2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2003.09.028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prostate-specific antigen change in the european randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, section rotterdam

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
19
1
5

Year Published

2005
2005
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 80 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
4
19
1
5
Order By: Relevance
“…PSA initial , PSA nadir and DT were defined in the same way as in PSAHL's equation. It was similar to the formula for PSAV [9,10], but the PSAV reflected an increasing tendency whereas the PSAVd represented a decreasing tendency. Two or more determinations between the PSA initial and the PSA nadir were required to capture a sufficiently long time interval [11].…”
Section: Definitions and Calculations Of Psahl Psavd Psadt And Psavsupporting
confidence: 65%
“…PSA initial , PSA nadir and DT were defined in the same way as in PSAHL's equation. It was similar to the formula for PSAV [9,10], but the PSAV reflected an increasing tendency whereas the PSAVd represented a decreasing tendency. Two or more determinations between the PSA initial and the PSA nadir were required to capture a sufficiently long time interval [11].…”
Section: Definitions and Calculations Of Psahl Psavd Psadt And Psavsupporting
confidence: 65%
“…A true PSA of 4.5 ng/ml may therefore produce measured PSA results ranging from 3.0-6.0 ng/ml. By using only two values to calculate PSAV (FL) [9][10][11], it is assumed that each value lies close to the true PSA. Measured PSA values at the upper or lower limits of variability may produce a misleading PSAV, even when these are taken over a long time period, as occurred in the studies from the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [9][10][11].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although these findings have since been confirmed by others [4,5], the optimal cutoff remains controversial, particularly at low PSA levels [4,7,8]. Contrary to these studies, others have reported that PSAV has little additional benefit over a single PSA cutoff [9][10][11]. The conflicting evidence from these reports may relate to variation in the populations studied, although a possible contributing factor may be that the method of PSAV calculation was not standardised.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…This leads to potentially unnecessary biopsy procedures [18]. Another study revealed that the lack of specificity of PSA measurement as the only biopsy indicator is most easily pointed out by the observation that in only 20% to 30% of biopsied men with a PSA value greater than 4.0 ng/mL is prostate cancer detected thus, approximately 70% to 80% of these men have a false-positive test result [19].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%