PURPOSE: We assessed the independent predictive values of the serum markers free prostate specific antigen, proenzyme prostate specific antigen, neuroendocrine marker and Dickkopf-1 compared to serum prostate specific antigen and other standard risk factors for early prostate cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the prospectively collected SABOR cohort 250 prostate cancer cases, and 250 mean age matched and proportion of African-American race/ethnicity matched controls were selected who had a prior available prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Serum samples were obtained, and free prostate specific antigen, [-2]proenzyme prostate specific antigen, Dickkopf-1 and neuroendocrine marker were measured. AUC, sensitivities and specificities were calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the independent predictive value compared to prostate specific antigen, digital rectal examination, family history, prior biopsy history, race/ethnicity and age. RESULTS: The AUCs (95% CI) were 0.76 (0.71, 0.8) for free prostate specific antigen, 0.72 (0.67, 0.76) for [-2]proenzyme prostate specific antigen, 0.76 (0.72, 0.8) for %free prostate specific antigen, 0.61 (0.56, 0.66) for %[-2]proenzyme prostate specific antigen, 0.73 (0.68, 0.77) for prostate health index, 0.53 (0.48, 0.58) for Dickkopf-1 and 0.53 (0.48, 0.59) for neuroendocrine marker. In the 2 to 10 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range the AUCs (95% CI) were 0.58 (0.49, 0.67) for free prostate specific antigen, 0.53 (0.44, 0.62) for [-2]proenzyme prostate specific antigen, 0.67 (0.59, 0.75) for %free prostate specific antigen, 0.57 (0.49, 0.65) for %[-2]proenzyme prostate specific antigen and 0.59 (0.51, 0.67) for phi. Only %free prostate specific antigen retained independent predictive value compared to the traditional risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Free prostate specific antigen retained independent diagnostic usefulness for prostate cancers detected through prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination screening. Prostate specific antigen isoforms are highly correlated with prostate specific antigen. Future research is needed to identify new markers associated with prostate cancer through different mechanisms.
PURPOSE: We assessed the independent predictive values of the serum markers free prostate specific antigen, proenzyme prostate specific antigen, neuroendocrine marker and Dickkopf-1 compared to serum prostate specific antigen and other standard risk factors for early prostate cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the prospectively collected SABOR cohort 250 prostate cancer cases, and 250 mean age matched and proportion of African-American race/ethnicity matched controls were selected who had a prior available prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Serum samples were obtained, and free prostate specific antigen, [-2]proenzyme prostate specific antigen, Dickkopf-1 and neuroendocrine marker were measured. AUC, sensitivities and specificities were calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the independent predictive value compared to prostate specific antigen, digital rectal examination, family history, prior biopsy history, race/ethnicity and age. RESULTS: The AUCs (95% CI) were 0.76 (0.71, 0.8) for free prostate specific antigen, 0.72 (0.67, 0.76) for [-2]proenzyme prostate specific antigen, 0.76 (0.72, 0.8) for %free prostate specific antigen, 0.61 (0.56, 0.66) for %[-2]proenzyme prostate specific antigen, 0.73 (0.68, 0.77) for prostate health index, 0.53 (0.48, 0.58) for Dickkopf-1 and 0.53 (0.48, 0.59) for neuroendocrine marker. In the 2 to 10 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range the AUCs (95% CI) were 0.58 (0.49, 0.67) for free prostate specific antigen, 0.53 (0.44, 0.62) for [-2]proenzyme prostate specific antigen, 0.67 (0.59, 0.75) for %free prostate specific antigen, 0.57 (0.49, 0.65) for %[-2]proenzyme prostate specific antigen and 0.59 (0.51, 0.67) for phi. Only %free prostate specific antigen retained independent predictive value compared to the traditional risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Free prostate specific antigen retained independent diagnostic usefulness for prostate cancers detected through prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination screening. Prostate specific antigen isoforms are highly correlated with prostate specific antigen. Future research is needed to identify new markers associated with prostate cancer through different mechanisms.
Authors: Yoshio Naya; Herbert A Fritsche; Viju A Bhadkamkar; Stephen D Mikolajczyk; Harry G Rittenhouse; Richard Joseph Babaian Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Dipen J Parekh; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Betsy A Higgins; Javier Hernandez; Edith Canby-Hagino; Timothy Brand; Dean A Troyer; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson Journal: Urology Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Christopher L Hall; Stephanie D Daignault; Rajal B Shah; Kenneth J Pienta; Evan T Keller Journal: Prostate Date: 2008-09-15 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Patrik Finne; Anssi Auvinen; Jussi Aro; Harri Juusela; Liisa Määttänen; Sakari Rannikko; Matti Hakama; Teuvo L J Tammela; Ulf-Håkan Stenman Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Carsten Stephan; Anna-Maria Kahrs; Henning Cammann; Michael Lein; Mark Schrader; Serdar Deger; Kurt Miller; Klaus Jung Journal: Prostate Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 4.104
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: Lori J Sokoll; Yinghui Wang; Ziding Feng; Jacob Kagan; Alan W Partin; Martin G Sanda; Ian M Thompson; Daniel W Chan Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-06-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna K Pauler; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Lori M Minasian; Leslie G Ford; Scott M Lippman; E David Crawford; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Donna P Ankerst; Josef Hoefler; Sebastian Bock; Phyllis J Goodman; Andrew Vickers; Javier Hernandez; Lori J Sokoll; Martin G Sanda; John T Wei; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson Journal: Urology Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ricardo A Rendon; Ross J Mason; Karim Marzouk; Antonio Finelli; Fred Saad; Alan So; Phillipe Violette; Rodney H Breau Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Donna P Ankerst; Tim Koniarski; Yuanyuan Liang; Robin J Leach; Ziding Feng; Martin G Sanda; Alan W Partin; Daniel W Chan; Jacob Kagan; Lori Sokoll; John T Wei; Ian M Thompson Journal: Biom J Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 2.207
Authors: Ross J Mason; Karim Marzouk; Antonio Finelli; Fred Saad; Alan I So; Philippe D Violette; Rodney H Breau; Ricardo A Rendon Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 2.052
Authors: Edward A Medina; Xiaoyu Shi; Marcia H Grayson; Donna P Ankerst; Carolina B Livi; Maria V Medina; Ian M Thompson; Robin J Leach Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Donna Pauler Ankerst; Jonathan Gelfond; Martin Goros; Jesus Herrera; Andreas Strobl; Ian M Thompson; Javier Hernandez; Robin J Leach Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-03-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Salah Alzghoul; Mohammad Hailat; Sandra Zivanovic; Long Que; Girish V Shah Journal: Biosens Bioelectron Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 10.618
Authors: Michael A Liss; Robin J Leach; Martin G Sanda; Oliver J Semmes Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 4.254