Baseline PSA levels and 10-year risk for a diagnosis of prostate cancer


Earlier, retrospective studies based on Swedish and Danish databases have suggested that men in their 40s with a single PSA level of < 1.0 ng/ml are at low risk for a diagnosis of prostate cancer for up to 30 years after that initial, baseline PSA result.

Data presented by Weight et al. at the recent annual meeting of the American Urological Association in Atlanta (click here and see abstract no. 1219) now appear to confirm these earlier data — in a cohort of > 250 randomly selected American men followed with PSA tests since 1990.

The study by Weight et al. recruited 268 men, all aged between 40 and 49 years of age at the time of recruitment, beginning in 1990. These men all lived in Olmstead County, Minnesota, and all received biennial evaluation by a urologist, PSA screening, a transrectal ultrasound, and were asked to complete a questionnaire.

Seventy-five percent of these men had a baseline PSA of < 0.1 ng/ml at their first PSA test taken between the ages of 40 and 49 years.

Here are the results of this long-term study:

  • The average (median) follow-up period was 16.3 years.
  • For men with a baseline PSA < 1.0 ng/ml
    • The 10-year estimate of low-risk vs. intermediate-risk prostate cancer was 0.5 percent.
    • The 10-year estimate of low-risk vs. high-risk prostate cancer was 0.0 percent.
    • The 15-year estimate of low-risk vs. intermediate-risk prostate cancer was 2.7 percent.
    • The 15-year estimate of low-risk vs. high-risk prostate cacner was 0.0 percent.
  • For men with a baseline PSA ≥ 1.0 ng/ml
    • The 10-year estimate of risk for a diagnosis of prostate cancer was 9.5 percent
    • The 15-year estimate of risk for a diagnosis of prostate cancer was 12.8 percent.

The authors conclude that, in this specific cohort of men,

  • Not a single man with a baseline PSA < 1.0 ng/ml between the ages of 40-49 developed intermediate- or high-risk cancer with nearly 20 years of follow-up.
  • Men with low PSAs were also very unlikely to develop a low-risk prostate cancer.
  • 75 percent of men aged between 40 and 49 years of age could avoid annual PSA tests for the next 10 years if their baseline PSA is < 1.0 ng/ml.

This study appears to offer the first confirmatory evidence of the hypothesis originally proposed by Lilja and Vickers that a baseline PSA can accurately project long-term risk for clinically significant prostate cancer. It also appears to provide clear evidence that a baseline PSA level of ≥ 1.0 ng/ml in men in their 40s is an indicator of elevated risk for clinically significant prostate cancer, thus defining a subgroup of men who probably should receive regular PSA tests to monitor their risk over time (even if that risk is low, and immediate treatment is not necessarily recommended).

5 Responses

  1. My PSA was < 1.0 throughout my 40's, but rose to 3.2 at age 55, whenI was diagnosed with prostate cancer. I do not feel we can use the PSA test to set guidelines because the test cannot differentiate high- from low-risk cancer. We need more specific screening makers developed to help solve the screening guideline issue.

  2. Ah … yeah … unless I’m reading those numbers wrong, those stats didn’t work for me. I was 40 and had a baseline PSA of 0.75. Fast forward 4 years: Gleason 9; T3b; PSA 4.03. Yearly testing would have been useful, but can you imagine — mixed messages out there on screening.

  3. Re: “For men with a baseline PSA < 1.0 ng/ml the 10-year estimate of low-risk vs. intermediate-risk prostate cancer was 0.5 percent.”

    Huh? (Trying to figure out what these "vs." comparisons mean. Why is "versus" inserted here? I was expecting a simple low-risk as percentage of all men in the study with a baseline PSA <1.0.)

  4. Sometimes I can only quote what the studies state. I am not a statistician and I only have access to the abstract of the paper, like anyone else. The authors’ conclusion is pretty clear, however.

  5. Here is a link to a piece published this morning on the MedPage Today web site that gives greater detail about this study.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: