Public survey and survival data do not support recommendations to discontinue prostate-specific antigen screening in men at age 75.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation to discontinue prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening at age 75. METHODS: Public survey: A cohort of 340 patients was surveyed at our PSA screening clinic and stratified by awareness of the recommendation and education level. Age (< 75, >or= 75), race, health insurance status, knowledge of prostate cancer, and opinion on screening discontinuation at age 75 was evaluated between groups. Disease risk and survival analysis: A cohort of 4196 men who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1988 and 2008 was stratified into age groups: < 65, 65-74, and >or= 75. Associations between clinicopathologic variables, disease risk, and survival were compared between age groups using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Approximately 78% of men surveyed disagreed with the USPSTF recommendation. The number of men who disagreed was not significantly different between awareness groups (P = .962). Awareness of new screening guidelines showed a significant difference (P = .006) between education groups. Age >or= 75 years was predictive of high-risk disease based on D'Amico's criteria (odds ratio = 2.72, P = .003). Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses showed an association of men aged >or= 75 years with higher rate of PSA recurrence, distant metastasis, and disease specific death compared with the age groups of < 65 and 65-74 (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Men presenting to our PSA screening clinic disagreed with discontinuation of screening at age 75. Men aged >or= 75 years had higher risk disease and poorer survival. The USPSTF recommendation was supported neither by public opinion nor disease risk and survival results.

Men older than 70 years have higher risk prostate cancer and poorer survival in the early and late prostate specific antigen eras.

PURPOSE: We clarified whether men older than 70 years have a higher risk of prostate cancer and poorer survival in the early and late prostate specific antigen eras. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 4,561 men who underwent radical prostatectomy were stratified into 3 age groups (younger than 60, 60 to 70 and older than 70 years), and early and late prostate specific antigen eras based on the year of surgery (before 2000 and 2000 or later). Race, body mass index, prostate specific antigen, prostate weight, tumor volume, pathological Gleason sum, pathological tumor stage, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion and surgical margin status were submitted for univariate and multivariable analyses against the previously mentioned groups. Survivals (prostate specific antigen recurrence, distant metastasis and disease specific death) were compared among the 3 age groups using univariate and multivariable methods. RESULTS: Compared with younger age groups (younger than 60, 60 to 70 years) men older than 70 years had a higher proportion of pathological tumor stage 3/4 (33.0 vs 44.3 vs 52.1%, p <0.001), pathological Gleason sum greater than 7 (9.5% vs 13.4% vs 17.2%, p <0.001) and larger tumor volume (3.7 vs 4.7 vs 5.2 cc, p <0.001). Pathological Gleason sum in men older than 70 years did not differ between the early and late prostate specific antigen eras (p = 0.071). Men older than 70 years had a higher risk of prostate specific antigen recurrence, distant metastasis and disease specific death on univariate (p <0.05) but not multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Men older than 70 years had higher risk disease and poorer survival in the early and late prostate specific antigen eras. Pathological Gleason sums did not change between the 2 eras. Patient age was an important variable in prostate specific antigen screening, biopsy, treatment and prognosis.

Factors predicting prostatic biopsy Gleason sum under grading.

PURPOSE: We determined clinical factors affecting the under grading of biopsy Gleason sum compared with prostatectomy pathology and developed a model predicting the probability of under grading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of 1,701 patients treated for prostate cancer at our institution between 1988 and 2007 with complete biopsy and pathological data available. Patients with a biopsy Gleason sum of 7 or less were included in our analysis. Cases were categorized as under graded or not under graded by comparing biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason sums. Logistic regression was used to determine the predictors of under grading based on clinical variables (race, age at diagnosis, body mass index, prostate weight, diagnostic prostate specific antigen, biopsy positive-to-total core ratio, maximal cancer percent in positive cores and time from diagnosis to surgery). A nomogram was developed to calculate the probability of under grading. Results were validated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Under grading occurred in 46.6% of our cohort. Significant variables predicting under grading were age at diagnosis, biopsy Gleason sum, diagnostic prostate specific antigen, prostate weight, biopsy positive-to-total core ratio and maximal percent of cancer in cores (p <0.05). Nomogram predictive accuracy was 72.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of Gleason sum under grading can be predicted to a satisfactory level using our nomogram. Predicting under grading would improve patient consulting and identify those who should consider repeat biopsy, ultimately enhancing the accuracy of prostate cancer diagnosis.