Optimal Starting Age and Baseline Level for Repeat Tests: Economic Concerns of PSA Screening for Chinese Men - 10-Year Experience of a Single Center.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the optimal age for the baseline serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test and for repeat screening and its economic burden in a single center in China. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 35,533 men with PSA screening were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Follow-ups were conducted in 1,586 men with PSA >4 ng/mL, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were employed to investigate the optimal cutoffs. RESULTS: ROC analysis indicated that the optimal age for initial PSA screening was 57.5 years (AUC = 0.84), 62.5 years (AUC = 0.902), 60.5 years (AUC = 0.909), and 61.5 years (AUC = 0.890) for individuals with PSA >4 and >10 ng/mL, a diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa), and clinically significant PCa defined as the focus events, respectively. For Chinese men aged 50-59, 60-69, and >70 years, the initial PSA levels of 1.305 ng/mL (AUC = 0.699), 1.975 ng/mL (AUC = 0.711), and 2.740 ng/mL (AUC = 0.720) might have a PSA velocity >0.75 ng/mL per year during the follow-up. In addition, the total cost amounts to CNY 13,609,260 in these cases, but only 60 of the 35,533 (0.17%) men gained benefit from PSA screening. CONCLUSION: In our opinion, the optimal starting age for initial PSA testing was 57.5 years. The necessity for repeat screening should be based on the first PSA level depending on age. A cost--benefit analysis should be included in population-based screening.

Comparison of Uterine Receptivity between Fertile and Unexplained Infertile Women by Assessment of Endometrial and Subendometrial Perfusion Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound: Which Index is Better--Peak Intensity or Area under the Curve?

The goal of this study was to compare uterine receptivity between women with normal fertility and those with unexplained infertility during natural cycles by assessment of endometrial and subendometrial perfusion using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). We wanted to determine the better index: peak intensity (PI) or area under the curve (AUC). Thirty women with unexplained infertility were recruited into the study group, and 30 women with normal fertility were recruited into the control group. All women underwent CEUS during the late proliferative phase, ovulation phase, and implantation window of a menstrual cycle. Endometrial PI, endometrial AUC, subendometrial PI and subendometrial AUC were analyzed. In the late proliferative phase, the control group had a significantly higher endometrial PI (p < 0.001) as well as subendometrial PI (p < 0.001) and AUC (p = 0.004) than the study group. In the ovulation phase, the control group had a significantly higher endometrial PI (p < 0.001) and AUC (p = 0.021), as well as subendometrial PI (p < 0.001) and AUC (p = 0.003). During the implantation window, there were no significant differences between the two groups. Only subendometrial PI underwent a significant periodic change during the menstrual cycle in both groups. This finding was further confirmed by evaluation of the microvessel density of endometria. In conclusion, CEUS can be used to assess endometrial and subendometrial perfusion to evaluate uterine receptivity. Subendometrial PI was the most sensitive index compared with endometrial PI, endometrial AUC and subendometrial AUC.

A fine decision tree consisted of CK5/6, IMP3 and TTF1 for cytological diagnosis among reactive mesothelial cells, metastatic adenocarcinoma of lung and non-lung origin in pleural effusion.

The utility of combination with CK5/6, IMP3 and TTF1 to differentiate among reactive mesothelial cells (RMs), metastatic adenocarcinoma of lung (LAC) and non-lung (NLAC) origin was investigated by using immunocytochemistry (ICC) and conventional PCR (C-PCR) in pleural effusion. A total of 108 cell blocks (32 RMs, 51 LAC and 25 NLAC were evaluated by ICC for CK5/6, IMP3 and TTF1 protein expression. In addition, we further performed C-PCR for amplification of CK5/6, IMP3 and TTF1 DNA from 28 specimens (9 MAC and 7 RMs, 6 LAC and 6 NLAC) for molecular diagnosis. CK5/6 staining was observed in the majority of reactive specimens (78.1%) and was rare in adenocarcinoma cells (14.5%), whereas the opposite was true for IMP3 and TTF1. We found a high frequency of TTF1 positivity (76.5%) in LAC, but not in NLAC (4.0%); while there was no significant difference of IMP3 expression in LAC (88.2%) and NLAC (88.0%). The 487 bp DNA fragments of IMP3 was expected to be amplified in 6/9 of adenocarcinoma cases showed negative in ICC; and the 394 bp DNA fragments of CK5/6 was also expected to be amplified in 4/7 of RMs cases showed negative in ICC. Consistent with ICC results, there was significant difference of TTF1 expression in the LAC and NLAC compared with IMP3 expression. The combination with CK5/6, IMP3 and TTF1 immunostaining appears to be useful to improve the accuracy of cytological diagnoses between RMs, metastatic adenocarcinoma of lung and non-lung origin in pleural effusion. In addition, C-PCR may act as a useful supplemental approach for ICC, especially negative cases in ICC for differential cytological diagnosis.