/SGK1 network in castration resistance.
BACKGROUND
Many patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PC) who are diagnosed with Gleason score 6 at biopsy are ultimately found to harbor higher grade PC (Gleason ≥7) at radical prostatectomy. This finding increases risk of recurrence and cancer-specific mortality. Validated clinical tools that are available preoperatively are needed to improve the ability to recognize likelihood of upgrading in patients with low-risk PC.
METHODS
More than 30 clinicopathologic parameters were assessed in consecutive patients with Gleason 6 PC upon biopsy who underwent radical prostatectomy. A nomogram for predicting upgrading (Gleason ≥7) on final pathology was generated using multivariable logistic regression in a development cohort of 431 patients. External validation was performed in 2 separate cohorts consisting of 1151 patients and 392 patients. Nomogram performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration, and decision analysis.
RESULTS
On multivariable analysis, variables predicting upgrading were prostate-specific antigen density using ultrasound (odds ratio [OR] =229, P =.003), obesity (OR =1.90, P =.05), number of positive cores (OR =1.23, P =.01), and maximum core involvement (OR =0.02, P =.01). On internal validation, the bootstrap-corrected predictive accuracy was 0.753. External validation revealed a predictive accuracy of 0.677 and 0.672. The nomogram demonstrated excellent calibration in all 3 cohorts and decision curves demonstrated high net benefit across a wide range of threshold probabilities. The nomogram demonstrated areas under the curve of 0.597 to 0.672 for predicting upgrading in subsets of men with very low-risk PC who meet active surveillance criteria (all P <.001), allowing further risk stratification of these individuals.
CONCLUSIONS
A nomogram was developed and externally validated that uses preoperative clinical parameters and biopsy findings to predict the risk of pathological upgrading in Gleason 6 patients. This can be used to further inform patients with lower risk PC who are considering treatment or active surveillance.
Environmental and socioeconomic factors affect bladder cancer mortality and effects appear to vary by gender and race. Additionally there were temporal trends of bladder cancer hot spots which, when persistent, should be the focus of individual level studies of occupational and environmental factors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.