Factors associated with false negative and false positive results of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and the impact on patient health: Cohort study protocol

Mari Carmen Bernal-Soriano, Lucy A Parker, Maite López-Garrigos, Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado, Juan P Caballero-Romeu, Luis Gómez-Pérez, Rocío Alfayate-Guerra, María Pastor-Valero, Nuria García, Blanca Lumbreras, Mari Carmen Bernal-Soriano, Lucy A Parker, Maite López-Garrigos, Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado, Juan P Caballero-Romeu, Luis Gómez-Pérez, Rocío Alfayate-Guerra, María Pastor-Valero, Nuria García, Blanca Lumbreras

Abstract

Introduction: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is the main tool for early detection, risk stratification and monitoring of prostate cancer (PCa). However, there are controversies about the use of PSA as a population screening test because of the high potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment associated. The net benefit of screening is unclear and according to the available recommendations, it should be offered to well-informed men with an adequate health status and a life-expectancy of at least 10 years or to men at elevated risk of having PCa. In addition, the factors that influence test results are unclear, as is impact of false positive or negative results on patient health.Our objective is to assess the clinical and analytical factors associated with the presence of false positive and false negative results and the diagnostic/therapeutic process followed by these patients.

Methods and analysis: A prospective observational cohort study will be carried out. We will include a cohort of patients with a positive PSA result (1.081 patients) and a sample of patients with negative results (572 patients); both will be followed for 2 years by reviewing medical records to assess the variables associated with these results, as well as characteristics of patient management after a positive PSA value. We will include those patients with a PSA determination from 2 hospitals in the Valencian Community. Patients who have been previously diagnosed with prostate cancer or who are being followed for previous high PSA values will be excluded.

Discussion: The study will estimate the frequency of false positive and false negative PSA results in routine clinical practice, and allow us to quantify the potential harm caused.

Study registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03978299" title="See in ClinicalTrials.gov">NCT03978299, June 7, 2019.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient selection and recruitment.

References

    1. Fitzmaurice C, Akinyemiju TF, Al Lami FH, et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 29 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol 2018;4:1553–68.
    1. Galceran J, Ameijide A, Carulla M, et al. Cancer incidence in Spain, 2015. Clin Transl Oncol 2017;19:799–825.
    1. OECD. Health at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing. Paris: OECD; 2017. Available from: . Accessed Jan 14, 2019.
    1. Taitt HE. Global trends and prostate cancer: a review of incidence, detection, and mortality as influenced by race, ethnicity, and geographic location. Am J Mens Health 2018;12:1807–23.
    1. Stark JR, Mucci L, Rothman KJ, et al. Screening for prostate cancer remains controversial. BMJ 2009;339:b3601.
    1. Shoag JE, Mittal S, Hu JC. Reevaluating PSA testing rates in the PLCO trial. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1795–6.
    1. Tsodikov A, Gulati R, Heijnsdijk EAM, et al. Reconciling the effects of screening on prostate cancer mortality in the ERSPC and PLCO Trials. Ann Intern Med 2017;167:449–55.
    1. Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Månsson M, et al. A 16-yr Follow-up of the European randomized study of screening for prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2019;76:43–51.
    1. Alpert PF. New evidence for the benefit of prostate-specific antigen screening: data from 400,887 Kaiser permanente patients. Urology 2018;118:119–26.
    1. Ilic D, Djulbegovic M, Jung JH, et al. Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2018;362:k3519.
    1. Hatakeyama S, Yoneyama T, Tobisawa Y, et al. Recent progress and perspectives on prostate cancer biomarkers. Int J Clin Oncol 2017;22:214–21.
    1. Pathirana T, Hayen A, Doust J, et al. Lifetime risk of prostate cancer overdiagnosis in Australia: quantifying the risk of overdiagnosis associated with prostate cancer screening in Australia using a novel lifetime risk approach. BMJ Open 2019;9:e022457.
    1. Contextual Review: Overdiagnosis in Prostate Cancer Screening Decision Models: Prostate Cancer: Screening - US Preventive Services Task Force. 2018. Available from: Accessed 10 May 10, 2019.
    1. Fenton JJ, Weyrich MS, Durbin S, et al. Prostate-specific antigen–based screening for prostate cancer. JAMA 2018;319:1914.
    1. Adami H-O, Kalager M, Valdimarsdottir U, et al. Time to abandon early detection cancer screening. Eur J Clin Invest 2018;e13062.
    1. Martin RM, Donovan JL, Turner EL, et al. Effect of a low-intensity PSA-based screening intervention on prostate cancer mortality: The CAP randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018;319:883–95.
    1. Klotz L. Contemporary approach to active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer. Asian J Urol 2019;6:146.
    1. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:272–7.
    1. Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 2018;319:1901–13.
    1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017;71:618–29.
    1. Mansourian AR, Ghaemi EO, Ahmadi AR, et al. Age related prostate-specific antigen reference range among men in south-east caspian sea. Pakistan J Biol Sci 2007;10:1496–500.
    1. Barocas DA, Grubb R, Black A, et al. Association between race and follow-up diagnostic care after a positive prostate cancer screening test in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial. Cancer 2013;119:2223–32.
    1. Cooney KA, Strawderman MS, Wojno KJ, et al. Age-specific distribution of serum prostate-specific antigen in a community-based study of African-American men. Urology 2001;57:91–6.
    1. Pierce BL. Why are diabetics at reduced risk for prostate cancer? A review of the epidemiologic evidence. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 2012;30:735–43.
    1. Yang HJ, Doo SW, Yang WJ, et al. Which obesity index best correlates with prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen,;1; and lower urinary tract symptoms? Urology 2012;80:187–90.
    1. Hamilton RJ, Goldberg KC, Platz EA, et al. The influence of statin medications on prostate-specific antigen levels. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:1511–8.
    1. Jayalath VH, Ireland C, Fleshner NE, et al. The relationship between metformin and serum prostate-specific antigen levels. Prostate 2016;76:1445–53.
    1. Marberger M, Freedland SJ, Andriole GL, et al. Usefulness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rise as a marker of prostate cancer in men treated with dutasteride: lessons from the REDUCE study. BJU Int 2012;109:1162–9.
    1. Lewis JH, Kilgore ML, Goldman DP, et al. Participation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1383–9.
    1. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:344–9.
    1. Wolf AMD, Wender RC, Etzioni RB, et al. American Cancer Society Guideline for the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Update 2010. Cancer J Clin 2010;60:70–98.
    1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, et al. EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. 2018. Available from: . Accessed May 23, 2019.
    1. West BT, McCabe SE. Alternative approaches to assessing nonresponse bias in longitudinal survey estimates: an application to substance-use outcomes among young adults in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 2017;185:591–600.
    1. Wang JJJ, Bartlett M, Ryan L. On the impact of nonresponse in logistic regression: application to the 45 and Up study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017;17:80.
    1. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 2005;43:1130–9.
    1. Bannay A, Chaignot C, Blotière P-O, et al. The best use of the charlson comorbidity index with electronic health care database to predict mortality. Med Care 2016;54:188–94.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera