PSA Quo Vadis? It Is Reasonable to Start with Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing at the Age of 40!

Infectious mononucleosis, other infections and prostate-specific antigen concentration as a marker of prostate involvement during infection

Although Epstein-Barr virus has been detected in prostate tissue, no associations have been observed with prostate cancer in the few studies conducted to date. One possible reason for these null findings may be use of cumulative exposure measures that do not inform the timing of infection, i.e., childhood versus adolescence/early adulthood when infection is more likely to manifest as infectious mononucleosis (IM). We sought to determine the influence of young adult-onset IM on the prostate by measuring prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a marker of prostate inflammation/damage among U.S. military members. We defined IM cases as men diagnosed with IM from 1998 to 2003 (n = 55) and controls as men without an IM diagnosis (n = 255). We selected two archived serum specimens for each participant, the first collected after diagnosis for cases and one randomly selected from 1998 to 2003 for controls (index), as well as the preceding specimen (preindex). PSA was measured in each specimen. To explore the specificity of our findings for prostate as opposed to systemic inflammation, we performed a post hoc comparison of other infectious disease cases without genitourinary involvement (n = 90) and controls (n = 220). We found that IM cases were more likely to have a large PSA rise than controls (≥ 20 ng/mL: 19.7% versus 8.8%, p = 0.027; ≥ 40% rise: 25.7% versus 9.4%, p = 0.0021), as were other infectious disease cases (25.7% versus 14.0%, p = 0.020; 27.7% versus 18.0%, p = 0.092). These findings suggest that, in addition to rising because of prostate infection, PSA may also rise because of systemic inflammation, which could have implications for PSA interpretation in older men.

[PSA screening 2013: background and perspectives]

In the healthcare political discussions on treatment measures, the controversy over prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has taken a leading role in comparison to, for example the relatively undisputed role of breast and colon screening. This has fortunately led to an in-depth critical analysis of the available data. One advantage is the benefit on survival which increases with longer follow-up observation times. When carrying out studies the quantitative extent of this benefit can become obscured by prescreening, prevalent screening, lack of compliance, contamination and healthy screen bias. Nevertheless, the European randomized screening study of prostate cancer (ERSPC) study, for example, showed sufficient statistical power to confirm a screening benefit after 9 or 11 years (evidence level A). However, even for prostate cancer the internal problems of preventive medicine of overdiagnosis and overtherapy are also partially dependent on the age range of the screening population and the screening frequency (28-52%). Unnecessary deficits in the quality of life reduce the benefit of survival in these patients. By using a PSA fine tuning and risk stratification, approximately one third of diagnoses and therapies can be avoided. Additionally, the active surveillance of tumors unsuitable for treatment together with an improved quality of therapy should become of greater importance.