Studies focus on diagnostic testing and treatment for prostate cancer

2000 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Testing

scholarly journals Technology Diffusion and Diagnostic Testing for Prostate Cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 190 (5) ◽  
pp. 1715-1720 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian R. Schroeck ◽  
Samuel R. Kaufman ◽  
Bruce L. Jacobs ◽  
Ted A. Skolarus ◽  
David C. Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Technology Diffusion ◽  
Diagnostic Testing

scholarly journals Patterns of Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing and Prostate Biopsies During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
pp. 1028-1033
Author(s):  
Harvey W. Kaufman ◽  
Zhen Chen ◽  
Justin K. Niles ◽  
Jeff Radcliff ◽  
Yuri Fesko
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Prostate Biopsies ◽  
Psa Testing ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Antigen Testing

PURPOSE This study examined changes in prostate disease screening (prostatic-specific antigen [PSA] testing), prostate biopsy testing, and prostate cancer diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic through December 2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS This analysis included test results from men ≥ 40 years, without prior International Classification of Diseases-10 record of prostate cancer since January 2016, who received PSA or prostate biopsy testing at Quest Diagnostics during January 2018-December 2020. Monthly trends were evaluated for three periods: prepandemic (January 2018-February 2020), early-pandemic (March-May 2020), and late-pandemic (June-December 2020). RESULTS Meeting inclusion criteria were 16,365,833 PSA and 48,819 prostate biopsy results. The average monthly number of PSA tests declined from 465,187 prepandemic to 295,786 early-pandemic (36.4% decrease; P = .01) before rebounding to 483,374 (3.9% increase; P = .23) late-pandemic. The monthly average number of PSA results ≥ 50 ng/mL (23,356; 0.14% of all PSA results) dipped from 659 prepandemic to 506 early-pandemic (23.2% decrease; P = .02) and rebounded to 674 late-pandemic (2.3% increase; P = .65). The average monthly number of prostate biopsy results decreased from 1,453 prepandemic to 903 early-pandemic (37.9% decrease; P = .01) before rebounding to 1,190 late-pandemic (18.1% decrease; P = .01). The average monthly number for Gleason score ≥ 8 (6,241; 12.8% of all prostate biopsies) declined from 182 prepandemic to 130 early-pandemic (28.6% decrease; P = .02) and decreased to 161 late-pandemic (11.5% decrease; P = .02). CONCLUSION The findings suggest that a substantial number of prostate screening opportunities and cancer diagnoses have been missed. Efforts are needed to bring such patients back for screening and diagnostic testing and to restore appropriate care for non–COVID-19–related medical conditions.

scholarly journals Promise and Challenge: Markers of Prostate Cancer Detection, Diagnosis and Prognosis

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. A. Troyer ◽  
J. Mubiru ◽  
R. J. Leach ◽  
S. L. Naylor
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Fundamental Problem ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Additional Treatment ◽  
Nucleotide Polymorphisms ◽  
Diagnosis And Prognosis ◽  
Psa Testing ◽  
The U.S

Approximately 1 man in 6 will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during his life lifetime, and over 200,000 men in the U.S. are diagnosed with prostate cancer annually. Since the widespread adoption of PSA testing, about 60–70% of men at risk in the U.S. have had a blood test for prostate cancer. With this, prostate cancer death rates have decreased, yet only slightly. Thirty thousand men still die each year from this disease. PSA testing fails to identify a small but significant proportion of aggressive cancers, and only about 30% of men with a “positive” PSA have a positive biopsy. Additionally, of men who are treated for prostate cancer, about 25% require additional treatment, presumably due to disease recurrence. Also of concern is the growing evidence that there are some prostate cancers for which treatment may not be necessary. Very long-term studies from the U.S. and Europe, following men with prostate cancer have found that some tumors do not progress over time. In these individuals, prostate cancer treatment is unnecessary and harmful as these men do not benefit from treatment but will be at risk of treatment-related side effects and complications. They suggest a fundamental problem with prostate cancer: it is not possible, at this time, to predict the natural history of the disease. It is for these reasons that the most important challenge in prostate cancer today is the inability to predict the behavior of an individual tumor in an individual patient. Here we review issues related to performance and validation of biomarkers with a focus on “doing no harm”, and bearing in mind that it is the ultimate goal of early detection to save lives. Improved diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers are needed for prostate cancer, and the use of these markers should ultimately translate into increased life span and quality of life. The ultimate goal would be to not only have accurate biomarkers suitable for early diagnosis, but also biomarkers that identify men at greatest risk of developing aggressive disease. Technology has been brought to bear on this problem, and the major approaches are genomics, expression analysis, and proteomics. Proteomics and DNA methylation assays may soon be used in sensitive and specific diagnostic testing of serum and tissues for cancer. Expression arrays may be used to establish both a more specific diagnosis and prognosis for a particular tumor. The proteome is only beginning to be understood, and alternative splicing and post-translational modifications of proteins such as glycosylation and phosphorylation are challenging areas of study. Finally, risk assessment and prognosis are being pursued through analysis of genomic polymorphisms (single nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs). This huge task is only beginning, and requires the combined expertise of molecular epidemiologists, oncologists, surgeons, pathologists, and basic scientists.

Urinary exosomes as a stable source of mRNA for prostate cancer analysis.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 174-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leileata M. Russo ◽  
Kendall Bate ◽  
Piruz Motamedinia ◽  
Guillermo Salazar ◽  
Anna Scott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Mrna Level ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Urine Samples ◽  
Parent Cell ◽  
Columbia University ◽  
Fusion Event ◽  
Whole Cells ◽  
Urinary Exosomes ◽  
Unique Stability

174 Background: Exosomes are novel lipid bilayer vesicles that are released into biofluids such as urine and carry high integrity RNA from the parent cell which they were derived. Due to their unique stability and the fact that they contain prostate specific mRNA transcripts, we examined their potential as a non-invasive source of mRNA biomarkers for prostate cancer analysis. Methods: Following a Columbia University approved IRB protocol, random urine samples were collected from 163 men who were stratified into 4 groups: biopsy negative (Bx Neg, n=39), biopsy positive (Bx Pos, n=47), post-radical prostatectomy (RP, n=37) and controls (males <35 yrs, n=40). Urine samples were stored at 4°C and 0.8 μm filtration was used to remove whole cells and debris. Urinary exosomal RNA was isolated using our in-house technique. RT-qPCR was used to analyze PSA, PCA3, androgen receptor (AR), survivin, NCOA2, RAD21, transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), ERG and TMPRSS2:ERG fusion at the mRNA level. Results: Mean serum PSA protein level and age were similar in the Bx Neg and Bx Pos groups. Relative quantitation (RQ) of genes standardized to the PSA gene revealed that ERG (P<0.005), PCA3 (P<0.005), TMPRSS2:ERG fusion (P<0.05), TMPRSS2 (P<0.05) and survivin (P<0.005) were significantly increased in the Bx Pos vs. Bx Neg group. TMPRSS2:ERG fusion events occurred in 68% of Bx Pos vs. 44% of Bx Neg patients and were present in only 5% of controls. No patient in the RP group had positive TMPRSS2:ERG detection; this finding was further supported by the loss of TMPRSS2:ERG expression for 4 Bx Pos patients following prostatectomy suggesting specificity of the fusion event to the prostate. Conclusions: This study confirms urinary exosomes as a source of high quality RNA and showed significant differences in the expression of ERG, PCA3, TMPRSS2:ERG genes between the Bx Pos and Bx Neg groups. Our findings are consistent with previous studies based on tissue and post-prostate massage urinary cell analyses. The unique stability and yield of urinary exosomal RNA collected without a prostatic massage will hopefully simplify sample handing, obviate sample variability and patient discomfort inherent to prostate massage, and broaden the role of exosomes in future diagnostic testing.

The role of non-oncology specialties in the real world longitudinal journey of prostate cancer patients.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19255-e19255
Author(s):  
Daniel Carnegie ◽  
Elenee Argentinis ◽  
Dibyajyoti Mazumder ◽  
Indu Dhangar
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Real World ◽  
Index Date ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Data Repository ◽  
Electronic Health Record Data ◽  
Source Data ◽  
Electronic Health

e19255 Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly being recognized by regulators and researchers as reliable sources of evidence. It is therefore critical that real world evidence databases accurately reflect all diagnostics and interventions that could affect patient outcomes. Some of the commercially available datasets source data solely from oncology clinics, which may not reflect patients’ full care journey. This analysis assessed the contribution of non-oncology specialties to prostate cancer care. Methods: Newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients with encounters between Jan 2014 to Dec 2017 were analyzed from the deidentified Optum Electronic Health Record Data Repository. Diagnostic procedures 6 months prior to the index date (first diagnosis date within the study period) and 1 year post index date were identified. Attending physician specialties were identified. All treatment related encounters up to 1 year post the index dates were mapped by specialty. Codes were verified by certified medical professional. Results: A total of 186,299 prostate cancer patients were identified between Jan 2014 to Dec 2017. In the 6 months prior to index date, biopsy was most commonly ordered by urologists (70%), followed by surgical specialists (14%). Biomarker tests were ordered mostly by general practitioners (40%) followed by urologists (18%). The trend was similar for 1 year post biopsy and other histology procedures. Interestingly, a large portion of treatment encounters was observed outside oncology: 48% of surgical management by urologists (48%), chemotherapy was prescribed by both oncologists (27%) and urologists (31%) in a similar ratio, while radiotherapy was performed predominantly by radiation oncologists (81%). Conclusions: In prostate cancer, a large proportion of care encounters occur outside oncology specialties, with urology conducting a significant proportion of diagnostic testing and early treatment. Restricting source data to oncology specialties may omit key factors affecting patients’ outcomes, therefore data for such studies should reflect the entire care continuum.

Diagnostic testing for prostate cancer detection: Less is best

Urology ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 421-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.Joseph Babaian ◽  
Colin P.N. Dinney ◽  
Edilberto I. Ramirez ◽  
Robert B. Evans
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Prostate Cancer Detection

scholarly journals Impact of Accountable Care Organizations on Diagnostic Testing for Prostate Cancer

Urology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 116 ◽  
pp. 68-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy N. Luckenbaugh ◽  
Brent K. Hollenbeck ◽  
Samuel R. Kaufman ◽  
Phyllis Yan ◽  
Lindsey A. Herrel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Accountable Care Organizations ◽  
Accountable Care

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Gastroenterologist's Perspective

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 89-99
Author(s):  
Michael F. Vaezi
Keyword(s):  
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux ◽  
Reflux Disease ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Diagnostic Tools ◽  
Swallowing Function ◽  
Atypical Symptoms

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a commonly diagnosed condition often associated with the typical symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation, although it may present with atypical symptoms such as chest pain, hoarseness, chronic cough, and asthma. In most cases, the patient's reduced quality of life drives clinical care and diagnostic testing. Because of its widespread impact on voice and swallowing function as well as its social implications, it is important that speech-language pathologists (SLPs) understand the nature of GERD and its consequences. The purpose of this article is to summarize the nature of GERD and GERD-related complications such as GERD-related peptic stricture, Barrett's esophagus and adenocarcinoma, and laryngeal manifestations of GERD from a gastroenterologist's perspective. It is critical that SLPs who work with a multidisciplinary team understand terminology, diagnostic tools, and treatment to ensure best practice.

Sigmoidoscopic findings following radiation for prostate cancer

2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A284-A284
Author(s):  
T BOLIN ◽  
A KNEEBONE ◽  
T LARSSON
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document