Biopsy Referral after PSA Screening Stays Consistent Over Time

No movement toward more aggressive follow-up, study in American Journal of Preventive Medicine finds

San Diego, CA, December 13, 2011 – After the US Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial found cancer in many men with low levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA), many debated which PSA level should lead to a biopsy recommendation. The US Preventive Screening Task Force (USPSTF) recently concluded, amid considerable controversy, that the evidence does not support recommending PSA screening for men under 75 years old at all, because the risks outweigh the benefits. Now, a study shows that physicians in a large Washington state health plan were being conservative in biopsy referral even before the USPSTF recommendation. 

“Despite considerable recent debate about lowering the threshold for referring men to biopsy, we detected no change toward more aggressive biopsy referral practices in data spanning more than a decade for one integrated delivery system,” says lead author Steven Zeliadt, PhD, of the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Seattle, Washington. “In fact, we observed an opposite pattern, with biopsies becoming slightly less common over the study period. This may reflect growing awareness of the problems of overdiagnosis and overtreatment—and the fact that many men die with prostate cancer but not from it.” 

Controversy is longstanding about what PSA threshold should be used to refer men for biopsy. The generally accepted standard is 4.0 ng/mL. However, some have urged lowering the level to 2.5 ng/mL, abandoning a specific cutoff altogether, or measuring the PSA velocity, or change over time, instead of absolute level. Dr. Zeliadt and his colleagues set out to determine if the actual biopsy referral practices in a community setting had changed in response to new recommendations, and to determine if PSA velocity is associated with follow-up biopsy.

The study examined PSA tests in members of Group Health, a health plan in Washington State and Northern Idaho, between 1997 and 2008. The final sample included 111,369 index tests among 54,831 subjects. For each test, the study evaluated the PSA level and velocity and the specific follow-up: receiving a biopsy within a year after the test date; attending a urology appointment within a year without biopsy; additional PSA testing within a year with no urology visit; and no PSA-related follow-up. 

The researchers found that of tests with a PSA value greater than 4.0 ng/mL, 28% led to a biopsy within 12 months, and 38.6% were followed up by a urologist but did not result in a biopsy. Biopsies were slightly more common in the early years of the study, but biopsy rates did not differ over time for men with mild to moderate PSA levels. The threshold used for biopsy referral appeared not to change over time.

PSA velocity was strongly associated with biopsy. Among men whose PSA tests exceeded 4.0 ng/mL, those with a rapidly rising velocity were more likely to undergo biopsy. This rate was also consistent across the years of the study. “PSA velocity has been promoted for many years as having value for predicting death from prostate cancer, although several recent studies and evidence from screening trials have demonstrated that in practice, velocity adds little value. This is not surprising given that PSA is a continuous marker, and a rapid rise may be likely to trigger follow-up, thus reducing rates of death from prostate cancer,” notes Dr. Zeliadt. 

“Even small changes in the PSA threshold can substantially alter the potential harms and benefits of screening. However, providers have limited evidence to help them discuss this with patients,” concludes Dr. Zeliadt, who is also affiliated with Group Health Research Institute and the University of Washington. “This study highlights the importance of acknowledging that how aggressively patients are referred for biopsy is an important component of the PSA screening discussion.”

The article is “Biopsy Follow-Up of Prostate-Specific Antigen Tests,” by S.B. Zeliadt, D.S. Buist, R.J. Reid, D.C. Grossman, J. Ma, and R. Etzioni (doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.08.024). The article appears in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 42, Issue 1 (January 2012), published by Elsevier.

# # #

Notes for editors
Full text of the article is available to credentialed journalists upon request; contact Beverly Lytton at +1 858 534 9340 oreAJPM@ucsd.edu. Journalists wishing to interview the authors may contact Jeri Rowe at +1 206 764 2435 or Jeri.Rowe@va.gov.

About the American Journal of Preventive Medicine
The American Journal of Preventive Medicine ( www.ajpm-online.net) is the official journal of The American College of Preventive Medicine ( www.acpm.org) and the Association for Prevention Teaching and Research ( www.atpm.org). It publishes articles in the areas of prevention research, teaching, practice and policy. Original research is published on interventions aimed at the prevention of chronic and acute disease and the promotion of individual and community health. The journal features papers that address the primary and secondary prevention of important clinical, behavioral and public health issues such as injury and violence, infectious disease, women's health, smoking, sedentary behaviors and physical activity, nutrition, diabetes, obesity, and alcohol and drug abuse. Papers also address educational initiatives aimed at improving the ability of health professionals to provide effective clinical prevention and public health services. The journal also publishes official policy statements from the two co-sponsoring organizations, health services research pertinent to prevention and public health, review articles, media reviews, and editorials.

The American Journal of Preventive Medicine, with an Impact Factor of 4.110, is ranked 10th out of 140 Public, Environmental and Occupational Health titles and 18th out of 151 General & Internal Medicine titles according to the 2010 Journal Citation Reports® published by Thomson Reuters.

About Elsevier

Elsevier is a world-leading provider of information solutions that enhance the performance of science, health, and technology professionals, empowering them to make better decisions, deliver better care, and sometimes make groundbreaking discoveries that advance the boundaries of knowledge and human progress. Elsevier provides web-based, digital solutions — among them ScienceDirect, Scopus, Elsevier Research Intelligence,and ClinicalKey—and publishes over 2,200 journals, including The Lancet and Cell, and over 25,000 book titles, including a number of iconic reference works.

The company is part of Reed Elsevier Group PLC, a world leading provider of professional information solutions in the Science, Medical, Legal and Risk and Business sectors, which is jointly owned by Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV. The ticker symbols are REN (Euronext Amsterdam), REL (London Stock Exchange), RUK and ENL (New York Stock Exchange).

Media contact
Beverly Lytton
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
+1 858 534 9340
eAJPM@ucsd.edu