Had this article drawn to my attention from the New England Journal of
Medicine May 27 2004.
"PREVALENCE OF PROSTATE CANCER IN MEN WITH PSA <4.0"
Background The optimal upper limit of the normal range for
prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is unknown. We investigated the
prevalence of prostate cancer among men in the Prostate Cancer
Prevention Trial who had a PSA level of 4.0 ng per milliliter or less.
Methods Of 18,882 men enrolled in the prevention trial, 9459 were
randomly assigned to receive placebo and had an annual measurement of
PSA and a digital rectal examination. Among these 9459 men, 2950 men
never had a PSA level of more than 4.0 ng per milliliter or an
abnormal digital rectal examination, had a final PSA determination,
and underwent a prostate biopsy after being in the study for seven
years.
Results Among the 2950 men (age range, 62 to 91 years), prostate
cancer was diagnosed in 449 (15.2 percent); 67 of these 449 cancers
(14.9 percent) had a Gleason score of 7 or higher. The prevalence of
prostate cancer was 6.6 percent among men with a PSA level of up to
0.5 ng per milliliter, 10.1 percent among those with values of 0.6 to
1.0 ng per milliliter, 17.0 percent among those with values of 1.1 to
2.0 ng per milliliter, 23.9 percent among those with values of 2.1 to
3.0 ng per milliliter, and 26.9 percent among those with values of 3.1
to 4.0 ng per milliliter. The prevalence of high-grade cancers
increased from 12.5 percent of cancers associated with a PSA level of
0.5 ng per milliliter or less to 25.0 percent of cancers associated
with a PSA level of 3.1 to 4.0 ng per milliliter.
Conclusions Biopsy-detected prostate cancer, including high-grade
cancers, is not rare among men with PSA levels of 4.0 ng per
milliliter or less levels generally thought to be in the normal
range.
Magna - 26 Jun 2004 12:39 GMT
Forgot to include the website in the above post if anybody wants to
see for themselves:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/350/22/2239
This makes the PSA test look a bit redundant, doesn't it? Of course
Biopsy is a lot more costly so I can't see the NHS in the UK changing
from their current view of PSA being the "gold standard".
Liz - 26 Jun 2004 23:28 GMT
> Forgot to include the website in the above post if anybody wants to
> see for themselves:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Biopsy is a lot more costly so I can't see the NHS in the UK changing
> from their current view of PSA being the "gold standard".
No, if psa is above 4.0 then you should do biopsy. If it is quite low,
your confidence that you don't have a problem is 85 percent.