Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is increasingly being diagnosed in China. Early detection of bone metastases (BM) is critical in the management of patients with high-risk PCa. The aim of this study is to establish a screening model to determine if bone scan should be performed for BM in Chinese patients at the time when PCa is diagnosed. Materials and Methods: The study included 488 patients who were diagnosed with PCa between 2009 and 2011 at a single center. All patients received bone scans using technetium 99mTc methylene diphosphonate at the initial staging. If the bone scan finding was equivocal, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging was performed to confirm the diagnosis. Age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis, clinical stage assigned according to the TNM 2002 staging system and biopsy Gleason score were collected in all patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify statistically significant covariates and then receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to identify optimal cut-off values. Using these cut-off values, a formula was devised to calculate an index value for BM screening at diagnosis. The model was cross-validated using the leave-one-out method. Results: Of the 488 patients, 65 patients (13.3%) had BM. The area under the ROC curve was 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.83-0.94). The sensitivity of the cut-off point was 87.7% and the specificity was 73.1%. Bone scan is needed for all cT4 PCa patients, however, it is also advisable for cT1-T3 PCa patients who have a biopsy Gleason score ≤3 + 4 and a PSA >132.1, and for cT1-T3 patients having a Gleason score of ≥4 + 3 and PSA >44.5. Conclusions: The regression model may help determine if bone scan is needed to detect BM from PCa at the time of diagnosis. The model was generated upon a single center experience. Further validation is needed in future studies.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Bone metastasis, Diagnosis, Bone scan
1.
Li M, Zhang SW, Ma JH, Chen WQ, Na YQ: A comparative study on incidence trends of prostate cancer in part of cities and counties in China. Chin J Urol 2009;30:368-370.
2.
Ye DW, Li CL: Epidemiological trends of prostate cancer: retrospect and prospect. China Oncol 2007;17:177-180.
3.
Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al: International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 2012;61:1079-1092.
4.
Oefelein MG, Ricchiuti V, Conrad W, et al: Skeletal fractures negatively correlate with overall survival in men with prostate cancer. J Urol 2002;168:1005-1007.
5.
Coleman RE: Metastatic bone disease: clinical features, pathophysiology and treatment strategies. Cancer Treat Rev 2001;27:165-176.
6.
Zhu N: Guide to Diagnosis and Treatment of Urological Diseases in China. Beijing, PMPH, 2011.
7.
Kawachi MH, Bahnson RR, Barry M, et al: NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer early detection. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010;8:240-262.
8.
European Association of Urology: EAU Guidelines, 2011. http://www.uroweb.org/guidelines/.
9.
Briganti A, Passoni N, Ferrari M, et al: When to perform bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: external validation of the currently available guidelines and proposal of a novel risk stratification tool. Eur Urol 2010;57:551-558.
10.
McArthur C, McLaughlin G, Meddings RN: Changing the referral criteria for bone scan in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients. Br J Radiol 2012;85:390-394.
11.
Tanaka N, Fujimoto K, Shinkai T, et al: Bone scan can be spared in asymptomatic prostate cancer patients with PSA of ≤20 ng/ml and Gleason score of ≤6 at the initial stage of diagnosis. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2011;41:1209-1213.
12.
Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, et al: Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3459-3464.
13.
Amin A, Partin A, Epstein JI: Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: relation of primary pattern 3 or 4 to pathological stage and progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011;186:1286-1290.
14.
Chybowski FM, Keller JJ, Bergstralh EJ, et al: Predicting radionuclide bone scan findings in patients with newly diagnosed, untreated prostate cancer: prostate specific antigen is superior to all other clinical parameters. J Urol 1991;145:313-318.
15.
Wolff JM, Zimny M, Borchers H, et al: Is prostate-specific antigen a reliable marker of bone metastasis in patients with newly diagnosed cancer of the prostate? Eur Urol 1998;33:376-381.
16.
Bruwer G, Heyns CF, Allen FJ: Influence of local tumour stage and grade on reliability of serum prostate-specific antigen in predicting skeletal metastases in patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Eur Urol 1999;35:223-227.
17.
Ma CG, Ye DW, Li CL, et al: Epidemiology of prostate cancer from three centers and analysis of the first-line hormonal therapy for the advanced disease (in Chinese). Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 2008;46:921-925.
18.
Lorente JA, Valenzuela H, Morote J, et al: Serum bone alkaline phosphatase levels enhance the clinical utility of prostate specific antigen in the staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26:625-632.
19.
Salminen E, Ala-Houhala M, Korpela J, et al: Serum tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP 5b) as a marker of skeletal changes in prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 2005;44:742-747.
20.
Ozu C, Nakashima J, Horiguchi Y, et al: Prediction of bone metastases by combination of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase and prostate specific antigen in patients with prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2008;15:419-422.
21.
Kamiya N, Suzuki H, Yano M, et al: Implications of serum bone turnover markers in prostate cancer patients with bone metastasis. Urology 2010;75:1446-1451.`
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.