Prostate specific antigen assay standardization bias could affect clinical decision making.

Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
The Journal of urology (Impact Factor: 3.75). 10/2008; 180(5):1959-62; discussion 1962-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.07.036
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although prostate specific antigen is widely used to detect and manage prostate cancer, many patients and physicians are unaware of which prostate specific antigen assay is being used. Most commercial prostate specific antigen assays are standardized to the WHO 90:10 standard or aligned with the original Hybritech assay with potentially disparate results.
A total of 1,916 men participated in a prostate cancer screening study in 2007. On the day of collection prostate specific antigen was tested from the same serum sample using the Access (Hybritech standard) and ADVIA Centaur (WHO 90:10 prostate specific antigen standard) assays. We examined the differences between the 2 assays and the effect that this might have on clinical decisions.
Median prostate specific antigen was 0.9 and 1.05 ng/ml for the Centaur and Access assays, respectively, representing a 17% difference. Mean prostate specific antigen was 3.45 and 4.79 ng/ml, respectively, representing a 38% difference. Using a prostate specific antigen threshold of 2.5 ng/ml 5% of men would have been recommended to undergo biopsy using the Access but not the Centaur assay. Furthermore, prostate specific antigen differed by greater than 0.4 ng/ml in 26%, greater than 0.75 ng/ml in 14.5% and greater than 2 ng/ml in 4.5% of men in the same sample simply by using the different assays.
In our prospective screening population median prostate specific antigen was 17% lower using WHO vs Hybritech based assay standardization. As such, if these assays were instead used on a serial basis in the same patient, this could lead to false acceleration or false deceleration in prostate specific antigen velocity. Thus, the assay may influence the likelihood of prostate biopsy and, thereby, prostate cancer detection.

  • Reviews in urology 01/2013; 15(4):204-206.
  • The Lancet 11/2011; 378(9804):1696-7; author reply 1967. · 39.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A pharmacoeconomic analysis was carried out comparing the efficacy of two treatment options for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP): telithromycin and clarithromycin. It was a retrospective analysis using a decision tree model. The efficacy of the two treatment options was estimated from a randomized, double-blind clinical trial, in which 800 mg/day oral telithromycin for 10 days was compared to 1000 mg/day oral clarithromycin for 10 days in patients with CAP (162 and 156 respectively). The use of resources was estimated based on the clinical trial and Spanish sources, and the unit costs from a Spanish health costs database. Costs were evaluated for the acquisition of antibiotic treatments, change of antibiotic due to therapeutic failure, hospital admissions, adverse reactions to treatment, primary care visits, tests and indirect costs (working days lost). The model was validated by a panel of Spanish clinical experts. As the clinical trial was designed to show equivalence, there were no significant differences in efficacy between the treatment options (clinical cure rate 88.3% and 88.5%, respectively), and a cost minimization analysis was performed. In the base case, the average cost of the disease per patient was 308.29 euros with telithromycin and 331.5 euros with clarithromycin (a difference of 23.21 euros). The results were stable in the susceptibility analysis, with differences favorable to telithromycin ranging between 5.50 and 45.45 euros. Telithromycin results in a cost savings of up to 45.45 euros per CAP patient compared to clarithromycin.
    Revista espanola de quimioterapia: publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia 10/2003; 16(3):295-303. · 0.84 Impact Factor