[Parameters to improve the specificity of the prostate-specific antigen. Early detection of prostate cancer]. / Parameter zur Verbesserung der Spezifität des prostataspezifischen Antigens. Früherkennung des Prostatakarzinoms.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to improve the case detection rate of prostate cancer for patients who had unremarkable palpation findings and a PSA value in the range of 4 to 10 ng/ml by combination of the parameters total PSA (tPSA), f/tPSA ratio, prostate volume, PSA density, patient's age and transrectal ultrasound findings. METHODS: Sextant biopsy of the prostate was performed for 619 patients aged 45-75 years who had unremarkable palpation findings and PSA values in the range of 4 to 10 ng/ml. The f/tPSA ratio was determined, transrectal ultrasound examination was performed, the prostate volume was measured and the PSA density calculated. The relationship between the various test variables - and their combination - and the histology results was investigated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Prostate cancer was detected in 131 of 619 patients. Analysis of the aforementioned test variables by means of logistic regression revealed that the combination of the parameters f/tPSA ratio, PSA density and patient's age can significantly increase the sensitivity and specificity of PSA in predicting prostate cancer compared with the use of these parameters on an individual basis. With an assumed limit value of 5% for performance of punch biopsy, 31% of biopsies could be avoided in practice. In such a case, only 3% of instances of prostate cancer would have gone undetected. CONCLUSION: The combined use of f/tPSA ratio, PSA density and patient's age can significantly enhance the case detection sensitivity for the PSA range of 4 to 10 ng/ml.

[Early detection of prostate cancer: is serum PSA testing alone sufficient?]. / Früherkennung von Prostatakarzinomen : Ist die Untersuchung des Serum-PSA alleine ausreichend?

The euphoria over PSA as an optimal marker for prostate cancer is gone. Measuring PSA levels has several deficiencies in detecting prostate cancer. First results of the randomized studies ERSPC and PLCO were not able to conclusively prove the value of PSA-based screening. Many attempts have been made to optimize early detection of prostate cancer like using modern imaging techniques or new biomarkers. This review deals with PSA isoforms und emerging biomarkers for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Despite the inadequacies of PSA it is still the most important marker for the early detection of prostate cancer. Modern biomarkers with the ability to reliably predict aggressive prostate cancer are still missing.

[Pudendal block or combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia in high-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma?]. / Pudendusblockade oder kombinierte Spinal-Epidural-Anästhesie (CSE) bei der High-Dose-Rate-Brachytherapie des Prostatakarzinoms?

PURPOSE: In male patients the pudendal block has been applied only in rare cases as a therapy for neuralgia of the pudendal nerve. Up to now there is no comparison of pudendal block with an anaesthesia form close to the spinal cord. In this pilot study the bilateral perineal infiltration of the pudendal nerve was compared to combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia in high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 30 patients (68.8 +/- 5.4 years) who underwent a core needle biopsy for high-risk prostate carcinoma, an HDR brachytherapy in CSE or NPB was carried out. Both anaesthesia forms were examined concerning the perioperative compatibility, the subjective feeling (German school marks principle 1-6), the pain feeling (VAS, 1-10) and the early postoperative course (mobility, complications). RESULTS: Both anaesthesia procedures were offered to all patients. For 2 patients the NPB was favoured primarily, because they had undergone surgery of the lumbal spine, so that the CSE was not applicable. There was no change of anaesthesia form necessary. The expense of time for NPB was 10.5 +/- 2.5 min, for CSE 30.5 +/- 5.5 min (p < 0.005). The hollow needles remained in place on average for 79 +/- 11.7 min (p = 0.23). Inter- and postoperative pain feelings were in both groups between 1.3 +/- 1.1 and 1.1 +/- 1.0 (p = 0.61 and p = 0.29). The difference is not significant. The NPB group considered postoperative mobility as an advantage. All patients felt the bladder catheter as annoying, but the NPB group considered postoperative mobility as more important than complete lack of pain. The subjective feeling in the NPB group was described as 2.06 +/- 0.59 and in the CSE group 2.73 +/- 0.79. This is a significant difference (p < 0.005). No side effects or complications in both anaesthesia forms appeared. CONCLUSIONS: The perineal pudendal block is equivalent to epidural anaesthesia in HDR brachytherapy. Concerning the objectifiable pain score measurement and the subjective feeling there are no essential significant differences.