Prostate-Specific Antigen


Introduction

The primary purpose of any screening exam is to detect the early stages of a pathological condition, enabling timely intervention and preventing unnecessary morbidity or mortality before clinical signs or symptoms develop. In prostate cancer screening, an elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level is the most common initial laboratory finding, as the vast majority of men with early prostate cancer are asymptomatic. PSA is a highly sensitive but relatively nonspecific and imprecise screening tool, as both benign and malignant conditions elevate the serum marker.[1] The use of PSA screening has become controversial, with differing guidelines and recommendations regarding its application across various age groups. Despite the risks associated with serum PSA screening, including the potential for unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis, it remains the single most useful tool for the early detection of prostate cancer, offering patients the best chance for a cure. Although the use of PSA for prostate cancer screening is somewhat controversial, its effectiveness in determining the extent of malignancy, monitoring disease progression, identifying biochemical recurrences, and evaluating treatment response is unquestionable.

Etiology and Epidemiology

Prostate cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed solid cancer in adult males, following non-melanoma skin cancer, and is the second leading cause of male cancer-related deaths worldwide.[2] In the United States alone, approximately $10 billion is spent annually on prostate cancer treatment.[3] This figure has been increasing over the past 20 years, proportionately to the increase in prostate cancer diagnosis, likely due to the aging population and improved detection using serum PSA.[4] Data from the National Institutes of Health indicate a 44% reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality as PSA testing became widely available in the early 1990s. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result Program (SEER) Cancer Statistics Review 1975 to 2017 from the National Cancer Institute indicates that prostate cancer mortality rates in the United States decreased from 39/100,000 male individuals to 19/100,000 from 1992 to 2017, which is a 51% decrease. According to simulation models, a large portion of this decrease, 45% to 70%, is believed to be due to PSA testing, as screening significantly decreased the incidence of metastatic disease.[5]  

A large 2018 Kaiser Permanente study of over 400,000 patients found that annual screening in the optimal age range of 55 to 75 years reduced prostate cancer-specific mortality by 64% (95% confidence interval 50% to 78%, P<.001) and overall mortality by 24% (95% confidence interval 15% to 34%, P<.001).[6] As prostate cancer is slow-growing, it typically takes at least 10 years for a typical localized cancer to cause significant symptoms. According to the Social Security Administration Actuarial Tables, the average 75-year-old male in the United States has a life expectancy of just over 11 years. Therefore, after 75, the vast majority of men do not receive any benefit from identifying or treating their localized prostate cancers.

General Recommendations for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing

Comparisons between screened and unscreened populations have repeatedly shown a 50% cancer-specific mortality decrease when PSA testing is widely used over time. Despite the controversies regarding overdiagnosis and overtreatment, most professional healthcare organizations, associations, and societies recommend PSA screening for prostate cancer. Groups such as the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Cancer Society, the American Urological Society, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Healthcare, the European Association of Urology, and the United States Preventive Services Task Force provide recommendations on who should be screened, at what age, and how frequently. Please see StatPearls' companion references, "Prostate Cancer Screening" and "Prostate Cancer," for more information.

Care should be taken to consider the patient's personal preferences, overall health, family history, and comorbidities. Patients should be fully informed of the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening. Clinicians should endeavor to avoid the overtreatment of low-grade, low-stage prostate cancers, which can be accomplished by following the American Urological Association and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines on treating localized prostate cancer. Please see StatPearls' companion reference, "Prostate Cancer," for more information.

  • PSA testing should be performed only after a comprehensive discussion of the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screenings.
  • A single baseline PSA level is suggested for all men aged 40 to 45.
  • Annual testing is reasonable in higher-risk men starting at 45.
  • A change of >0.75 ng/mL per year or >25% is considered suspicious.
  • At least 2 separate elevated PSA tests are required to confirm the increase.
  • Routine screening should be discontinued in men with a life expectancy of 10 years or less based on comorbidities or by the age of 75.
  • Men who fall outside of guidelines but are fully informed and are requesting testing should have a PSA level performed.
  • PSA screening is not recommended for men who do not benefit from testing or refuse treatment if cancer is detected.
  • High-risk individuals include those men with the following:
    • African descent
    • Lynch syndrome
    • Family history of prostate cancer, especially if a first-degree relative was diagnosed before 65
    • Family history of multiple malignancies
    • PSA density of 0.15 or higher
    • Positive germline testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2

Pathophysiology

PSA is a serine protease enzyme produced by the columnar epithelium of prostatic tissue. The proenzymatic intracellular form of PSA is pro-PSA. Following cellular production, pro-PSA passes through the basal and endothelial cell layers before entering the prostatic ducts, where it is converted to active PSA, finally penetrating the capillary membranes to enter the systemic circulation.[7] A small portion of this active PSA undergoes proteolysis, becoming inactive or free PSA when it enters the bloodstream and remains unbound. Active PSA that reaches the bloodstream rapidly becomes bound to circulating protease inhibitors.[8] The age-adjusted percent free to protein-bound PSA ratio is a useful indicator of cancer as the free PSA/total PSA ratio tends to decrease in malignancy. Please refer to "Free and Total PSA" in the Results section for more information.

PSA decreases seminal viscosity by chemically breaking down the proteins semenogelin and fibronectin, which are responsible for the initial gel-like consistency of normal semen. This reduced viscosity allows for easier sperm migration into the cervix and promotes overall fertility.[9] As men age, spermatozoa production is altered, with a resultant adverse effect on sperm count and quality, which impairs reproductive function.[10] PSA levels also increase with age, which is believed to be an evolutionary adaptation that confers genetic fitness and promotes fertility over other competing males. This adaptation may partly explain the increasing prevalence of conditions such as benign prostatic hyperplasia in the general population and the need for age-specific normal ranges for serum PSA levels. Prostate cancer cells do not produce more PSA than benign cells; in fact, they tend to manufacture less. However, malignant cells more easily allow PSA to pass through the cell wall into the surrounding extracellular fluid and eventually reach the bloodstream. This process occurs because these malignant prostate cells lack a basal layer that otherwise restricts the passage of PSA outside the cell. Very high Gleason score cancer cells that are highly undifferentiated may not produce PSA.

Specimen Requirements and Procedure

Serum prostate-specific antigen is still a somewhat controversial screening tool for healthy, asymptomatic males because elevated levels of serum PSA can be associated with various benign prostatic conditions. Infection, trauma, inflammation, and benign prostatic hyperplasia can elevate serum PSA levels, reducing the specificity of the biomarker for use in predicting prostate cancer. Studies show that up to 86% of individuals with benign prostatic hyperplasia may have elevated levels of serum PSA.[11] The decision to screen an asymptomatic male using serum PSA should involve shared decision-making. Such discussions involve risks and benefits, such as a falsely elevated PSA value that may lead to an unnecessary biopsy of a benign condition or the discovery of indolent prostate cancer that can lead to the treatment of a condition that has remained totally asymptomatic and clinically inactive.

The United States Preventative Task Force recommends selectively offering serum PSA screening individually according to professional judgment and patient preference in males aged 55 to 69 (grade C).[12] The patient's general health is an important factor in the decision to screen, as guidelines recommend against screening individuals with a life expectancy of fewer than 10 years. Current guidelines recommend against routine prostate cancer screening with serum PSA in healthy asymptomatic individuals aged 70 to 75.

Many professional associations and societies have developed their guidelines. In general, it is recommended that high-risk individuals begin annual PSA screenings for prostate cancer by age 45, such as those of African descent, those with a family history of prostate cancer or multiple cancers, those with Lynch syndrome, or those with known high-risk germline mutations such as BRCA2. For men at average risk, screenings should begin no later than 50 years, following a full discussion of the pros and cons of such testing. The testing should be continued until patients reach 70 to 75 years. Due to the very high variability of PSA testing results, 2 separate specimens are recommended before conducting further investigations in patients with abnormal PSA elevations. Some clinicians prescribe a 2- to 6-week course of antibiotics to reduce prostatic inflammation or low-grade prostatitis, which can elevate PSA levels, before repeating the test.[13][14] Please see StatPearls' companion reference, "Prostate Cancer Screening," for more information.

Diagnostic Tests

Serum PSA is far superior to digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal prostatic ultrasonography (TRUS) for detecting early prostate cancer.[15] When using a PSA value greater than 4 ng/mL, detection rates for prostate cancer achieve a specificity of 91%. In contrast, a digital rectal examination is far less specific, at only 59%. Initially, the urologic and medical community heartily embraced the potential of PSA screenings to detect early prostate cancer, with the intent to avoid any disease progression and decrease mortality. However, with increased use of PSA testing, many individuals experienced adverse effects and unnecessary procedures because their PSA values were elevated secondary to benign conditions.[16] The risk of overdiagnosis, particularly overtreatment, can be minimized by carefully reviewing and discussing the viable options, benefits, and risks at each stage of the diagnostic process.

Overall, PSA sensitivity ranges from 9% to 33%, depending on age and the PSA cut-off values, indicating that up to 91% of individuals with elevated serum PSA levels do not have prostate cancer.[17] In clinical practice, the actual risk of prostate cancer in men with an elevated PSA is roughly 30%. Most malignancies found due to elevated PSA levels are low-risk prostate cancers that are often managed by monitoring with active surveillance. Only about 25% of men managed by active surveillance experience a progression of their cancer that requires definitive therapy.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can also be used to detect prostate cancer. However, it is expensive and time-consuming. Other noninvasive options should be explored before using MRI, as even T-1 and T-2 weighted imaging lack sufficient specificity or sensitivity to justify utilization as a screening tool. In addition, MRI can also miss about 25% of clinically significant malignancies. MRI prostate scans have been useful in identifying suspicious nodules when a decision has already been made to consider a biopsy.[17]

Prostate-Specific Risk Stratification Bioassays

Prostate-specific risk stratification bioassays are designed to identify patients with elevated PSA levels who can safely avoid biopsies. These tests use either genomics or specific biochemical markers in the serum or urine to identify individuals with elevated PSA levels with a low likelihood of clinically significant (Gleason grade 4) cancer. All of the currently available commercial products in the United States, such as the Prostate Health Index (PHI), 4K Score, PCA3, SelectMDx, and EPI Exosome testing, have at least a 90% negative predictive value, indicating that there is less than a 10% chance of finding significant cancer if the test is negative. Between 25% and 30% of all patients having one of these prostatic bioassays ultimately test negative and can safely avoid a biopsy. MRI and bioassays prevent unnecessary, low-yield biopsies in selected, borderline, or questionable cases. Because of their cost and complexity, these tests are inappropriate for general screening.

Overdiagnosis, Overtreatment, and Unnecessary Biopsies

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are often cited as reasons to discontinue PSA testing for prostate cancer.[18]

Overdiagnosis: Overdiagnosis is defined by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare as the diagnosis of a medical condition, disease, or disorder that has never caused the patient an earlier death or any symptoms or clinical problems. Overdiagnosis is considered harmful if it leads to unnecessary treatments or causes the patient undue psychological stress or anxiety. Overdiagnosis is not a misdiagnosis or a false alarm, and it is an inevitable part of all screening tests to some degree.[18][19] The only way to eliminate overdiagnosis is to avoid all screening tests, as it is impossible to accurately predict the course or outcome of every disease discovered through screening nor foresee all other related and unrelated medical events that might occur to the patient. The harmful effects of overdiagnosis can be minimized by carefully explaining, before PSA screening, that most men with an elevated PSA do not have cancer and that the vast majority of prostate cancers discovered by PSA testing never need treatment or cause the patient any harm. Screening tests such as PSA are never urgent; therefore, patients have ample time to review the available information on screening and carefully consider their options.[18][20]

For many patients, the choice boils down to one of the following:

  • Conduct regular screening tests, even if it risks possible overdiagnosis of indolent cancers, which might result in procedures or treatments causing psychological or physical harm.
  • Avoiding screening tests eliminates overdiagnosis and potentially uncomfortable treatments. However, it also means that a potentially serious cancer is only discovered at a later stage when curative treatment is no longer effective or available.

Overtreatment: Overtreatment of indolent prostatic cancers can cause significant physical harm, a dramatic decrease in quality of life, and may ultimately not provide any survival benefit to the patient.[18] The introduction of active surveillance protocols for low-risk, low-stage prostate cancer effectively eliminated overtreatment for 70% to 75% of such patients who previously received full definitive therapy. To be considered for definitive treatment, patients under active surveillance must show evidence of disease progression and meet eligibility criteria regarding life expectancy, age, and comorbidities. When fully implemented, this approach can effectively eliminate most cases of prostate cancer overtreatment.[18]

Unnecessary biopsies: Using pre-biopsy tools and procedures can minimize the risk of unnecessary biopsies. Prostate biopsies can be uncomfortable and lead to prolonged bleeding and infections, but they are also the only way to definitively diagnose prostate cancer, which is a potentially lethal but curable disease if caught early. Using age-adjusted PSA normal ranges and limiting PSA screenings only to those likely to benefit from treatment can help reduce unnecessary biopsies. The increasing use of MRI scans and risk stratification bioassays can eliminate 25% to 30% or more of low-yield biopsies by better identifying patients unlikely to have clinically significant (Gleason grade 4) disease.

Some suggest that there is no such thing as an unnecessary biopsy, as all biopsies are performed to establish a definitive diagnosis, which is what a prostate biopsy accomplishes. Labeling any biopsy as unnecessary simply because it produces a negative result is misleading; otherwise, all biopsies with negative results could also be considered unnecessary. The negative effects of overdiagnosis can be substantially mitigated by carefully avoiding the treatment of indolent cancers. This mitigation can be accomplished by following the established guidelines and recommendations related to low-grade, low-stage prostate cancers, optimally using MRI scans and risk stratification bioassays, fully implementing active surveillance protocols where appropriate, and avoiding screenings in patients who do not benefit from them—such as those who refuse biopsies and treatment, those with a life expectancy of lesser than 10 years, and asymptomatic patients older than 75.

Testing Procedures

With the increased use of PSA as a screening tool for prostate cancer and its subsequent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, several national societies have revised their guidelines regarding the use of serum PSA screening. This modification has led to an effort to differentiate between clinically significant prostate cancer versus indolent disease.[21] Total serum PSA exists in 3 isoforms of equal concentration—intact and free PSA, pro-PSA, and benign prostatic hyperplasia–associated PSA. All 3 isoforms have been studied as potential biomarkers for differentiating the causes of PSA elevation.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia–associated PSA is generally found in transitional zone tissue, indicating its expression by hyperplastic prostatic tissue. A proportional increase in benign prostatic hyperplasia–associated PSA is directly related to prostate volume and suggests benign prostatic hyperplasia.[22] Several studies have shown that pro-PSA, alone or preferably in combination with other markers, can serve as a valuable biomarker for more aggressive prostate cancer, as pro-PSA is associated with increasing Gleason scores.[23] Incorporating pro-PSA into a bioassay risk analysis profile has shown promise in predicting prostate cancer in individuals with mildly elevated PSA values.[24][25]

Interfering Factors

Screening with PSA has led to earlier detection of prostate cancer; however, morbidity increases for all patients with elevated PSA values, as a majority of the patients have a benign condition as the etiology of the elevated serum PSA. When evaluating the elevated serum values due to prostate cancer, most prostate cancers are indolent and never progress to a point in which intervention is required. As few as 2% of all elevated serum PSA values above 3 ng/mL ever require further intervention because of an aggressive form of prostate cancer.[17] There is no level of PSA that reliably guarantees that prostate cancer is present or absent.

5-Alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) reduce PSA levels by 50%, but this effect typically takes between 6 and 12 months. PSA levels in men on long-term 5-ARI medications should be doubled for screening purposes. Conversely, patients should be screened for prostate cancer before starting 5-ARI medications, specifically due to the delayed effect on PSA levels and the time required for this reduction to become fully apparent. There is no significant change in prostate cancer incidence or progression in men on 5-ARI medications compared to similar male cohorts without the drugs.[26] 

Besides 5-alpha reductase inhibitors, other medications such as statins, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and thiazide have also been shown to lower PSA levels.[27][28][29][30] Obese men with high body mass index have larger intravascular volumes, so they tend to have lower PSA values solely due to this dilutional effect. Whether the normal PSA range should be adjusted for this dilution effect remains unclear.[31] Technical errors and inaccurate measurements of prostatic volume can lead to erroneous PSA density determinations. The use of different laboratory tests for PSA can cause some variation in the results. Prostatitis, a digital rectal examination, hard bowel movement, urologic instrumentation, and recent ejaculation can all increase PSA levels.

Results, Reporting, and Critical Findings

There is a direct relationship between increased serum PSA levels and the likelihood of a prostate cancer diagnosis. However, determining the appropriate point for further evaluation can be unclear.[11] A PSA value of greater than or equal to 4.0 ng/mL is the consensus standard for further prostate cancer evaluation. This value has been shown to maximize specificity at the expense of sensitivity for prostate cancer detection. Although prostate cancer has been routinely found in individuals with PSA values above 4.0 ng/mL, this value requires some individuals with prostate cancer to be missed so that fewer individuals are subjected to unnecessary biopsies.[32][33] This situation is a trade-off—a lower cutoff finds more cancers but requires more testing and biopsies, whereas a higher cutoff delays the detection of some potentially dangerous cancers.

No PSA value can guarantee the detection of prostate cancer. Values as low as 1.1 ng/mL routinely overlook up to 17% of prostate cancers.[34] Using the same laboratory value (1.1 ng/mL) in Black men, 50% of cases in men aged 50 to 59, and 75% of cases in those aged 70 to 79, demonstrates laboratory values that necessitate further workup and subject untold individuals to unnecessary and uncomfortable biopsies.[35] By comparison, increasing the PSA cutoff value to 10 ng/mL reduces unnecessary medical evaluations for most indolent causes, but it is estimated that half of all cancers detected by PSA can no longer be organ-confined or localized, thereby negating any potential benefit of early detection.[36] The single general consensus standard normal upper limit for PSA is considered to be no more than 4 ng/mL (PSA is measured either in ng/mL or mcg/L. These units are equivalent, so 1 ng/mL=1 mcg/L).

Age-Adjusted Prostate-Specific Antigen

Using 4 ng/mL as the single upper normal limit for serum PSA does not adequately account for the natural increase in serum PSA expected to occur with age. There is a direct correlation between age and serum PSA concentration, with an expected 3.2% increase per year demonstrated in healthy 60-year-old men.[37] Therefore, the age-adjusted ranges are recommended when analyzing serum PSA values.[38]

The 95th percentile PSA value is commonly used for the age-adjusted normal reference ranges in men, which are as follows:

  • 40-49: ≤2.5 ng/mL
  • 50-59: ≤3.5 ng/mL
  • 60-69: ≤4.5 ng/mL
  • 70-79:≤6.5 ng/mL [37]

Free and Total Prostate-Specific Antigen: Free PSA is a subset of intact PSA. A decrease in the ratio of this serum biomarker (free PSA/total PSA) may be used to improve the sensitivity of prostate cancer detection when initial total PSA values are between 4 and 10 ng/mL.[39][40] Some studies have included pro-PSA in their intact PSA assay, enhancing the predictive value beyond that of intact PSA alone.[41]

When the total PSA is between 4 and 10 ng/mL, free % PSA can be used.[37]

  • The higher the free % PSA, the lower the risk of cancer.
  • The actual cancer risk varies according to age.
  • If the free % PSA is <10%, the cancer risk is 50%.
  • If the free % PSA is >25%, the cancer risk is <10%.

Please see StatPearls' companion reference, "Prostate Cancer Screening," for more information.

Prostate-Specific Antigen Density: The prostate volume in cubic centimeters can be calculated using the formula: (width cm × height cm × length cm) x 0.52. These values are measured using either an MRI or prostatic ultrasound. When the prostate volume is known, PSA density can be calculated by dividing the total PSA (ng/mL) by the prostate volume (cc). A PSA density of 0.15 or more is considered suspicious for cancer.[42]

Prostate-Specific Antigen Velocity: A slow increase in PSA level is expected over time, but a more rapid rise could indicate malignancy. Generally, a yearly increase in PSA of no more than 0.75 ng/mL higher per year and no more than 25% is considered acceptable. More significant increases are considered suspicious.[43] Calculating the PSA velocity requires 3 separate PSA determinations over at least 18 months.

Prostate-Specific Antigen Doubling Time: Aggressive, rapidly growing prostate cancers are more dangerous than slow-growing malignancies, which can be estimated using the PSA doubling time in patients with known prostate cancer. A PSA doubling time of 2 years or longer is generally considered reasonably acceptable. As the PSA doubling time becomes shorter, the 5-year prostate cancer mortality rate increases. A PSA doubling time longer than 12 months is associated with a 5-year prostate cancer-specific death rate of 10% compared to those with a doubling time of 1 year or less who have a 50% mortality.[44] If the PSA doubling time is less than 3 months, the prostate cancer mortality rate is 20 times greater.[45] A higher Gleason score tends to lower the survival rate as well.

Prostate Biopsies

The decision to perform a biopsy should include at least 2 elevated PSA values and take into consideration the patient's age, comorbidities, medical history, family history, high-risk factors, physical examination, urinary symptoms, reasonable life expectancy, and personal preference after a thorough review of the risks and benefits. Results of an MRI or prostate cancer bio-assay examination, if available, should also be included. Performing a prostate biopsy can be a complicated decision. In general, biopsies should not be recommended in patients where there is an unacceptable risk, such as those who cannot safely stop anticoagulant therapy. In addition, biopsies are not appropriate for patients who do not accept treatment even if a dangerous cancer is found or for those whose life expectancy due to age or comorbidities is well below the minimum 10 years necessary to see a significant benefit from treatment. Patients should be fully informed of the risks and benefits of the biopsy and given sufficient time to decide on their choice. Please see StatPearls' companion reference, "Prostate Cancer Screening," for more information.

Prostate-Specific Antigen Use in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer

Active surveillance for prostate cancer is based on the finding that low-grade, low-stage prostate cancer is relatively indolent, causing most patients no clinical harm. Low-risk (Gleason 3+3=6) and selected low intermediate-risk (Gleason 3=4+7) patients are generally considered candidates for active surveillance. Most of these patients (about 25%) do not show any disease progression and can safely avoid the adverse effects and complications of definitive cancer therapy.

A repeat biopsy 6 to 18 months after the initial diagnosis is the standard of care for patients on active surveillance, given the high reported rate of pathological reclassification of up to 35% after the second confirmatory biopsy.[46][47][48] 

Prostate MRIs are recommended before the rebiopsy to optimize results and monitor the progress of any identifiable lesions.[49][50][51][52] For higher-risk patients on active surveillance—such as those with African ancestry, high PSA density (0.15 or more), a family history of prostate cancer, or positive for high-risk genomic biomarkers—both an MRI and a repeat biopsy are suggested. PSA monitoring for patients on active surveillance is generally performed every 6 months. A significant change is generally considered a PSA level greater than 0.75 ng/mL or more than 25% a year, a PSA doubling time of less than 3 years, or a total PSA greater than 10 ng/mL. A notable change in the MRI Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score (from PI-RADS 3 to PI-RADS 4 or 5) or marked enlargement of a known cancer nodule is also considered significant and prompts a rebiopsy.

For men with stable PSA levels and digital rectal examinations, follow-up prostate biopsies after the initial confirmatory rebiopsy should generally be considered every 2 to 4 years, and MRI scans should be repeated every 1 to 2 years, depending on risk factors and comorbidities. MRI alone is not reliable enough to completely supplant prostate biopsies.[53][54][55][56] The suggested protocol was compared to an alternate regimen where repeat biopsies were performed after the initial confirmatory biopsy only when significant changes in the MRI scan or PSA level were detected. This regimen eliminated many prostate biopsies compared to a scheduled protocol but missed too many clinically significant cancers.[57] The use of finasteride or dutasteride, 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors, and enzalutamide, an androgen receptor inhibitor, has not been shown to significantly affect slowing PSA level increases or cancer progression in patients on active surveillance.[58][59]  

Prostate-Specific Antigen After Definitive Prostate Cancer Therapy

Overall, a recurrence rate after definitive therapy, either radical surgery or radiation, is expected in 25% to 40% of patients who undergo definitive curative treatment.[60][61]

Radical prostatectomy: Following a radical prostatectomy, all prostatic tissue should be removed. Therefore, any detectable PSA following the surgery indicates some remaining prostatic tissue, which is typically presumed to be cancerous.[62] This prostatic tissue could be either localized or metastatic disease. Generally, if the PSA is undetectable for 2 years or longer and then gradually begins to rise, a locally recurrent cancer in the prostatic bed is likely.[63][64] Conversely, if the PSA rises quickly and never becomes undetectable after surgery, metastatic disease is more likely.[63][65] Slowly rising PSA levels are sometimes caused by a small amount of residual prostate tissue left behind after surgery, which occurs in 5% to 15% of all radical prostatectomy patients and does not necessarily indicate residual cancer. Adjunctive therapy should be considered if the PSA level reaches 0.4 ng/mL or more. The American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines on localized prostate cancer define a post-radical prostatectomy biochemical recurrence as 2 consecutive serum PSA levels greater than 0.2 ng/mL.[66]

Radiation therapy: After definitive radiation therapy, PSA levels typically decrease gradually, often taking up to 18 months to reach their lowest point (nadir).[67] The lower the final nadir achieved, the better the cancer-specific prognosis.[60][68] A biochemical recurrence after definitive radiation therapy is defined as 2 PSA levels >2 ng/mL above the nadir level.[69] The need for 2 levels is due to the phenomenon known as the PSA bounce, which typically occurs 12 to 18 months after initial radiation therapy.[70] There is no way to determine whether this represents a true recurrence except by following the PSA levels and finding the PSA increase to be only transient. The clinical significance of the PSA bounce remains unclear.[70] In a large retrospective study involving 2694 men, all treated with external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer, those who demonstrated a biochemical recurrence developed metastases at a median of 5.4 years.[71] Prostate cancer-specific mortality was at 10.5 years. Negative prognostic factors included a higher initial Gleason score, a more advanced initial cancer staging, a shorter time interval from initial treatment to biochemical failure, and a faster PSA doubling time.[71]

European Urological Association Risk Stratification for Progression After Biochemical Prostate-Specific Antigen Recurrence

Biochemical recurrence after definitive therapy for localized prostate cancer is a significant, independent risk factor for metastatic disease, cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality. The European Urological Association has suggested the following high- and low-risk stratification categories for both post-radical prostatectomy surgery and radiation therapy patients.[72]

  • Low-risk
    • After radical prostatectomy: PSA doubling time >12 months and Gleason score <8
    • After radiation therapy: Interval to biochemical failure >18 months and Gleason score <8
  • High-risk
    • After radical prostatectomy: PSA doubling time <12 months and Gleason score >7
    • After radiation therapy: Interval to biochemical failure and Gleason score >7

Positron Emission Tomography Scans for Post-Prostatectomy Biochemical Prostate-Specific Antigen Recurrence 

When the PSA level is greater than 0.2 ng/mL, prostatic positron emission tomography (PET) scanning can be performed to differentiate localized recurrences in the prostatic bed after radical prostatectomies that might benefit from pelvic irradiation from those with disseminated disease where systemic treatment is preferred. Some experts recommend PET scans for all post-radical prostatectomy patients with a biochemical recurrence and suitable PSA levels. In contrast, others suggest a more selective approach using a risk stratification model.

Clinical Significance

Early prostate cancer is generally asymptomatic, and an elevated serum PSA level is often the first indication of malignancy. Anemia and elevated alkaline phosphatase levels are additional laboratory values that may suggest prostate cancer but are very nonspecific and typically indicate advanced disease, making them useless for screening or early detection. A digital rectal examination (DRE) should be performed on all individuals with abnormal PSA levels even though no specific finding reliably confirms either the presence or absence of prostate cancer. DRE is used to improve the overall sensitivity of the screening and could be an important factor in determining management if cancer is detected.

Overall, up to 14% of patients with prostate cancer have metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. The finding of metastatic prostate cancer can be correlated with elevated PSA values. Serum PSA values greater than 20 ng/mL have a positive predictive value of 65% for metastatic disease and skeletal involvement. This number increases linearly with a positive predictive value for metastatic disease of 86% for PSA levels greater than 100 ng/mL.[73] However, it should not be assumed that an individual with serum PSA values >100 ng/mL at the time of diagnosis has metastatic disease. By comparison, serum PSA values less than 10 ng/mL rarely demonstrate metastatic disease or skeletal spread. For this reason, bone scans in prostate cancer are not generally recommended unless the PSA levels are greater than 20 ng/mL.[74] 

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

No PSA value guarantees the presence or absence of prostate cancer. Despite being controversial, nonspecific, and imperfect, PSA testing is currently still the best and most sensitive early indicator of an asymptomatic prostatic malignancy. The decision to screen healthy individuals using the test likely continues to be controversial. Individuals aged 45 to 75 should be given the option for screening after discussing the risks and benefits, with particular consideration given to patient preference, age, comorbidities, and family history. Following the decision to screen, PSA values are instrumental in determining the next steps in treatment. Generally, low PSA values in asymptomatic individuals are reassuring, and significantly elevated PSA values are concerning for prostate cancer.

Some of the drawbacks of screening can be minimized through risk stratification strategies and recognizing the potential for overtreatment in low-risk diseases. All healthcare team members should be aware of the controversies involved and be prepared to assist the patient in decision-making. There is no controversy regarding the use of PSA testing in patients with known malignant diseases. In these cases, the team should encourage patients to be involved in their healthcare decisions, adhere to follow-up PSA tests according to clinician recommendations, and follow published guidelines to achieve optimal outcomes.


Details

Updated:

9/10/2024 11:18:01 PM

References


[1]

Dvorácek J. [Adenocarcinoma of the prostate]. Casopis lekaru ceskych. 1998 Aug 31:137(17):515-21     [PubMed PMID: 9787503]


[2]

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2020 Jan:70(1):7-30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21590. Epub 2020 Jan 8     [PubMed PMID: 31912902]


[3]

Roehrborn CG, Black LK. The economic burden of prostate cancer. BJU international. 2011 Sep:108(6):806-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10365.x. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 21884356]


[4]

Plata Bello A,Concepcion Masip T, Prostate cancer epidemiology. Archivos espanoles de urologia. 2014 Jun;     [PubMed PMID: 24914835]


[5]

Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Szabo A, Falcon S, Wegelin J, DiTommaso D, Karnofski K, Gulati R, Penson DF, Feuer E. Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Cancer causes & control : CCC. 2008 Mar:19(2):175-81     [PubMed PMID: 18027095]


[6]

Alpert PF. New Evidence for the Benefit of Prostate-specific Antigen Screening: Data From 400,887 Kaiser Permanente Patients. Urology. 2018 Aug:118():119-126. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.02.049. Epub 2018 May 14     [PubMed PMID: 29772218]


[7]

Schedlich LJ, Bennetts BH, Morris BJ. Primary structure of a human glandular kallikrein gene. DNA (Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.). 1987 Oct:6(5):429-37     [PubMed PMID: 2824146]


[8]

Mikolajczyk SD, Marks LS, Partin AW, Rittenhouse HG. Free prostate-specific antigen in serum is becoming more complex. Urology. 2002 Jun:59(6):797-802     [PubMed PMID: 12031356]


[9]

Lilja H, Abrahamsson PA. Three predominant proteins secreted by the human prostate gland. The Prostate. 1988:12(1):29-38     [PubMed PMID: 3347596]


[10]

Gunes S, Hekim GN, Arslan MA, Asci R. Effects of aging on the male reproductive system. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics. 2016 Apr:33(4):441-54. doi: 10.1007/s10815-016-0663-y. Epub 2016 Feb 11     [PubMed PMID: 26867640]


[11]

Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E. Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. The New England journal of medicine. 1987 Oct 8:317(15):909-16     [PubMed PMID: 2442609]


[12]

US Preventive Services Task Force, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, Bibbins-Domingo K, Caughey AB, Davidson KW, Doubeni CA, Ebell M, Epling JW Jr, Kemper AR, Krist AH, Kubik M, Landefeld CS, Mangione CM, Silverstein M, Simon MA, Siu AL, Tseng CW. Screening for Prostate Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018 May 8:319(18):1901-1913. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.3710. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 29801017]


[13]

Toktas G, Demiray M, Erkan E, Kocaaslan R, Yucetas U, Unluer SE. The effect of antibiotherapy on prostate-specific antigen levels and prostate biopsy results in patients with levels 2.5 to 10 ng/mL. Journal of endourology. 2013 Aug:27(8):1061-7. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0022. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 23641793]


[14]

Taha DE, Aboumarzouk OM, Koraiem IO, Shokeir AA. Antibiotic therapy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen: Is it worth considering? A systematic review. Arab journal of urology. 2020:18(1):1-8. doi: 10.1080/2090598X.2019.1677296. Epub 2019 Oct 25     [PubMed PMID: 32082627]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[15]

Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, Dodds KM, Coplen DE, Yuan JJ, Petros JA, Andriole GL. Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. The New England journal of medicine. 1991 Apr 25:324(17):1156-61     [PubMed PMID: 1707140]


[16]

Albertsen PC. Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen: Where are we going? Cancer. 2018 Feb 1:124(3):453-455. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31140. Epub 2017 Dec 12     [PubMed PMID: 29231972]


[17]

Leal J, Welton NJ, Martin RM, Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, Noble S, Lane A, Wolstenholme J. Estimating the sensitivity of a prostate cancer screening programme for different PSA cut-off levels: A UK case study. Cancer epidemiology. 2018 Feb:52():99-105. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2017.12.002. Epub 2018 Jan 4     [PubMed PMID: 29278842]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[18]

Klotz L. Prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Current opinion in endocrinology, diabetes, and obesity. 2013 Jun:20(3):204-9. doi: 10.1097/MED.0b013e328360332a. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 23609043]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[19]

Bulliard JL, Chiolero A. Screening and overdiagnosis: public health implications. Public health reviews. 2015:36():8. doi: 10.1186/s40985-015-0012-1. Epub 2015 Nov 5     [PubMed PMID: 29450036]


[20]

Moynihan R, Doust J, Henry D. Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2012 May 28:344():e3502. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e3502. Epub 2012 May 28     [PubMed PMID: 22645185]


[21]

Morgan T, Palapattu G, Wei J. Screening for Prostate Cancer-Beyond Total PSA, Utilization of Novel Biomarkers. Current urology reports. 2015 Sep:16(9):63. doi: 10.1007/s11934-015-0537-3. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 26169584]


[22]

Naya Y, Okihara K. Role of complexed PSA in the early detection of prostate cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN. 2004 May:2(3):209-12     [PubMed PMID: 19795605]


[23]

Sokoll LJ, Sanda MG, Feng Z, Kagan J, Mizrahi IA, Broyles DL, Partin AW, Srivastava S, Thompson IM, Wei JT, Zhang Z, Chan DW. A prospective, multicenter, National Cancer Institute Early Detection Research Network study of [-2]proPSA: improving prostate cancer detection and correlating with cancer aggressiveness. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2010 May:19(5):1193-200. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0007. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 20447916]


[24]

Lazzeri M, Haese A, de la Taille A, Palou Redorta J, McNicholas T, Lughezzani G, Scattoni V, Bini V, Freschi M, Sussman A, Ghaleh B, Le Corvoisier P, Alberola Bou J, Esquena Fernández S, Graefen M, Guazzoni G. Serum isoform [-2]proPSA derivatives significantly improve prediction of prostate cancer at initial biopsy in a total PSA range of 2-10 ng/ml: a multicentric European study. European urology. 2013 Jun:63(6):986-94. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.01.011. Epub 2013 Jan 24     [PubMed PMID: 23375961]


[25]

Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG, Wei JT, Klee GG, Bangma CH, Slawin KM, Marks LS, Loeb S, Broyles DL, Shin SS, Cruz AB, Chan DW, Sokoll LJ, Roberts WL, van Schaik RH, Mizrahi IA. A multicenter study of [-2]pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. The Journal of urology. 2011 May:185(5):1650-5. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.032. Epub 2011 Mar 17     [PubMed PMID: 21419439]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[26]

Özkan TA, Cebeci OÖ, Çevik İ, Dillioğlugil Ö. Prognostic influence of 5 alpha reductase inhibitors in patients with localized prostate cancer under active surveillance. Turkish journal of urology. 2018 Mar:44(2):132-137. doi: 10.5152/tud.2017.39660. Epub 2018 Mar 1     [PubMed PMID: 29511582]


[27]

Singer EA, Palapattu GS, van Wijngaarden E. Prostate-specific antigen levels in relation to consumption of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen: results from the 2001-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Cancer. 2008 Oct 15:113(8):2053-7. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23806. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 18780337]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[28]

Chang SL, Harshman LC, Presti JC Jr. Impact of common medications on serum total prostate-specific antigen levels: analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2010 Sep 1:28(25):3951-7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.9406. Epub 2010 Aug 2     [PubMed PMID: 20679596]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[29]

Hamilton RJ, Goldberg KC, Platz EA, Freedland SJ. The influence of statin medications on prostate-specific antigen levels. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2008 Nov 5:100(21):1511-8. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn362. Epub 2008 Oct 28     [PubMed PMID: 18957682]


[30]

Mondul AM, Selvin E, De Marzo AM, Freedland SJ, Platz EA. Statin drugs, serum cholesterol, and prostate-specific antigen in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2004. Cancer causes & control : CCC. 2010 May:21(5):671-8. doi: 10.1007/s10552-009-9494-9. Epub 2010 Jan 14     [PubMed PMID: 20072809]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[31]

Bañez LL, Hamilton RJ, Partin AW, Vollmer RT, Sun L, Rodriguez C, Wang Y, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, Presti JC Jr, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Moul JW, Freedland SJ. Obesity-related plasma hemodilution and PSA concentration among men with prostate cancer. JAMA. 2007 Nov 21:298(19):2275-80     [PubMed PMID: 18029831]


[32]

Hernández J, Thompson IM. Prostate-specific antigen: a review of the validation of the most commonly used cancer biomarker. Cancer. 2004 Sep 1:101(5):894-904     [PubMed PMID: 15329895]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[33]

Porter MP, Stanford JL, Lange PH. The distribution of serum prostate-specific antigen levels among American men: implications for prostate cancer prevalence and screening. The Prostate. 2006 Jul 1:66(10):1044-51     [PubMed PMID: 16598738]


[34]

Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Lucia MS, Goodman PJ, Crowley JJ, Parnes HL, Coltman CA Jr. Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/ml or lower. JAMA. 2005 Jul 6:294(1):66-70     [PubMed PMID: 15998892]


[35]

Morgan TO, Jacobsen SJ, McCarthy WF, Jacobson DJ, McLeod DG, Moul JW. Age-specific reference ranges for serum prostate-specific antigen in black men. The New England journal of medicine. 1996 Aug 1:335(5):304-10     [PubMed PMID: 8663870]


[36]

Smith DS, Catalona WJ, Herschman JD. Longitudinal screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen. JAMA. 1996 Oct 23-30:276(16):1309-15     [PubMed PMID: 8861989]


[37]

Oesterling JE, Jacobsen SJ, Chute CG, Guess HA, Girman CJ, Panser LA, Lieber MM. Serum prostate-specific antigen in a community-based population of healthy men. Establishment of age-specific reference ranges. JAMA. 1993 Aug 18:270(7):860-4     [PubMed PMID: 7688054]


[38]

Partin AW, Criley SR, Subong EN, Zincke H, Walsh PC, Oesterling JE. Standard versus age-specific prostate specific antigen reference ranges among men with clinically localized prostate cancer: A pathological analysis. The Journal of urology. 1996 Apr:155(4):1336-9     [PubMed PMID: 8632568]


[39]

Vickers AJ, Gupta A, Savage CJ, Pettersson K, Dahlin A, Bjartell A, Manjer J, Scardino PT, Ulmert D, Lilja H. A panel of kallikrein marker predicts prostate cancer in a large, population-based cohort followed for 15 years without screening. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2011 Feb:20(2):255-61. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-1003. Epub 2010 Dec 8     [PubMed PMID: 21148123]


[40]

Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Roobol MJ, Savage CJ, Peltola M, Pettersson K, Scardino PT, Schröder FH, Lilja H. A four-kallikrein panel predicts prostate cancer in men with recent screening: data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam. Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2010 Jun 15:16(12):3232-9. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0122. Epub 2010 Apr 16     [PubMed PMID: 20400522]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[41]

Peltola MT, Niemelä P, Väisänen V, Viitanen T, Alanen K, Nurmi M, Pettersson K. Intact and internally cleaved free prostate-specific antigen in patients with prostate cancer with different pathologic stages and grades. Urology. 2011 Apr:77(4):1009.e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.11.007. Epub 2011 Feb 5     [PubMed PMID: 21296394]


[42]

Yanai Y, Kosaka T, Hongo H, Matsumoto K, Shinojima T, Kikuchi E, Miyajima A, Mizuno R, Mikami S, Jinzaki M, Oya M. Evaluation of prostate-specific antigen density in the diagnosis of prostate cancer combined with magnetic resonance imaging before biopsy in men aged 70 years and older with elevated PSA. Molecular and clinical oncology. 2018 Dec:9(6):656-660. doi: 10.3892/mco.2018.1725. Epub 2018 Sep 19     [PubMed PMID: 30546897]


[43]

Vickers AJ, Brewster SF. PSA Velocity and Doubling Time in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer. British journal of medical & surgical urology. 2012 Jul 1:5(4):162-168     [PubMed PMID: 22712027]


[44]

Coley CM, Barry MJ, Fleming C, Mulley AG. Early detection of prostate cancer. Part I: Prior probability and effectiveness of tests. The American College of Physicians. Annals of internal medicine. 1997 Mar 1:126(5):394-406     [PubMed PMID: 9054286]


[45]

D'Amico AV, Moul JW, Carroll PR, Sun L, Lubeck D, Chen MH. Surrogate end point for prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2003 Sep 17:95(18):1376-83     [PubMed PMID: 13130113]


[46]

Duffield AS, Lee TK, Miyamoto H, Carter HB, Epstein JI. Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails. The Journal of urology. 2009 Nov:182(5):2274-8. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.024. Epub 2009 Sep 16     [PubMed PMID: 19758635]


[47]

Ploussard G, Salomon L, Xylinas E, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, de la Taille A. Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance--does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria? The Journal of urology. 2010 Feb:183(2):539-44. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.009. Epub 2009 Dec 14     [PubMed PMID: 20006888]


[48]

Kearns JT, Faino AV, Newcomb LF, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Dash A, Ellis WJ, Fabrizio M, Gleave ME, Morgan TM, Nelson PS, Thompson IM, Wagner AA, Zheng Y, Lin DW. Role of Surveillance Biopsy with No Cancer as a Prognostic Marker for Reclassification: Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. European urology. 2018 May:73(5):706-712. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.016. Epub 2018 Feb 9     [PubMed PMID: 29433973]


[49]

Olsson H, Nordström T, Jäderling F, Egevad L, Vigneswaran HT, Annerstedt M, Grönberg H, Eklund M, Lantz A. Incorporating Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Biomarkers in Active Surveillance Protocols - Results From the Prospective Stockholm3 Active Surveillance Trial (STHLM3AS). Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2021 May 4:113(5):632-640. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa131. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 32866231]


[50]

Amin A, Scheltema MJ, Shnier R, Blazevski A, Moses D, Cusick T, Siriwardena A, Yuen B, van Leeuwen PJ, Haynes AM, Matthews J, Brenner P, O'Neill G, Yuen C, Delprado W, Stricker P, Thompson J. The Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance (MRIAS) Trial: Use of Baseline Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Saturation Biopsy to Reduce the Frequency of Surveillance Prostate Biopsies. The Journal of urology. 2020 May:203(5):910-917. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000693. Epub 2019 Dec 11     [PubMed PMID: 31825297]


[51]

Hamoen EHJ, Hoeks CMA, Somford DM, van Oort IM, Vergunst H, Oddens JR, Smits GA, Bokhorst LP, Witjes JA, Rovers MM, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Barentsz JO. Value of Serial Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Biopsies in Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance After 1 Yr Follow-up. European urology focus. 2019 May:5(3):407-415. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.12.008. Epub 2018 Jan 10     [PubMed PMID: 29331622]


[52]

Stavrinides V, Giganti F, Trock B, Punwani S, Allen C, Kirkham A, Freeman A, Haider A, Ball R, McCartan N, Whitaker H, Orczyk C, Emberton M, Moore CM. Five-year Outcomes of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Large Cohort Study. European urology. 2020 Sep:78(3):443-451. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.035. Epub 2020 Apr 30     [PubMed PMID: 32360049]


[53]

Luckenbaugh AN, Auffenberg GB, Hawken SR, Dhir A, Linsell S, Kaul S, Miller DC, Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative. Variation in Guideline Concordant Active Surveillance Followup in Diverse Urology Practices. The Journal of urology. 2017 Mar:197(3 Pt 1):621-626. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.071. Epub 2016 Sep 20     [PubMed PMID: 27663459]


[54]

Rajwa P, Pradere B, Quhal F, Mori K, Laukhtina E, Huebner NA, D'Andrea D, Krzywon A, Shim SR, Baltzer PA, Renard-Penna R, Leapman MS, Shariat SF, Ploussard G. Reliability of Serial Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression During Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. European urology. 2021 Nov:80(5):549-563. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.05.001. Epub 2021 May 19     [PubMed PMID: 34020828]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[55]

Bekelman JE, Rumble RB, Chen RC, Pisansky TM, Finelli A, Feifer A, Nguyen PL, Loblaw DA, Tagawa ST, Gillessen S, Morgan TM, Liu G, Vapiwala N, Haluschak JJ, Stephenson A, Touijer K, Kungel T, Freedland SJ. Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement of an American Urological Association/American Society for Radiation Oncology/Society of Urologic Oncology Guideline. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2018 Nov 10:36(32):3251-3258. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00606. Epub 2018 Sep 5     [PubMed PMID: 30183466]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[56]

Eastham JA, Auffenberg GB, Barocas DA, Chou R, Crispino T, Davis JW, Eggener S, Horwitz EM, Kane CJ, Kirkby E, Lin DW, McBride SM, Morgans AK, Pierorazio PM, Rodrigues G, Wong WW, Boorjian SA. Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part II: Principles of Active Surveillance, Principles of Surgery, and Follow-Up. The Journal of urology. 2022 Jul:208(1):19-25. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002758. Epub 2022 May 10     [PubMed PMID: 35536148]


[57]

Chesnut GT, Vertosick EA, Benfante N, Sjoberg DD, Fainberg J, Lee T, Eastham J, Laudone V, Scardino P, Touijer K, Vickers A, Ehdaie B. Role of Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Clinical Stage in Evaluation of Disease Progression for Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. European urology. 2020 Apr:77(4):501-507. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.12.009. Epub 2019 Dec 23     [PubMed PMID: 31874726]


[58]

Ashrafi AN, Shin T, Marien A, Clifford T, Shoji S, Iwata T, Iwata A, Oishi M, Chopra S, Cai J, Ukimura O, Bahn D, Gill IS, Abreu AL. Five-alpha reductase inhibitors in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer: impact on treatment and reclassification after 6 years follow-up. World journal of urology. 2021 Sep:39(9):3295-3307. doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03644-2. Epub 2021 Mar 8     [PubMed PMID: 33683411]


[59]

Shore ND, Renzulli J, Fleshner NE, Hollowell CMP, Vourganti S, Silberstein J, Siddiqui R, Hairston J, Elsouda D, Russell D, Cooperberg MR, Tomlins SA. Enzalutamide Monotherapy vs Active Surveillance in Patients With Low-risk or Intermediate-risk Localized Prostate Cancer: The ENACT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA oncology. 2022 Aug 1:8(8):1128-1136. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.1641. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 35708696]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[60]

. Consensus statement: guidelines for PSA following radiation therapy. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 1997 Mar 15:37(5):1035-41     [PubMed PMID: 9169810]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[61]

Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. The Journal of urology. 2003 Feb:169(2):517-23     [PubMed PMID: 12544300]


[62]

Ravery V. The significance of recurrent PSA after radical prostatectomy: benign versus malignant sources. Seminars in urologic oncology. 1999 Aug:17(3):127-9     [PubMed PMID: 10462314]


[63]

Partin AW, Pearson JD, Landis PK, Carter HB, Pound CR, Clemens JQ, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Evaluation of serum prostate-specific antigen velocity after radical prostatectomy to distinguish local recurrence from distant metastases. Urology. 1994 May:43(5):649-59     [PubMed PMID: 7513108]


[64]

Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 1999 May 5:281(17):1591-7     [PubMed PMID: 10235151]


[65]

Pound CR, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Prostate-specific antigen after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Patterns of recurrence and cancer control. The Urologic clinics of North America. 1997 May:24(2):395-406     [PubMed PMID: 9126237]


[66]

Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, D'Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, Eton DT, Forman JD, Goldenberg SL, Hernandez J, Higano CS, Kraus SR, Moul JW, Tangen C, Thrasher JB, Thompson I. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. The Journal of urology. 2007 Feb:177(2):540-5     [PubMed PMID: 17222629]


[67]

Crook JM, Choan E, Perry GA, Robertson S, Esche BA. Serum prostate-specific antigen profile following radiotherapy for prostate cancer: implications for patterns of failure and definition of cure. Urology. 1998 Apr:51(4):566-72     [PubMed PMID: 9586608]


[68]

Ray ME, Thames HD, Levy LB, Horwitz EM, Kupelian PA, Martinez AA, Michalski JM, Pisansky TM, Shipley WU, Zelefsky MJ, Zietman AL, Kuban DA. PSA nadir predicts biochemical and distant failures after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a multi-institutional analysis. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2006 Mar 15:64(4):1140-50     [PubMed PMID: 16198506]


[69]

Roach M 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H Jr, Schellhammer P, Shipley WU, Sokol GH, Sandler H. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2006 Jul 15:65(4):965-74     [PubMed PMID: 16798415]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[70]

Satoh T, Ishiyama H, Matsumoto K, Tsumura H, Kitano M, Hayakawa K, Ebara S, Nasu Y, Kumon H, Kanazawa S, Miki K, Egawa S, Aoki M, Toya K, Yorozu A, Nagata H, Saito S, Baba S. Prostate-specific antigen 'bounce' after permanent 125I-implant brachytherapy in Japanese men: a multi-institutional pooled analysis. BJU international. 2009 Apr:103(8):1064-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08234.x. Epub 2008 Nov 25     [PubMed PMID: 19040526]


[71]

Zumsteg ZS, Spratt DE, Romesser PB, Pei X, Zhang Z, Polkinghorn W, McBride S, Kollmeier M, Yamada Y, Zelefsky MJ. The natural history and predictors of outcome following biochemical relapse in the dose escalation era for prostate cancer patients undergoing definitive external beam radiotherapy. European urology. 2015 Jun:67(6):1009-1016. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.028. Epub 2014 Oct 11     [PubMed PMID: 25308970]


[72]

Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Cornford P, Cumberbatch M, Tilki D, De Santis M, Fanti S, Fossati N, Gillessen S, Grummet JP, Henry AM, Lardas M, Liew M, Mason M, Moris L, Schoots IG, van der Kwast T, van der Poel H, Wiegel T, Willemse PM, Rouvière O, Lam TB, Mottet N. Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer: The European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel Recommendations. European urology focus. 2020 Mar 15:6(2):231-234. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.06.004. Epub 2019 Jun 24     [PubMed PMID: 31248850]


[73]

Lojanapiwat B, Anutrakulchai W, Chongruksut W, Udomphot C. Correlation and diagnostic performance of the prostate-specific antigen level with the diagnosis, aggressiveness, and bone metastasis of prostate cancer in clinical practice. Prostate international. 2014 Sep:2(3):133-9. doi: 10.12954/PI.14054. Epub 2014 Jul 30     [PubMed PMID: 25325025]


[74]

Rhoden EL, Torres O, Ramos GZ, Lemos RR, Souto CA. Value of prostate specific antigen in predicting the existence of bone metastasis in scintigraphy. International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. 2003 Mar-Apr:29(2):121-5; discussion 126     [PubMed PMID: 15745494]