Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / February 2005
PSA
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Gut-Buster - 13 Feb 2005 12:20 GMT News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as accurate as a finger up the bum in order to test for prostate cancer. Eg, with a finger, you cant tell if cancer is on the opposite side, not yet large.
Anyone got any comments on PSA? I know they pick up cancer but the word I have heard is that it only does so when blind Freddie would have also done so.
I only ask not to upset people but because though I haven't been diagnosed with it, I am a prime candidate who is unlikely to find out prior to being hospitalised.
Thanks.
George Conklin - 13 Feb 2005 13:10 GMT > News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as accurate > as a finger up the bum in order to test for prostate cancer. Eg, with a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks. What you probably read is one expert's finding that the type of tumors which need to be treated are those which can be felt.
Gut-Buster - 13 Feb 2005 20:34 GMT >> News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as >> accurate [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > What you probably read is one expert's finding that the type of tumors > which need to be treated are those which can be felt. Not really. It was actually logical to me. If there is a small cancer growing on the opposite side of the prostate to where the finger feels, the doctor wont feel it yet that cancer may be terribly aggressive and within 6 months be unfortunate news.
Been a little more on my mind of late. A good friend died of bowel cancer that looks like it started on the prostate. He was on chemo for 5 months on some drug that was fairly new and doing well. He would have the treatment on a Friday so have the whole day off, be sick that day and over the weekend and good to go on Monday. Never lost any hair at all. They had to change his chemicals, though, because apparently 5 months is all you can take or it starts to kill you. So, they put him on other stuff but gave him a month's break in which time he had developed a minor infection he didn't know about inside him. When they put him on the new stuff, the infection took off like a wildfire and that was that. He died New Year's Eve but thankfully was able to spend his last Xmas Day with his family.
Leonard Evens - 13 Feb 2005 22:16 GMT >>>News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as >>>accurate [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > doctor wont feel it yet that cancer may be terribly aggressive and within 6 > months be unfortunate news. You have to try to avoid trying to think these things out ourselves. We all have models in our head about what is going on, but the biology doesn't care what we are thinking. A lot about disease, including prostate cancer, is not well understood and even the models which experts develop from years of study sometimes turn out to be misleading.
What you describe can happen, but I have no idea how often it happens and whether it materially affects the statistics.
> Been a little more on my mind of late. A good friend died of bowel cancer > that looks like it started on the prostate. He was on chemo for 5 months on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a wildfire and that was that. He died New Year's Eve but thankfully was able > to spend his last Xmas Day with his family. Bowel cancer doesn't usually start in the prostate. It can metastsize to different organs, but I thought the usual place it goes to first is the bone. Also, they don't treat prostate cancer, even that which has metastzsized with chemotherapy like the kind you describe. But of course this could be some unusual form of prostate cancer.
Leonard Evens - 13 Feb 2005 14:02 GMT > News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as accurate > as a finger up the bum in order to test for prostate cancer. Eg, with a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have heard is that it only does so when blind Freddie would have also done > so. That is definitely wrong. Indeed the great majority of men treated for prostate cancer these days have had their cancers detected by PSA testing rather than digital rectal examination. PSA testing can detect prostate cancer earlier than a digital rectal examination would. It can do so either because the PSA level is higher than some agreed upon threshhold or because the PSA has been rising too quickly over a two year period. But PSA can rise because of other reasons. Prostatitis, i.e., imflammation of the prostate, can be one cause. Also, as men age, their prostates are likely to enlarge, and that can increase PSA levels. That is probably the main reason for increased PSA in older men.
Not all men with prostate cancer will have an elevated PSA. So urologists recommend both PSA testing and digital rectal examination--the "finger". Each would catch prostate cancers which the other will miss, but in the great majority of cases, the PSA test will find it earlier.
If you are at special risk for prostate cancer, then it would be wise to have regular PSA tests in addition to digital rectal examinations (but see below). If you wait until a doctor can feel something, you run the risk that the cancer will be more advanced by the time it has been found. For example, in my case, the cancer was found by PSA testing using the rapid rise criterion. The risk before surgery that my cancer would be found to have spread beyond the prostate was about 42 percent and the more serious risk that it would be found to have spread to the seminal vesicles or lymph nodes was about 5 percent. Had I waited for the cancer to be felt by the doctor's finger, these risks would have been elevated, depending on the specifics, to 64-87 percent and 9-18 percent.
There is some controversy about the value of PSA testing, but I believe that most of those who are skeptical about its value would agree with others that it makes sense for men who are at special risk for the disease, either because a close male relative had it before age 65-70 or because of ethnic background.
However, it should be noted that prostate cancer usually grows slowly, and for many older men, it is not likely to be a problem. If your life expectancy is less than 10 years, even if you have prostate cancer, it may not be advisable to treat it aggressively, since you will probably die of something else before it gets to be a real problem. Some of the prostate cancers detected by PSA testing may not become a serious problem for 10-15 years. Indeed, some of them may never be a problem no matter how long the patient lives. So it is possible PSA testing may not be worth the effort in your case.
One reason you may be confused about this is that news media recently publicized a study by one physician with a background in prostate cancer claiming something along these lines. He recommended not testing for PSA and waiting until something showed up on digital rectal examination. This is decidedly a minority opinion which few other experts agree with. Indeed, urologists have noted that after the advent of routine PSA testing, the percentage of more aggressive relatively advanced prostate cancers has decreased greatly. Implicit in this man's conclusion is the belief that the great majority of the cancers discovered by PSA testing don't need to be treated at all, so there is nothing to lose by waiting for something to be felt. But the success rate at curing prostate cancer is definitely lower if you wait for that, so this "expert" is being rather fatalistic about the disease, and assuming that those which "really need to be treated", as he sees it, are often incurable anyway.
However, all this is generality, and you are one man. You would be best advised to find a physician you trust and discuss the whole matter with him/her. The physician can take your particular situation into account and advise you about the risks and benefits for you either way.
> I only ask not to upset people but because though I haven't been diagnosed > with it, I am a prime candidate who is unlikely to find out prior to being > hospitalised. See above.
> Thanks. George Conklin - 13 Feb 2005 16:44 GMT > One reason you may be confused about this is that news media recently > publicized a study by one physician with a background in prostate cancer [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > nothing to lose by waiting for something to be felt. But the success > rate at curing prostate cancer is definitely lower Unproven statement Len and you know it. The science has never been done,. as you well know.
Leonard Evens - 13 Feb 2005 21:57 GMT >>One reason you may be confused about this is that news media recently >>publicized a study by one physician with a background in prostate cancer [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Unproven statement Len and you know it. The science has never been > done,. as you well know. Actually your argument also applies to diagnosing prostate cancer by digital rectal examination. No double blind or otherwise suitably randomized study has ever been done to show that life span is increased---your criterion---by doing such examinations. Indeed there are those who would argue not only against PSA testing but also against regular DREs. They would leave all prostate cancer to be discovered through symptoms of advanced prostate cancer.
In any event, the statments I made are supported by lots of evidence. For example, the Partin Table studies I referred to show that after surgery, cancers are generally more advanced in T2 or higher stages. Also, the significant decline in advanced prostate cancer diagnosis after the advent of PSA testing.
As usual you conflate different issues and always come up with the same simple minded response.
George Conklin - 13 Feb 2005 23:11 GMT > >>One reason you may be confused about this is that news media recently > >>publicized a study by one physician with a background in prostate cancer [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > regular DREs. They would leave all prostate cancer to be discovered > through symptoms of advanced prostate cancer. And as I have said, women are 20 years ahead of men because they insisted on studies. We are now what, about 10 years into the studies for men, and no results yet announced. Why? Because so far it is not what tradition wants to hear. As you say, maybe 15 years out something may emerge. Don't know, but you don't either.
Gut-Buster - 13 Feb 2005 20:52 GMT >> News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as >> accurate as a finger up the bum in order to test for prostate cancer. Eg, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > likely to enlarge, and that can increase PSA levels. That is probably the > main reason for increased PSA in older men. Thanks for that info. The stuff I had read said that PSAs did a hell of a lot of false positives and not a small amount of negative results when there should have been positives.
> Not all men with prostate cancer will have an elevated PSA. So urologists > recommend both PSA testing and digital rectal examination--the "finger". > Each would catch prostate cancers which the other will miss, but in the > great majority of cases, the PSA test will find it earlier. I find it more than logical that a cancer on the opposite side of the prostate to where the finger feels would not be found by a finger probe and that worries me a bit. Like most people I hate the finger test but put up with it until I was treated like a hypochondriac for going for them, at which point I stopped going. I had 3 tests in 3 years. Two tests were within 6 months but were not my idea and totally unavoidable as I was bleeding and there was really some worry about what was causing that (nothing to do with prostate or cancer as it turned out and healed of it's own accord thank goodness). When you get told by a doctor that "maybe it is about time for you to grow up" you tend not to go back to a doctor. Strange thing is that he was the same guy who told me I was especially at risk for prostate cancer due to my chronic bacterial prostatitis. In any case, this was the same doctor who ended up in hospital with prostate and bowel cancer himself.
> If you are at special risk for prostate cancer, then it would be wise to > have regular PSA tests in addition to digital rectal examinations (but Never had a PSA test in my life but from what you have posted, I would assume my PSA results would be unusually high anyway with my condition or likely not found as I take a large dose of Saw Palmetto to help with the problem and that is apparently able to mask PSA if I have that right.
> see below). If you wait until a doctor can feel something, you run the > risk that the cancer will be more advanced by the time it has been found. That is why I am unlikely to be found out until in hospital. I have changed doctors since that guy suffered this himself not due to that fact but due to his pronouncement of me as a hypochondriac even though it had been near 2 years since I last saw him.
> For example, in my case, the cancer was found by PSA testing using the > rapid rise criterion. The risk before surgery that my cancer would be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > disease, either because a close male relative had it before age 65-70 or > because of ethnic background. Ethnic background makes a difference? That is something I didnt know. Which race? I know a lot of men around my age who also have chronic prostatitis, have had prostate cancer or are going to see if they have it soon. I am 50 this year. The people I know, like me, are all Caucasian.
> However, it should be noted that prostate cancer usually grows slowly, and > for many older men, it is not likely to be a problem. If your life > expectancy is less than 10 years, even if you have prostate cancer, it > may not be advisable to treat it aggressively, since you will probably die > of something else before it gets to be a real problem. Some of the Thanks for that info. I also have multiple auto immune problems (not AIDS but about 6 others anyway) and the worst problem I have is severe untreated sleep apnea (been through it all since 94 and no help) which is likely to be the cause of my death due to causing a heart attack before 10 years are out. At 10 years old, I thought I would live forever. 40 years later, I wonder if I will live 10 years. Such is life. There are worse ways to die!
> prostate cancers detected by PSA testing may not become a serious problem > for 10-15 years. Indeed, some of them may never be a problem no matter > how long the patient lives. So it is possible PSA testing may not be > worth the effort in your case. However, the catch-22 is that you wont ever know it wasnt worth having PSA until you have it. Correct?
> One reason you may be confused about this is that news media recently > publicized a study by one physician with a background in prostate cancer [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > fatalistic about the disease, and assuming that those which "really need > to be treated", as he sees it, are often incurable anyway. I suppose his conclusions may be a result of his job. I think my slef employment of sticking my fingers inside computers to fix their problems is one that is more desirable to most men. :)
> However, all this is generality, and you are one man. You would be best > advised to find a physician you trust and discuss the whole matter with > him/her. The physician can take your particular situation into account > and advise you about the risks and benefits for you either way. I am not totally sure I could find a doctor I trust any longer. Having been told to grow up by one, you tend to get a bad opinion of the whole lot of them.
Leonard Evens - 13 Feb 2005 22:26 GMT > Thanks for that info. The stuff I had read said that PSAs did a hell of a > lot of false positives and not a small amount of negative results when there > should have been positives. There are a substantial number of false positives. But what that means is that you have a biopsy and the biopsy is negative. The biopsy procedure is quite safe and not particularly painful for most men. It would be better of course if they could reduce the number of false positives, but it is not a disaster to have a biopsy and find it comes out negative.
It is also possible for the PSA to be normal and the patient to have prostate cancer. But there isn't much we can do at present about that. It is the reason why you should also have a digital rectal exam. The two of them together will catch the overwhelmingly majority of prostate cancers.
>>Not all men with prostate cancer will have an elevated PSA. So urologists >>recommend both PSA testing and digital rectal examination--the "finger". [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > he was the same guy who told me I was especially at risk for prostate cancer > due to my chronic bacterial prostatitis. I am not a physician myself, but I've never seen it stated that prostatitis increased the risk of prostate cancer. You should find another doctor and ask his opinion. Don't just take my word for it.
> In any case, this was the same > doctor who ended up in hospital with prostate and bowel cancer himself. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > likely not found as I take a large dose of Saw Palmetto to help with the > problem and that is apparently able to mask PSA if I have that right. You shouldn't be trying to get medical advice over the internet. Find a doctor you trust, make sure you get him to explain it all to you, and then make sure you get regular exams.
>>However, all this is generality, and you are one man. You would be best >>advised to find a physician you trust and discuss the whole matter with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > told to grow up by one, you tend to get a bad opinion of the whole lot of > them. There are plenty of good doctors out there. You shouldn't let your experience with one doctor put you off the whole profession.
MisterSkippy - 13 Feb 2005 14:23 GMT >News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as accurate >as a finger up the bum in order to test for prostate cancer. Eg, with a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Thanks. I think it is one more tool, the advantage being non-invasive. It is most certainly not 100%. For most people the odds of regular PSA and DRE exams detecting possible PCa early enough to allow for long term survival after treatment are pretty good. Some people are going to slip through the diagnostic cracks. These things happen. You do what you can and then you live your life. May I ask why you describe yourself as a prime candidate for PCa? I'm at higher risk than some due to high grade PIN, but I'm taking some steps in an attempt to reduce that.
"When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all." - Justice William O. Douglas
Gut-Buster - 13 Feb 2005 21:03 GMT >>News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as accurate >>as a finger up the bum in order to test for prostate cancer. Eg, with a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > at higher risk than some due to high grade PIN, but I'm taking some > steps in an attempt to reduce that. I'm only going by what the doctor who called me a hypochondriac said to me. He said I was that because of my other medically proven health problems added to my chronic prostatitis. Due to my oxygen level going down to less than 60% every night while asleep, my body is not as good at fighting off problems as the average 50 year old apparently. Add all that to my chronic prostatitis which is bacterial and he says that is me. Seems logical. As an example, if I cut myself and that gets a minor infection then it can take about 6 months before it is gone. When I was in my 20s IF I got an infection (which wasn't likely as I have a slight keloid problem which strangely helped the healing process), a little ointment on it and a day or two later it was gone.
Don't take all this the wrong way. I honestly don't go through life worrying if a meteor is about to hit me on the head. I realise I am unemployable as I have to sleep every afternoon and even on my best days am not as good as a 20 year old physically but in spite of all that and 7 years of my life where I was unable to do much more than get out of bed, I got myself back to the position of being able to make a small income. I cant live off it but it helps. I just don't give in but while saying that, I want to be prepared. If I were to be told I had prostate cancer and my chances of survival were less than favourable, I would likely not have much time to get things together. If I knew I had it and treatment could give me another 6 months then I WOULD have time to tidy things up.
I just want to be prepared for anything so my wife wont have extra stuff on her plate.
c palmer - 15 Feb 2005 10:42 GMT From: D-D-D-DONT.stare@me.privates (Gut-Buster)
Anyone got any comments on PSA? I know they pick up cancer but the word I have heard is that it only does so when blind Freddie would have also done so. I only ask not to upset people but because though I haven't been diagnosed with it, I am a prime candidate who is unlikely to find out prior to being hospitalised. Thanks. =================
hi - i'll stay with the facts.
it is a fact that the prostate cell is the ONLY cell in the human body that produces psa.
it is a fact that the psa test checks for a particular enzyme the prostate produces.
it is a fact that in order for ANY test to be accurate, it must pass two standards. validity and is it dependable. is the test producing a valid test and check for what it is intended for? the answer is yes. is it dependable in the fact that it will produce the same result time and time again. that answer is yes.
so, what do you have. you have the fact that the prostate produces psa, the psa checks for psa.
ok, does that prove that you have prostate cancer. NO!!
then what does it prove??? it proves that something is going on inside your body and it needs to be investigated. much like the check engine like on the dashboard on a car.
it could be used as a warning sign and it is a tool to be used to help dx the final outcome.
with the help of the DRE, and the psa, one gets more input and a better idea than if one was to rely on just one test alone.
now....does it work? in MY particular case, i would have to say yes !!!
i have a neg. DRE up to 8 hours before my surgery, yet the psa test was the alarm that triggered the biopsy and found that i have cancer in both lobes and was T2c.
now, someone can say, hogwash on the psa. hey, everyone is entitled to what they believe.
~ curtis
knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional "Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so." http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
ron - 15 Feb 2005 19:25 GMT c palmer wrote...snip...
> it is a fact that the prostate cell is the ONLY cell in the human body > that produces psa. Hi Curtis...This doesn't affect the points you were making, but I thought you'd be interested in knowing that other organs do produce small amounts of PSA. The name, "PSA", was given before tests were available with the sensitivity necessary to detect these small amounts of PSA. Some women produce enough PSA that it can be detetcted with the ultrasensitive PSA test, and, of course, they don't have prostates...Best wishes and good health, Ron
c palmer - 15 Feb 2005 23:18 GMT From: oitbso@yahoo.com (ron) c palmer wrote...snip... it is a fact that the prostate cell is the ONLY cell in the human body that produces psa.
Hi Curtis...This doesn't affect the points you were making, but I thought you'd be interested in knowing that other organs do produce small amounts of PSA. The name, "PSA", was given before tests were available with the sensitivity necessary to detect these small amounts of PSA. Some women produce enough PSA that it can be detetcted with the ultrasensitive PSA test, and, of course, they don't have prostates...Best wishes and good health, Ron ====================hi ron - what i was pointing out was in the male body only.
you are right on what you said on the female body.
here's an article with references to what you are saying.
Prostate-Specific Antigen in Female Serum, a Potential New Marker of Androgen Excess Dimitrios N. Melegos, He Yu, Mala Ashok, Chun Wang, Frank Stanczyk and Eleftherios P. Diamandis Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (D.N.M., H.Y., E.P.D.), Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X5; Department of Clinical Biochemistry (D.N.M., H.Y., E.P.D.), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1L5, Canada; and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (M.A., C.W., F.S.), Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California 90033 Address correspondence and requests for reprints to: Dr. E. P. Diamandis, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 600 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5G 1X5. Abstract
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is present at very low concentrations in female serum, but it can now be measured with highly sensitive immunoassays. We have found that in female tissues the PSA gene is regulated by steroid hormones through the action of steroid hormone receptors. Thus, we examined whether female serum PSA is associated with hyperandrogenic states. Serum PSA levels were compared between 22 hirsute women with a Ferriman-Gallwey score higher than 8 and 50 women without hirsutism. The results show that PSA levels were higher in hirsute women in comparison with controls. In hirsute women, levels of PSA and 3-androstanediol glucuronide (3-AG), a specific metabolite of androgen action, showed a significant positive correlation, whereas PSA and 3-AG showed a significant negative correlation with patient age. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that 3-AG was a slightly better marker of androgen excess than PSA. We conclude that female serum PSA may be a new biochemical marker of androgen action in females.
PROSTATE-SPECIFIC antigen (PSA) is a 33-KDa serine protease with chymotrypsin-like enzymatic activity (1). In males, PSA is produced by the prostate gland (2), and it is present in prostatic tissue, seminal plasma, and male serum (3). Small amounts of PSA also can be produced by the periurethral glands, and therefore, urine contains detectable levels of PSA (4). PSA concentration in male serum is a valuable tumor marker for diagnosis and management of prostate cancer (5). PSA production in the prostate is under the control of steroid hormones. Androgens up-regulate the expression of the PSA gene through the androgen receptor (6, 7). Initially, PSA was believed to be completely absent from all female tissues and fluids. However, PSA has been detected recently in some female tissues (including breast, ovarian, and endometrial tissues) and body fluids (amniotic fluid, milk, and breast cyst fluid) (8). The presence of PSA in these female tissues seems to be associated closely with steroid hormone regulation, especially androgens, glucocorticoids, and progestins (9). This was also demonstrated using a tissue culture system and the breast carcinoma cell line T-47D (10). Indirect in vivo evidence was provided by two case reports (11, 12). Using conventional PSA assays with a detection limit of 0.10.01 ng/mL, PSA is detectable in less than 10% of female sera (13), but when a more sensitive PSA assay is used (detection limit 0.001 ng/mL), more than 50% of female sera have detectable PSA levels (14). Among women who have high levels of androgens, relatively high levels of serum PSA should be expected if PSA production in women is under the regulation of androgens. One of the manifestations of androgen excess in women is idiopathic hirsutism. In most instances, the source of androgen excess in these women is neither adrenal (e.g. dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate) nor ovarian (e.g. testosterone) but peripheral. The most important peripheral sources of androgen production are sexual and nonsexual skin tissues where testosterone is converted to the potent androgen, dihydrotestosterone (DHT). The latter androgen is responsible for androgen action. Based on the above considerations, we speculated that serum PSA levels in hirsute females may be high and that the measurement of serum PSA in these women may have some clinical implications. In this study, we measured PSA levels in female serum with a highly sensitive PSA assay and compared the levels between hirsute and apparently healthy women. Because 3-androstanediol glucuronide (3-AG) is a major metabolite of DHT and it can be measured easily in serum, we have conducted comparisons between PSA and 3-AG in serum of hirsute women.
We collected, with informed consent, serum specimens from 22 hirsute women and 16 nonhirsute women from the same geographical location in California. The population consisted mainly of Caucasians and Hispanics. Additionally, we collected another 34 serum samples from healthy blood donors in Toronto, Canada. The clinical diagnosis of hirsutism was based on the hirsutism scale of Ferriman and Gallwey, as described elsewhere (15). A score of 8 or more indicates clinical hirsutism. Control subjects had a score less than 8. Of the hirsute women, 20 had a score between 8 and 24 with a mean ± SD of 13 ± 4.8. The score was not available for two hirsute women. Other available information pertaining to the hirsute women included: 1) serum levels of total testosterone, which was measured in 14 patients (range: 0.121.53 ng/mL; mean ± SD, 0.85 ± 0.44 ng/mL); 2) ovulation, which was available for 21 patients (17 anovulating and 4 ovulating women); and 3) body weight, which was available for 21 patients (11 obese and 10 nonobese women). PSA and androstanediol glucuronide were measured in serum by previously described methods (16, 17). A sandwich-type time-resolved immunofluorometric assay was used to quantify PSA. The lowest detection limit of the assay is 1 pg/mL, and the coefficient of variation (for between-run precision), at levels of 2 pg/mL or higher, is less than 16%. Each serum sample was measured in triplicate. The DHT metabolite, 3-AG, was measured by direct RIA using reagents obtained from a commercial 125I-androstanediol glucuronide RIA kit (Diagnostic Systems Laboratories, Webster, Texas). This kit was validated extensively in the laboratory of Dr. F. Stanczyk, Los Angeles, California (17). The differences in serum PSA and age between cases and controls were compared with the Wilcoxon test and the ANOVA test. The relationships between PSA and age or 3-AG were examined with the Spearman rank correlation coefficient test when untransformed PSA values were used. The Pearson correlation test was used when logarithmic PSA values were employed. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed for both PSA and 3-AG using the cutoff levels at 20%, 50%, 70%, and 90% percentile distributions of their values among all subjects. The start and end points of the curve were hypothetical, i.e. assuming the curve starts at 100% specificity and 0% sensitivity and ends at 0% specificity and 100% sensitivity.
Table 1 shows the distributions of age, PSA, and 3-AG among the three patient groups. The mean ages and median PSA levels between the control groups 1 and 2 were not significantly different (P = 0.26 for age and P = 0.28 for PSA), and therefore, the two control groups were combined together for comparison with the patient group. The mean ages were not significantly different between patients (29.6 yr) and combined control groups (30.7 yr) (P = 0.48).
Table 1. The distributions of PSA, age, and 3-AG in the patients and controls The distribution of PSA values among all the women studied was positively skewed, but the 3-AG values were normally distributed with an almost identical mean and median. The average levels of PSA (median) and 3-AG (mean) were significantly higher in hirsute women than in normal women (P = 0.001 for PSA, Wilcoxon Rank Sum test; and P = 0.002 for 3-AG, one-way ANOVA). PSA values were positively correlated with 3-AG values (Fig. 1). PSA and 3-AG values were negatively correlated with patient's age (Table 2, Fig. 2, and data not shown). The regression equation of 3-AG levels (y) vs. age (x) was: y = -0.22x + 11.6, r = -0.58, P < 0.001. View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window] Figure 1. Correlation between 3-AG and log (PSA) for 32 patients' sera. The Pearson r = 0.58 (P < 0.001). The regression equation is y 0.17x - 0.20. The values of PSA before logarithmic transformation are in pg/mL.
Table 2. Correlations among PSA, 3-AG, and patient
Figure 2. Correlation between log (PSA) and age for 72 patients' sera. The Pearson r = -0.37 (P = 0.001). The regression equation is y -0.040x + 1.57. The values of PSA before logarithmic transformation are in pg/mL. The distributions of logarithmic PSA and 3-AG between patients and controls are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Although patients tended to have higher PSA and 3-AG than controls, there were still many patients who had values overlapping with those of controls. The ROC curve was slightly better for 3-AG compared with that for PSA, but none of the markers could provide both more than 80% sensitivity and specificity at any single cutoff point (Fig. 5).
Figure 3. Distribution of log (PSA) values between patients (dotted bars) and control subjects (hatched bars). For discussion, see text.
Figure 4. Distribution of 3-AG values between patients (dotted bars) and control subjects (hatched bars). For discussion, see text.
Figure 5. Receiver operating characteristic curves for PSA () and 3-AG ()at various cutoff points shown in brackets. Units are in pg/mL for PSA and ng/mL for 3-AG. Based on the limited number of patients who had testosterone data, we found that serum testosterone levels tended to be positively correlated with 3-AG (Pearson r of 0.62, P = 0.02) and PSA (Spearman r of 0.47, P 0.09) and were negatively correlated with age (Pearson r of -0.53, P 0.05). Obese women tended to have a higher hirsutism score than nonobese women (median scores 16 vs. 10, respectively, P = 0.01). However, using both Wilcoxon rank sum testing and one-way ANOVA, we could not find any significant associations between either obesity or ovulation and age, 3-AG, PSA, or testosterone (data not shown).
PSA was thought to be absent from female tissues until our recent finding of its presence in female breast tissue. Our studies have demonstrated that the female breast is one of the female tissues that is capable of producing PSA (9, 11). Tissue culture experiments indicate that the production of PSA by steroid hormone receptor-positive breast cancer cells is under the control of steroid hormones, including androgens and progestins (10). Oral contraceptives increase PSA production in breast tissue (11). Amniotic fluid and milk contain significant amounts of PSA, and the levels of PSA in these fluids change with gestational age or postdelivery time (18, 19). Serum PSA levels are significantly higher in pregnant women in comparison with nonpregnant women (18). Taken together, these data suggest that PSA is expressed in breast and possibly other female tissues and that PSA expression is under the regulation of steroid hormones, especially androgens and progestins. The major difference in PSA expression between men and women is that the breasts express relatively low levels compared with the levels of male prostate. Because of the relationship between PSA production and androgen regulation, we hypothesized that PSA may be a marker of androgen action in women. Women with higher levels of androgen may have higher levels of PSA compared with women with normal levels of androgen. Hirsutism represents a state of androgen excess in women. In this study, we report significantly elevated serum PSA levels in hirsute women compared with normal women. The source of androgen excess in patients with idiopathic hirsutism is considered to be increased peripheral conversion of androstanediol and testosterone to DHT via the pivotal enzyme, 5-reductase. Although DHT is the most potent endogenous androgen, it is considered to be a poor circulating marker of androgenicity. Instead, the conjugated metabolite of DHT, namely 3-AG, is considered to be an excellent serum marker of 5-reductase activity and peripheral androgen action and of the clinical manifestations of hirsutism (20). For these reasons, we chose 3-AG as a serum marker for determining the relationship of peripheral hyperandrogenism to circulating PSA levels. Comparison of serum PSA with 3-AG for the diagnosis of hirsutism showed that PSA did not provide better sensitivity and specificity than did 3-AG. The two markers correlate significantly with each other. An inverse correlation between age and PSA or 3-AG was observed in these women. We do not as yet know which female tissue produces and releases PSA into the circulation in hirsute women. The most likely candidate is the female breast because this tissue has steroid hormone receptors and is capable of producing high levels of PSA, especially after steroid hormone stimulation (11). Nevertheless, our data show that only a relatively small proportion of patients with hirsutism produces more than 10 pg/mL PSA (Fig. 3). In summary, we found that serum PSA levels were increased significantly in women with hirsutism. PSA levels in female serum were positively correlated with serum 3-AG and were inversely correlated with patient age. Therefore, PSA in serum can now be regarded as another biochemical marker of androgen action in female peripheral tissues. Received June 11, 1996. Revised September 18, 1996. Revised November 8, 1996. Accepted November 12, 1996.
McCormack RT, Rittenhouse HG, Finlay JA, et al. 1995 Molecular forms of prostate specific antigen and the human kallikrein gene family: a new era. Urology. 45:729744.[CrossRef][Medline] Wang MC, Valenzuela LA, Murphy GP, Chu TM. 1979 Purification of human prostate-specific antigen. Invest Urol. 17:159163.[Medline] Papsidero LD, Wang MC, Valenzuela LA, Murphy GP, Chue TM. 1980 A prostate antigen in sera of prostatic cancer patients. Cancer Res. 40:24282432.[Abstract] Iwakiri J, Granbois K, Wehner N, Graves HC, Stamey T. 1993 An analysis of urinary prostate specific antigen before and after radical prostatectomy: evidence for secretion of prostate specific antigen by the periurethral glands. J Urol. 149:783786.[Medline] Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, et al. 1991 Measurement of prostate specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 324;11561161. Luke MC, Coffey DS. 1994 Human androgen receptor binding to the androgen response element of prostate specific antigen. J Androl. 15:4151.[Abstract/Free Full Text] Young CY-F, Montgomery BT, Andrews PE, Qiu S, Bilhartz DL, Tindall DJ. 1991 Hormonal regulation of prostate specific antigen messenger RNA in human prostatic adenocarcinoma cell line LNCap. Cancer Res. 51:37483752. Diamandis EP, Yu H. 1995 New biological functions of prostate specific antigen? J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 80:15151517.[Medline] Yu H, Diamandis EP, Sutherland DJA. 1994 Immunoreactive prostate specific antigen levels in female and male breast tumors and its association with steroid hormone receptors and patient age. Clin Biochem. 27:7579.[CrossRef][Medline] Yu H, Diamandis EP, Zarghami N, Grass L. 1994 Induction of prostate specific antigen production by steroids and tamoxifen in breast cancer cell lines. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 32:291300.[Medline] Yu H, Diamandis EP, Monne M, Croce CM. 1995 Oral contraceptive-induced expression of prostate specific antigen in the female breast. J Biol Chem. 270:66156618.[Abstract/Free Full Text] Yu H, Diamandis EP, Levesque M, Asa S, Monne M, Croce CM. 1995 Expression of the prostate-specific antigen gene by a primary ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res. 55:16031606.[Abstract] Yu H, Diamandis EP. 1995 Measurement of serum prostate specific antigen levels in females and in prostatectomized males with an ultrasensitive immunoassay technique. J Urol. 153:10041008.[Medline] Diamandis EP, Yu H, Melegos DN. 1996 Ultrasensitive prostate specific antigen assays and their clinical application. Clin Chem. 42:853857.[Free Full Text] Hatch R, Rosenfield RL, Kiru MH, Tredway D. 1981 Hirsutism: implications, etiology, and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 140:815830.[Medline] Ferguson RA, Yu H, Kalyvas M, Zammit S, Diamandis EP. 1996 Ultrasensitive detection of prostate specific antigen by a new time resolved immunofluorometric assay and the Immulite immunochemiluminescent third generation assay: potential applications in prostate and breast cancers. Clin Chem. 42:675684.[Abstract/Free Full Text] Norang R, Tran T, Savjani G. 1994 Solid phase radioimmunoassay kit for the quantitative measurement of androstanediol glucuronide in unextracted serum or plasma. Clin Chem. 40:1132 (Abstract). Melegos DN, Yu H, Allen LC, Diamandis EP. 1996 Prostate specific antigen in amniotic fluid of normal and abnormal pregnancies. Clin Biochem. 29:555562.[CrossRef][Medline] Yu H, Diamandis EP. 1995 Prostate specific antigen in milk of lactating women. Clin Chem. 41:5458.[Abstract/Free Full Text] Horton R, Lobo R. 1986 Peripheral androgen metabolism and the role of androstanediol glucuronide. In: Horton R, Lobo RA, eds. Clinics in endocrinology and metabolism, Vol 15. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 293306. This article has been cited by other articles: H. Aksoy, F. Akcay, Z. Umudum, A. K. Yildirim, and R. Memisogullari Changes of PSA Concentrations in Serum and Saliva of Healthy Women during the Menstrual Cycle Ann. Clin. Lab. Sci., January 1, 2002; 32(1): 31 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] A. SULLI, C. PIZZORNI, R. SCOTTO-BUSATO, S. ACCARDO, and M. CUTOLO Androgenizing Effects of Cyclosporin A in Rheumatoid Arthritis Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., June 22, 1999; 876(1): 391 - 396. [Full Text] C. V. Obiezu, A. Scorilas, A. Magklara, M. H. Thornton, C. Y. Wang, F. Z. Stanczyk, and E. P. Diamandis Prostate-Specific Antigen and Human Glandular Kallikrein 2 Are Markedly Elevated in Urine of Patients with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., April 1, 2001; 86(4): 1558 - 1561. [Abstract] [Full Text] H. F. Escobar-Morreale, S. Ávila, and J. Sancho Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Concentrations Are Not Useful for Monitoring the Treatment of Hirsutism with Oral Contraceptive Pills J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., July 1, 2000; 85(7): 2488 - 2492. [Abstract] [Full Text] C. Negri, F. Tosi, R. Dorizzi, A. Fortunato, G. G. Spiazzi, M. Muggeo, R. Castello, and P. Moghetti Antiandrogen Drugs Lower Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Levels in Hirsute Subjects: Evidence That Serum PSA Is a Marker of Androgen Action in Women J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., January 1, 2000; 85(1): 81 - 84. [Abstract] [Full Text] V. H. H. Goh Breast Tissues in Transsexual Women-A Nonprostatic Source of Androgen Up-Regulated Production of Prostate-Specific Antigen J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., September 1, 1999; 84(9): 3313 - 3315. [Abstract] [Full Text] H. F. Escobar-Morreale, J. Serrano-Gotarredona, S. Avila, J. Villar-Palasí, C. Varela, and J. Sancho The Increased Circulating Prostate-Specific Antigen Concentrations in Women with Hirsutism Do Not Respond to Acute Changes in Adrenal or Ovarian Function J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., July 1, 1998; 83(7): 2580 - 2584. [Abstract] [Full Text] C. López-Otín and E. P. Diamandis Breast and Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of Common Epidemiological, Genetic, and Biochemical Features Endocr. Rev., August 1, 1998; 19(4): 365 - 396. [Abstract] [Full Text] C. V. Obiezu, E. J. Giltay, A. Magklara, A. Scorilas, L. J.G. Gooren, H. Yu, D. J.C. Howarth, and E. P. Diamandis Serum and Urinary Prostate-specific Antigen and Urinary Human Glandular Kallikrein Concentrations Are Significantly Increased after Testosterone Administration in Female-to-Male Transsexuals Clin. Chem., June 1, 2000; 46(6): 859 - 862. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] D. N. Melegos and E. P. Diamandis Is Prostate-Specific Antigen Present in Female Serum? Clin. Chem., March 1, 1998; 44(3): 691 - 692. [Full Text] [PDF] G. M. Lambert-Messerlian, J. A. Canick, D. N. Melegos, and E. P. Diamandis Increased concentrations of prostate-specific antigen in maternal serum from pregnancies affected by fetal Down syndrome Clin. Chem., February 1, 1998; 44(2): 205 - 208. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional "Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so." http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
ron - 16 Feb 2005 00:16 GMT c palmer wrote...snip...
> hi ron - what i was pointing out was in the male body only. Curtis...Even the male body can produce small amounts of PSA outside the prostate...Ron
Int J Cancer. 2005 Jan 10;113(2):290-7. Related Articles, Links
Expression of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and human glandular kallikrein 2 (hK2) in ileum and other extraprostatic tissues.
Olsson AY, Bjartell A, Lilja H, Lundwall A.
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, University Hospital UMAS, S-205 02 Malmo, Sweden. Yvonne.Olsson@klkemi.mas.lu.se
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a widely used marker for prostate cancer. In the literature, there are reports of nonprostatic expression of PSA that potentially can affect early diagnosis. However, the results are scattered and inconclusive, which motivated us to conduct a more comprehensive study of the tissue distribution of PSA and the closely related protein human glandular kallikrein 2 (hK2). RT-PCR, in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry were used to detect expression of both PSA and hK2 in secretory epithelial cells of trachea, thyroid gland, mammary gland, salivary gland, jejunum, ileum, epididymis, seminal vesicle and urethra, as well as in Leydig cells, pancreatic exocrine glands and epidermis. Immunometric measurements revealed that the concentration of PSA in nonprostatic tissues represents less than 1% of the amount in normal prostate. Pronounced expression of PSA was detected in the Paneth cells in ileum, which prompted us to compare functional parameters of PSA in ileum and prostate. We found that in homogenates from these 2 tissues, PSA manifested equivalent amidolytic activity and capacity to form complexes with protease inhibitors in blood in vitro. Thus, PSA released from sources other than the prostate may add to the plasma pool of this protein, but given the lower levels detected from those sites, it is unlikely that nonprostatic PSA normally can interfere with the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Nevertheless, this risk should not be neglected as it may be of clinical significance under certain circumstances.
Ken - 17 Feb 2005 21:45 GMT PSA saved my life... and maybe not. Nine years ago, after I ignored a slowly-rising PSA for several years, it hit 6.0, and my doctor insisted I get a biopsy. It was positive, and I had the surgery a couple months later. Pathology reported malignant tumors at the capsule wall. My PSA stayed below 1.0 for a few years. That's the good news.
Five years later, my PSA was 4.0. I got a 90-day shot of Lupron and 90-day supply of Casodex. A month later, my PSA was 0.3, but the side effects were so debilitating, I stopped the Casodex after 30 days.
About 18 months ago, my PSA was back up to 7 something. I went to Dana-Farber for a consult, because I had read in an US-TOO newsletter that they were doing a Celebrex trial to lower PSA. I couldn't get into the study because of my prior medications. They recommended hormone therapy again.
My PSA rose to 9.9, and my doctor agreed to put me on Celebrex, since I had arthritis anyway. Also, I started taking green tea and a lot of supplements. A few months later, I went to M.D. Anderson as a last-resort consult. They recommended the same thing as everyone else, the dreaded hormone therapy. While I was there, I got a PSA test. A week later, they faxed me the results... 6.3. A few days later, I met with my urologist who said 6.3 was too far from 9.9 to be believable. He scheduled me for radiation to help reduce gynaecomastia from the hormone therapy I would be starting.
A month later, I was in the radiologist's office, and I brought up that strange 6.3 PSA. He agreed with my urologist that it couldn't be right. I told him that since I was at the hospital, it wouldn't hurt to get one last PSA before giving up. He agreed, and rescheduled the radiation. When I got home and played back my messages, I heard him yell, "IT'S FIVE POINT ONE THREE!!!"
So... my PSA went from 9.9 in April to 5.13 in July. The ONLY medication I was taking was Celebrex, and a lot of supplements!
Now, seven months later, it's up again, leveling at 8.8 to 9.3. Because of the serious potential risks of Celebrex, I stopped it a couple days ago. Since I started the Celebrex and supplements at about the same time, we don't really know if it had any affect. After a month without Celebrex, we'll see what the next PSA looks like.
Meanwhile... over the past five years, I have had three bone scans (most recently, last week), two CT scans, an MRI and five or six chest X-rays. No cancer has EVER been detected, and I feel fine. Is the PSA the be-all and end-all of cancer detetection? If the PSA continues to hold at 9, or slowly climbs, is it worth the horrors of hormone therapy if it's the only indicator?
ron - 17 Feb 2005 23:10 GMT Ken wrote...snip...
> So... my PSA went from 9.9 in April to 5.13 in July. The ONLY > medication I was taking was Celebrex, and a lot of supplements! Any hormonal supplements or Propecia for hair regrowth?
> Meanwhile... over the past five years, I have had three bone scans > (most recently, last week), two CT scans, an MRI and five or six chest > X-rays. No cancer has EVER been detected, and I feel fine. Is the PSA > the be-all and end-all of cancer detetection? If the PSA continues to > hold at 9, or slowly climbs, is it worth the horrors of hormone therapy > if it's the only indicator? These tests don't typically show "hot-spots" until the PSA is up in the double-digit range.
It sounds long you have a lot of post-surgery PSA data. If you drop out the points affected by hormone therapy, can you calculate a PSA doubling time?
Was the MRI endorectal? If so, was any residual prostate noticed?
How old are you and what was your clinical / pathological staging? ...best wishes and good health, Ron
Ken - 21 Feb 2005 21:07 GMT > Any hormonal supplements or Propecia for hair regrowth? Nope. So far, so good in the hair department.
> If you drop out the points affected by hormone therapy, can you > calculate a PSA doubling time? How do I determine which readings were affected? My PSA after Lupron+Casodex was 0.3, on 4/29/02. On 1/17/03 it was 5.2 and climbed to a high of 9.9 by 4/12/04. Then it dropped down to 5.17 on 7/6/04 and has stayed between 8.3 and 9.2 (8.8 most recently) since 9/2/04.
> Was the MRI endorectal? If so, was any residual prostate noticed? No. They said no prostate was visible, but the "prostate bed" is there.
> How old are you and what was your clinical / pathological staging? I was 62 two months ago. When I had the surgery, almost exactly nine years ago, my PSA was 12 and a Gleason 7.
I haven't seen any recent data about Celebrex relative to cancer. Have you? Here's the intro of the article that got me interested:
"April 24, 2003 Researchers at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center have, for the first time, identified the molecular pathway by which a commonly prescribed arthritis medication inhibits the growth of cancer.
Before this study, scientists had linked use of celecoxib capsules (commonly known as Celebrex) to prevention of cancer, but the way in which the medication acted in cancer cells was unknown.
Now, investigators have found that celecoxib capsules stop a key transcription factor known as Sp1 from turning on multiple genes in cancer cells known to be associated with cancer growth. One of those genes triggers production of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), the predominant angiogenic factor that leads blood vessels to grow to feed tumors.
The findings were published in the Proceedings for the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
"Our results provide a novel molecular mechanism for the antitumor activity of celecoxib," said Keping Xie, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of gastrointestinal medical oncology.
Xie added that although the study was conducted in models of pancreatic cancer, the results likely describe how celecoxib interferes with development of a number of common cancers that all involve the Sp1/VEGF pathway."
ron - 21 Feb 2005 22:47 GMT > > Any hormonal supplements or Propecia for hair regrowth? > > Nope. So far, so good in the hair department. So that's not affecting the PSA
> > If you drop out the points affected by hormone therapy, can you > > calculate a PSA doubling time? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > on 7/6/04 and has stayed between 8.3 and 9.2 (8.8 most recently) since > 9/2/04. Over this relatively short time it might be hard to determine when the HT stopped affecting the PSA. It seems to be moving around a lot making doubling time calculation problematical.
> > Was the MRI endorectal? If so, was any residual prostate noticed? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I was 62 two months ago. When I had the surgery, almost exactly nine > years ago, my PSA was 12 and a Gleason 7. So with your stats and relatively young age you can't just "wait it out."
> I haven't seen any recent data about Celebrex relative to cancer. Have > you? Here's the intro of the article that got me interested: For men who have systemic disease and practice intermittent hormonal therapy, it seems to slow the PSA rise when they come off of hormone therapy.
Have you had your PAP (Prostatic Acid Phosphatase) measured to see if the disease is systemic? If it is then hormones and / or mild chemo are the only mainstream treatments that I am aware of. Maybe it's time to start working with a prostate cancer oncologist...Best wishes and good health, Ron
> "April 24, 2003 > Researchers at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > development of a number of common cancers that all involve the Sp1/VEGF > pathway." Stephen Jordan - 18 Feb 2005 00:47 GMT On February 17, Ken wrote, in pertinent part:
> .............................................................. Because > of the serious potential risks of Celebrex, I stopped it a couple days > ago. Since I started the Celebrex and supplements at about the same > time, we don't really know if it had any affect. After a month without > Celebrex, we'll see what the next PSA looks like. The Celebrex risk, if it really exists and is not an artifact of statistical flimflam, begins at very high doses, >400 mg. There is "no apparent effect with doses equal to or less than 200 mg." See: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7661734
Let's not fall victim to the Chicken Little Syndrome.
Regards,
Steve J
D M R Taplin - 25 Feb 2005 15:54 GMT My very limited patient-based experience is that PSA is one of the best early indicators of PCa --- along with DRE and Biopsy/Glesson --- and at 4.5ng/ml one should explore treatment. In February 2003 I went to www.rcog.com in Atlanta USA --- with PSA of 6.1ng/ml; Volume 25ml; Gleeson 6; Stage T1c --- with what I think are good results via ProstRcision -- and no side effects. Key is to catch early and PSA is best measure of this --- with new work indicating nano-studies can detect even earlier. This is just my own experience and everyone must investigate themselves for their own situation to be sure. I did 3-6 months work to arrive at my own decision.
Minerva
> News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as accurate > as a finger up the bum in order to test for prostate cancer. Eg, with a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks.
|
|
|