US Preventive Services Task Force prostate-specific antigen screening guidelines result in higher Gleason score diagnoses

Purpose: To evaluate the impact that the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening guidelines have had on the diagnosis of prostate cancer, we compared the incidence and distribution of new cases diagnosed in 2011-before the USPSTF PSA screening recomm...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Glen Gejerman, Patrick Ciccone, Martin Goldstein, Vincent Lanteri, Burton Schlecker, John Sanzone, Michael Esposito, Sergey Rome, Michael Ciccone, Eric Margolis, Robert Simon, Yijun Guo, Sri-Ram Pentakota, Hossein Sadhegi-Nejad
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Korean Urological Association 2017-11-01
Series:Investigative and Clinical Urology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://synapse.koreamed.org/Synapse/Data/PDFData/2020ICU/icu-58-423.pdf
id doaj-ff7b13275b844831b8805568b06a79f8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ff7b13275b844831b8805568b06a79f82020-11-24T21:10:52ZengKorean Urological AssociationInvestigative and Clinical Urology2466-04932466-054X2017-11-0158642342810.4111/icu.2017.58.6.423US Preventive Services Task Force prostate-specific antigen screening guidelines result in higher Gleason score diagnosesGlen Gejerman0Patrick Ciccone1Martin Goldstein2Vincent Lanteri3Burton Schlecker4John Sanzone5Michael Esposito6Sergey Rome7Michael Ciccone8Eric Margolis9Robert Simon10Yijun Guo11Sri-Ram Pentakota12Hossein Sadhegi-Nejad13New Jersey Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USANew Jersey Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USANew Jersey Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USANew Jersey Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USANew Jersey Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USANew Jersey Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USANew Jersey Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USANew Jersey Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USANew Jersey Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USANew Jersey Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USANew Jersey Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USANew Jersey Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USADivision of Urology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Bloomfield, NJ, USANew Jersey Urology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USAPurpose: To evaluate the impact that the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening guidelines have had on the diagnosis of prostate cancer, we compared the incidence and distribution of new cases diagnosed in 2011-before the USPSTF PSA screening recommendations versus 2014 at which time the guidelines were widely adopted. Materials and Methods: We identified all prostate biopsies performed by a large urology group practice utilizing a centralized pathology lab. We examined total biopsies performed, percentage of positive biopsies, and for those with positive biopsies examined for differences in patient age, PSA, and Gleason score. Results: A total of 4,178 biopsies were identified – 2,513 in 2011 and 1,665 in 2014. The percentage of positive biopsies was 27% in 2011 versus 34% in 2014 (p<0.0001). Among patients with positive biopsies, we found statistically significant differences between the 2 cohorts in the median ages and Gleason scores. Patients were about 1 year younger in 2014 compared to 2011 (t-test; p=0.043). High Gleason scores (8–10) were diagnosed in 19% of the 2014 positive biopsies versus 9% in the 2011 positive biopsies (chi square; p<0.0001). Conclusions: After the widespread implementation of the 2011 USPTF PSA screening guidelines, 34% fewer biopsies were performed with a 29% increase in positive biopsy rates. We found a significantly higher incidence of high grade disease in 2014 compared with 2011. The percentage of patients with positive biopsies having Gleason scores 8–10 more than doubled in 2014. The higher incidence of these more aggressive cancers must be part of the discussion regarding PSA screening.https://synapse.koreamed.org/Synapse/Data/PDFData/2020ICU/icu-58-423.pdfDiagnosisGleason scoreProstate neoplasms
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Glen Gejerman
Patrick Ciccone
Martin Goldstein
Vincent Lanteri
Burton Schlecker
John Sanzone
Michael Esposito
Sergey Rome
Michael Ciccone
Eric Margolis
Robert Simon
Yijun Guo
Sri-Ram Pentakota
Hossein Sadhegi-Nejad
spellingShingle Glen Gejerman
Patrick Ciccone
Martin Goldstein
Vincent Lanteri
Burton Schlecker
John Sanzone
Michael Esposito
Sergey Rome
Michael Ciccone
Eric Margolis
Robert Simon
Yijun Guo
Sri-Ram Pentakota
Hossein Sadhegi-Nejad
US Preventive Services Task Force prostate-specific antigen screening guidelines result in higher Gleason score diagnoses
Investigative and Clinical Urology
Diagnosis
Gleason score
Prostate neoplasms
author_facet Glen Gejerman
Patrick Ciccone
Martin Goldstein
Vincent Lanteri
Burton Schlecker
John Sanzone
Michael Esposito
Sergey Rome
Michael Ciccone
Eric Margolis
Robert Simon
Yijun Guo
Sri-Ram Pentakota
Hossein Sadhegi-Nejad
author_sort Glen Gejerman
title US Preventive Services Task Force prostate-specific antigen screening guidelines result in higher Gleason score diagnoses
title_short US Preventive Services Task Force prostate-specific antigen screening guidelines result in higher Gleason score diagnoses
title_full US Preventive Services Task Force prostate-specific antigen screening guidelines result in higher Gleason score diagnoses
title_fullStr US Preventive Services Task Force prostate-specific antigen screening guidelines result in higher Gleason score diagnoses
title_full_unstemmed US Preventive Services Task Force prostate-specific antigen screening guidelines result in higher Gleason score diagnoses
title_sort us preventive services task force prostate-specific antigen screening guidelines result in higher gleason score diagnoses
publisher Korean Urological Association
series Investigative and Clinical Urology
issn 2466-0493
2466-054X
publishDate 2017-11-01
description Purpose: To evaluate the impact that the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening guidelines have had on the diagnosis of prostate cancer, we compared the incidence and distribution of new cases diagnosed in 2011-before the USPSTF PSA screening recommendations versus 2014 at which time the guidelines were widely adopted. Materials and Methods: We identified all prostate biopsies performed by a large urology group practice utilizing a centralized pathology lab. We examined total biopsies performed, percentage of positive biopsies, and for those with positive biopsies examined for differences in patient age, PSA, and Gleason score. Results: A total of 4,178 biopsies were identified – 2,513 in 2011 and 1,665 in 2014. The percentage of positive biopsies was 27% in 2011 versus 34% in 2014 (p<0.0001). Among patients with positive biopsies, we found statistically significant differences between the 2 cohorts in the median ages and Gleason scores. Patients were about 1 year younger in 2014 compared to 2011 (t-test; p=0.043). High Gleason scores (8–10) were diagnosed in 19% of the 2014 positive biopsies versus 9% in the 2011 positive biopsies (chi square; p<0.0001). Conclusions: After the widespread implementation of the 2011 USPTF PSA screening guidelines, 34% fewer biopsies were performed with a 29% increase in positive biopsy rates. We found a significantly higher incidence of high grade disease in 2014 compared with 2011. The percentage of patients with positive biopsies having Gleason scores 8–10 more than doubled in 2014. The higher incidence of these more aggressive cancers must be part of the discussion regarding PSA screening.
topic Diagnosis
Gleason score
Prostate neoplasms
url https://synapse.koreamed.org/Synapse/Data/PDFData/2020ICU/icu-58-423.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT glengejerman uspreventiveservicestaskforceprostatespecificantigenscreeningguidelinesresultinhighergleasonscorediagnoses
AT patrickciccone uspreventiveservicestaskforceprostatespecificantigenscreeningguidelinesresultinhighergleasonscorediagnoses
AT martingoldstein uspreventiveservicestaskforceprostatespecificantigenscreeningguidelinesresultinhighergleasonscorediagnoses
AT vincentlanteri uspreventiveservicestaskforceprostatespecificantigenscreeningguidelinesresultinhighergleasonscorediagnoses
AT burtonschlecker uspreventiveservicestaskforceprostatespecificantigenscreeningguidelinesresultinhighergleasonscorediagnoses
AT johnsanzone uspreventiveservicestaskforceprostatespecificantigenscreeningguidelinesresultinhighergleasonscorediagnoses
AT michaelesposito uspreventiveservicestaskforceprostatespecificantigenscreeningguidelinesresultinhighergleasonscorediagnoses
AT sergeyrome uspreventiveservicestaskforceprostatespecificantigenscreeningguidelinesresultinhighergleasonscorediagnoses
AT michaelciccone uspreventiveservicestaskforceprostatespecificantigenscreeningguidelinesresultinhighergleasonscorediagnoses
AT ericmargolis uspreventiveservicestaskforceprostatespecificantigenscreeningguidelinesresultinhighergleasonscorediagnoses
AT robertsimon uspreventiveservicestaskforceprostatespecificantigenscreeningguidelinesresultinhighergleasonscorediagnoses
AT yijunguo uspreventiveservicestaskforceprostatespecificantigenscreeningguidelinesresultinhighergleasonscorediagnoses
AT srirampentakota uspreventiveservicestaskforceprostatespecificantigenscreeningguidelinesresultinhighergleasonscorediagnoses
AT hosseinsadheginejad uspreventiveservicestaskforceprostatespecificantigenscreeningguidelinesresultinhighergleasonscorediagnoses
_version_ 1716754889635266560