BACKGROUND: The free prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform, [-2]proPSA, has been shown to be associated with prostate cancer. The study objective was to characterize the clinical utility of serum [-2]proPSA for prostate cancer detection and assess its association with aggressive disease. METHODS: From among 669 subjects in a prospective prostate cancer detection study at four National Cancer Institute Early Detection Research Network clinical validation centers, 566 were eligible. Serum PSA, free PSA, and [-2]proPSA were measured (Beckman Coulter Access 2 Analyzer). RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-five (43%) of the 566 participants had prostate cancer on biopsy. At 70% specificity, the sensitivity of %[-2]proPSA ([-2]proPSA/fPSA) was 54% [95% confidence interval (CI), 48-61%; null hypothesis, 40%]. Including %[-2]proPSA in a multivariate prediction model incorporating PSA and %fPSA improved the performance (P<0.01). In the 2 to 4 ng/mL PSA range, %[-2]proPSA outperformed %fPSA (receiver operator characteristic-areas under the curve, 0.73 versus 0.61; P=0.01). At 80% sensitivity, %[-2]proPSA had significantly higher specificity (51.6%; 95% CI, 41.2-61.8%) than PSA (29.9%; 95% CI, 21.0-40.0%) and %fPSA (28.9%; 95% CI, 20.1-39.0%). In the 2 to 10 ng/mL PSA range, a multivariate model had significant improvement (area under the curve, 0.76) over individual PSA forms (P<0.01 to <0.0001). At 80% sensitivity, the specificity of %[-2]proPSA (44.9%; 95% CI, 38.4-51.5%) was significantly higher than PSA (30.8%; 95% CI, 24.9-37.1%) and relatively higher than %fPSA (34.6%; 95% CI, 28.5-41.4%). %[-2]proPSA increased with increasing Gleason score (P<0.001) and was higher in aggressive cancers (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study, %[-2]proPSA showed potential clinical utility for improving prostate cancer detection and was related to the risk of aggressive disease. IMPACT: The addition of %[-2]proPSA could affect the early detection of prostate cancer. Copyright (c) 2010 AACR
BACKGROUND: The free prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform, [-2]proPSA, has been shown to be associated with prostate cancer. The study objective was to characterize the clinical utility of serum [-2]proPSA for prostate cancer detection and assess its association with aggressive disease. METHODS: From among 669 subjects in a prospective prostate cancer detection study at four National Cancer Institute Early Detection Research Network clinical validation centers, 566 were eligible. Serum PSA, free PSA, and [-2]proPSA were measured (Beckman Coulter Access 2 Analyzer). RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-five (43%) of the 566 participants had prostate cancer on biopsy. At 70% specificity, the sensitivity of %[-2]proPSA ([-2]proPSA/fPSA) was 54% [95% confidence interval (CI), 48-61%; null hypothesis, 40%]. Including %[-2]proPSA in a multivariate prediction model incorporating PSA and %fPSA improved the performance (P<0.01). In the 2 to 4 ng/mL PSA range, %[-2]proPSA outperformed %fPSA (receiver operator characteristic-areas under the curve, 0.73 versus 0.61; P=0.01). At 80% sensitivity, %[-2]proPSA had significantly higher specificity (51.6%; 95% CI, 41.2-61.8%) than PSA (29.9%; 95% CI, 21.0-40.0%) and %fPSA (28.9%; 95% CI, 20.1-39.0%). In the 2 to 10 ng/mL PSA range, a multivariate model had significant improvement (area under the curve, 0.76) over individual PSA forms (P<0.01 to <0.0001). At 80% sensitivity, the specificity of %[-2]proPSA (44.9%; 95% CI, 38.4-51.5%) was significantly higher than PSA (30.8%; 95% CI, 24.9-37.1%) and relatively higher than %fPSA (34.6%; 95% CI, 28.5-41.4%). %[-2]proPSA increased with increasing Gleason score (P<0.001) and was higher in aggressive cancers (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study, %[-2]proPSA showed potential clinical utility for improving prostate cancer detection and was related to the risk of aggressive disease. IMPACT: The addition of %[-2]proPSA could affect the early detection of prostate cancer. Copyright (c) 2010 AACR
Authors: S D Mikolajczyk; K M Marker; L S Millar; A Kumar; M S Saedi; J K Payne; C L Evans; C L Gasior; H J Linton; P Carpenter; H G Rittenhouse Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-09-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: S D Mikolajczyk; L S Millar; T J Wang; H G Rittenhouse; L S Marks; W Song; T M Wheeler; K M Slawin Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2000-02-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Lori J Sokoll; Daniel W Chan; Stephen D Mikolajczyk; Harry G Rittenhouse; Cindy L Evans; Harry J Linton; Leslie A Mangold; Phaedre Mohr; Georg Bartsch; Helmut Klocker; Wolfgang Horninger; Alan W Partin Journal: Urology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Masood A Khan; Alan W Partin; Harry G Rittenhouse; Stephen D Mikolajczyk; Lori J Sokoll; Daniel W Chan; Robert W Veltri Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: William J Catalona; Georg Bartsch; Harry G Rittenhouse; Cindy L Evans; Harry J Linton; Anna Amirkhan; Wolfgang Horninger; Helmut Klocker; Stephen D Mikolajczyk Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: William J Catalona; Georg Bartsch; Harry G Rittenhouse; Cindy L Evans; Harry J Linton; Wolfgang Horninger; Helmut Klocker; Stephen D Mikolajczyk Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alan W Partin; Michael K Brawer; Georg Bartsch; Wolfgang Horninger; Samir S Taneja; Herbert Lepor; Richard Babaian; Stacy J Childs; Thomas Stamey; Herbert A Fritsche; Lori Sokoll; Daniel W Chan; Robert P Thiel; Carol D Cheli Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Yoshio Naya; Herbert A Fritsche; Viju A Bhadkamkar; Stephen D Mikolajczyk; Harry G Rittenhouse; R Joseph Babaian Journal: Urology Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Yuanyuan Liang; Donna P Ankerst; Norma S Ketchum; Barbara Ercole; Girish Shah; John D Shaughnessy; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Xiaomei Ma; Rong Wang; Jessica B Long; Joseph S Ross; Pamela R Soulos; James B Yu; Danil V Makarov; Heather T Gold; Cary P Gross Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Thomas Rhodes; Debra J Jacobson; Michaela E McGree; Jennifer L St Sauver; Cynthia J Girman; Michael M Lieber; George G Klee; Kitaw Demissie; Steven J Jacobsen Journal: Urology Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Stacy Loeb; Zhaoyong Feng; Sumit Isharwal; Patricia Landis; Debra J Elliot; Robert Veltri; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; H Ballentine Carter; Bruce Trock; Lori J Sokoll Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 7.450