Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: Prostate cancer is the second commonest cancer among men. In the large European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has been shown to substantially reduce prostate cancer mortality. However, PSA screening is known to lead to more unnecessary prostate biopsies and over-diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. Therefore, it is imperative that smarter screening methods be developed to overcome the weaknesses of PSA screening. This review explores the novel screening tools that are available.
Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed regarding newer biomarkers, imaging techniques and risk-predicting models that are used to screen for prostate cancer in mainly biopsy-naïve men.
Results: Novel serum-based models like 4Kscore and prostate health index (PHI) are generally better than PSA alone in detecting clinically significant cancer. Similarly, urine-based biomarkers like prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and HOXC6/DLX1 have been shown to be more accurate than PSA screening. More recently, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is gaining popularity for its ability to detect clinically significant cancer. There is also evidence that combining individual tests to develop prediction models can reliably predict high-risk prostate cancers while reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies. Combinations such as the Stockholm-3 model (STHLM3) and other novel combinations are presented in this review.
Conclusion: While we continue to find the smarter screening methods that are reliable, precise, and cost-effective, we continue to advocate shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening in order to work in our patients' best interests.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02719-5 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!