Potential Effects of
Age-Specific Reference Ranges
for Serum Prostate-Specific
Antigen

Lankford, Scott P.; Peters, Kristi L.; Elser, Robert C.

doi:10.1159/000475157

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…increasing sensitivity) (17). In that light, the use of age-specific PSA reference ranges has been widely welcome (18–22). However, some have argued that the use of age-specific PSA ranges runs the risk of missing clinically significant cancers in older men and augmenting the rate of unnecessary invasive procedures (and potential complications) in younger men (23).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An alternative method for Frailty Index cut-off points to define frailty categories

Romero-Ortuño

2013

European Geriatric Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose the Frailty Index (FI) is a popular operationalization of frailty. FI cut-off points have been proposed to define, regardless of age, frailty categories with increasing risk. Here, an alternative method is described that takes age into account. Subjects and methods 29,905 participants aged ≥ 50 from the first wave of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. The mean follow-up for mortality was 2.4 years. Curve estimation procedures were carried out between age and a FI, and 50% Confidence Intervals (CI) for the regression mean were derived. As opposed to the usual method (FI ≤ 0.08: non-frail; FI ≥ 0.25: frail; rest: pre-frail), the alternative method defines as ‘fit for their age’ those with a FI below the lower 50% CI; ‘frail for their age’ those with a FI above the upper 50% CI; the rest as ‘average for their age’. Using both methods, the prevalence of the frailty categories and their associated mortality rates were compared for each age group. Results The best fit between age the FI was by cubic regression (R2 = 0.174, P < 0.001). Among those in their 50s, 5% were frail by the usual method (mortality: 5%) and 14% by the alternative (mortality: 2%). Among those in their 90s, 64% were frail by the usual method (mortality: 43%) and 41% by the alternative (mortality: 48%). Conclusion the alternative method may be more sensitive in younger ages and more specific in older ages. This may have implications for population screening.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An alternative method for Frailty Index cut-off points to define frailty categories

Romero-Ortuño

2013

European Geriatric Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For all assays mentioned, the age-specific reference ranges (cutoffs) are applicable. A newer Hybritech assay using chemoluminescence may achieve a minimal detection level of 0.004 ng/ml [31,68].…”

Section: Prostate-specific Antigenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic and prognostic markers for human prostate cancer

et al. 1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND The incidence and mortality of prostate cancer are increasing at alarming rates, partially due to an aging population. Early detection of prostate cancer, using clinically sensitive procedures and/or tumor markers (e.g., prostate‐specific antigen [PSA]), is of prime importance. However, the choice of therapeutic interventions for prostate cancer at the time of diagnosis is largely dependent on clinical and pathologic staging and prediction of the degree of aggressiveness of the disease. Clinically applicable prognostic markers are urgently needed to assist in the selection of optimal therapy. METHODS Literature review of the potential diagnostic and prognostic markers for human prostate cancer. RESULTS Well‐established tissue prognostic indicators, including histologic grade, margin positivity, pathologic stage, intraglandular tumor extent, and DNA ploidy, are not reviewed in this paper. Recently, a number of novel markers have been identified. In this paper, we begin with a discussion of a number of well‐established as well as investigational diagnostic markers and then focus on evaluation of prognostic markers. Diagnostic markers that have prognostic value and investigational prognostic markers are also discussed. CONCLUSIONS Currently, only PSA is utilized for early diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer. A number of potential prognostic markers warrant further investigation. Multimarker analysis is implicated. Prostate 31:264–281, 1997.© 1997 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

show abstract

“…Since the frequency of cancer detection by biopsy was found to be only 22-27% in subjects with a serum PSA level of 4.1-9.9 ng/ml [1,2], a PSA index that enhances the detection of prostate cancer and minimizes the number of unnecessary biopsies has been sought. Several such indices have been proposed, such as PSA density, age-specific reference ranges, and percentage of free PSA [5,9,14,15].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From this observation, age-specific reference ranges of PSA were proposed; this may increase the sensitivity in younger men and the specificity in older men, thus making the PSA level more valuable as a parameter for detecting clinically significant cancers. The usefulness of age-specific reference ranges has been verified [6,7], but is still controversial [8][9][10]. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the relationship of PSA levels to prostate volume and age in a mass screening for prostatic diseases by multiple comparisons using ranks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship of Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels to Prostate Volume and Age in Mass Screening Subjects

Akimoto

Ichikawa²,

Itô³

1998

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the relationship between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and prostate volume and age in a mass screening for prostatic disease, a total of 1,162 examinees from one Japanese prefecture who were over 45 years of age underwent a mass screening for prostatic disease that used the Hybritech (Tandem^®RIA) kit, and the prostate volume was estimated by transabdominal ultrasonography. Differences among several groups of men according to prostate volume and age were examined by multiple comparisons using ranks. When some subjects visited several times, the data of the first visit were adopted only. The total number of individual subjects in this study was 589 men. The multiple comparisons using ranks and 10-year age brackets revealed that the levels of PSA showed significant differences between only two pairs of groups stratified by age. In contrast, the levels of PSA showed significant differences among seven pairs of groups stratified by the prostate volume according to 10-ml brackets. When a logarithmic transformation of the serum levels of PSA was used, the results showed the same tendencies. From the results of the present study, it can be said that the PSA reference range calculated with stratified prostate volume might be more useful in the detection of prostate cancer than that calculated with stratified age.

show abstract

Potential Effects of Age-Specific Reference Ranges for Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen

Cited by 15 publications

References 8 publications

An alternative method for Frailty Index cut-off points to define frailty categories

An alternative method for Frailty Index cut-off points to define frailty categories

Diagnostic and prognostic markers for human prostate cancer

Relationship of Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels to Prostate Volume and Age in Mass Screening Subjects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About