PURPOSE: Most men with increased serum prostate specific antigen and negative biopsy require repeat biopsy because of the lack of a sensitive and specific prostate cancer detection test. In this study we evaluated the diagnostic potential of a duplex assay for prostate cancer by quantifying transcript levels of alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase and prostate cancer antigen 3 in urine sediments following prostatic massage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urine sediments from 92 patients, 43 with and 49 without prostate cancer, were collected after digital rectal examination. Transcript levels of AMACR, PCA3 and PSA in total RNA isolated from these samples were determined by absolute quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. AMACR and PCA3 scores were obtained by normalizing the transcript level to that of prostate specific antigen for each sample and multiplying by 100. RESULTS: AMACR (p = 0.006) and PCA3 (p = 0.014) scores, but not serum prostate specific antigen (p = 0.306), distinguished specimens from patients with prostate cancer from specimens from patients without prostate cancer, and ROC analysis established the diagnostic cutoff scores for the AMACR and PCA3 tests at 10.7 and 19.9, respectively. As determined from these cutoff scores the AMACR test had 70% (95% CI 56-83) sensitivity and 71% (95% CI 59-84) specificity, whereas the PCA3 test had 72% (95% CI 59-85) sensitivity and 59% (95% CI 45-73) specificity for prostate cancer detection. The combined use of AMACR and PCA3 scores in a dual marker test increased sensitivity to 81% (95% CI 70-93) and specificity to 84% (95% CI 73-94). CONCLUSIONS: Urinary AMACR and PCA3 tests were superior to a serum prostate specific antigen test for detecting prostate cancer. Their combined use in a dual marker test further improved sensitivity and accuracy, and could serve as a surveillance test after repeat negative prostate biopsies.
PURPOSE: Most men with increased serum prostate specific antigen and negative biopsy require repeat biopsy because of the lack of a sensitive and specific prostate cancer detection test. In this study we evaluated the diagnostic potential of a duplex assay for prostate cancer by quantifying transcript levels of alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase and prostate cancer antigen 3 in urine sediments following prostatic massage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urine sediments from 92 patients, 43 with and 49 without prostate cancer, were collected after digital rectal examination. Transcript levels of AMACR, PCA3 and PSA in total RNA isolated from these samples were determined by absolute quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. AMACR and PCA3 scores were obtained by normalizing the transcript level to that of prostate specific antigen for each sample and multiplying by 100. RESULTS:AMACR (p = 0.006) and PCA3 (p = 0.014) scores, but not serum prostate specific antigen (p = 0.306), distinguished specimens from patients with prostate cancer from specimens from patients without prostate cancer, and ROC analysis established the diagnostic cutoff scores for the AMACR and PCA3 tests at 10.7 and 19.9, respectively. As determined from these cutoff scores the AMACR test had 70% (95% CI 56-83) sensitivity and 71% (95% CI 59-84) specificity, whereas the PCA3 test had 72% (95% CI 59-85) sensitivity and 59% (95% CI 45-73) specificity for prostate cancer detection. The combined use of AMACR and PCA3 scores in a dual marker test increased sensitivity to 81% (95% CI 70-93) and specificity to 84% (95% CI 73-94). CONCLUSIONS: Urinary AMACR and PCA3 tests were superior to a serum prostate specific antigen test for detecting prostate cancer. Their combined use in a dual marker test further improved sensitivity and accuracy, and could serve as a surveillance test after repeat negative prostate biopsies.
Authors: J Xu; J A Stolk; X Zhang; S J Silva; R L Houghton; M Matsumura; T S Vedvick; K B Leslie; R Badaro; S G Reed Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2000-03-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: M J Bussemakers; A van Bokhoven; G W Verhaegh; F P Smit; H F Karthaus; J A Schalken; F M Debruyne; N Ru; W B Isaacs Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1999-12-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Martijn P M Q van Gils; Daphne Hessels; Onno van Hooij; Sander A Jannink; W Pim Peelen; Suzanne L J Hanssen; J Alfred Witjes; Erik B Cornel; Herbert F M Karthaus; Geert A H J Smits; Gerhard A Dijkman; Peter F A Mulders; Jack A Schalken Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Craig G Rogers; Gai Yan; Shan Zha; Mark L Gonzalgo; William B Isaacs; Jun Luo; Angelo M De Marzo; William G Nelson; Christian P Pavlovich Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Thomas A Stamey; Mitchell Caldwell; John E McNeal; Rosalie Nolley; Marci Hemenez; Joshua Downs Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Dali Huang; George P Casale; Jun Tian; Nizar K Wehbi; Neil A Abrahams; Zahid Kaleem; Lynette M Smith; Sonny L Johansson; Johny E Elkahwaji; George P Hemstreet Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-07-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Elena S Kotova; Yulia A Savochkina; Yuriy V Doludin; Alexander O Vasilyev; Elena A Prilepskay; Natalia V Potoldykova; Konstantin A Babalyan; Alexandra V Kanygina; Andrey O Morozov; Alexander V Govorov; Dmitry V Enikeev; Elena S Kostryukova; Elena N Ilina; Vadim M Govorun; Dmitry Y Pushkar; Elena I Sharova Journal: Res Rep Urol Date: 2020-09-17
Authors: Bin Ouyang; C Stuart Baxter; Hung-Ming Lam; Samrat Yeramaneni; Linda Levin; Erin Haynes; Shuk-Mei Ho Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.162