OBJECTIVES: To assess a novel application of the Prostate Health Index (phi) and biopsy tissue DNA content in benign-adjacent and cancer areas to predict which patients would eventually require treatment of prostate cancer in the Proactive Surveillance cohort. METHODS: We identified 71 men who had had serum and biopsy tissue from their diagnosis banked and available for the present study. Of the 71 patients, 39 had developed unfavorable biopsy findings and 32 had maintained favorable biopsy status during surveillance. The serum total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA), free PSA (fPSA) and [-2]proPSA were measured using the Beckman Coulter immunoassay. The DNA content measurements of Feulgen-stained biopsy sections were performed using the AutoCyte imaging system. RESULTS: The ratio of phi was significantly greater (37.23 ± 15.76 vs 30.60 ± 12.28; P = .03) in men who ultimately had unfavorable biopsy findings. The serum phi ratio (P = .003), [-2]proPSA/%fPSA (P = .004), biopsy tissue DNA content (ie, benign-adjacent excess of optical density, P = .019; and cancer area standard deviation of optical density, P = .002) were significant predictors of unfavorable biopsy conversion on Cox regression analysis. However, phi and [-2]proPSA/%fPSA showed a highly significant correlation (rho = 0.927, P < .0001) and no difference in accuracy (c-index, 0.6247 vs 0.6158; P = .704) for unfavorable biopsy conversion prediction. Furthermore, phi and [-2]proPSA/%fPSA remained significant (P = .047 and P = .036, respectively) in the multivariate models and, combined with the biopsy tissue DNA content, showed improvement in the predictive accuracy (c-index, 0.6908 and 0.6884, respectively) for unfavorable biopsy conversion. CONCLUSIONS: The Prostate Health Index to proPSA/%fPSA, combined with biopsy tissue DNA content, improved the accuracy to about 70% to predict unfavorable biopsy conversion at the annual surveillance biopsy examination among men enrolled in an Active Surveillance program.
OBJECTIVES: To assess a novel application of the Prostate Health Index (phi) and biopsy tissue DNA content in benign-adjacent and cancer areas to predict which patients would eventually require treatment of prostate cancer in the Proactive Surveillance cohort. METHODS: We identified 71 men who had had serum and biopsy tissue from their diagnosis banked and available for the present study. Of the 71 patients, 39 had developed unfavorable biopsy findings and 32 had maintained favorable biopsy status during surveillance. The serum total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA), free PSA (fPSA) and [-2]proPSA were measured using the Beckman Coulter immunoassay. The DNA content measurements of Feulgen-stained biopsy sections were performed using the AutoCyte imaging system. RESULTS: The ratio of phi was significantly greater (37.23 ± 15.76 vs 30.60 ± 12.28; P = .03) in men who ultimately had unfavorable biopsy findings. The serum phi ratio (P = .003), [-2]proPSA/%fPSA (P = .004), biopsy tissue DNA content (ie, benign-adjacent excess of optical density, P = .019; and cancer area standard deviation of optical density, P = .002) were significant predictors of unfavorable biopsy conversion on Cox regression analysis. However, phi and [-2]proPSA/%fPSA showed a highly significant correlation (rho = 0.927, P < .0001) and no difference in accuracy (c-index, 0.6247 vs 0.6158; P = .704) for unfavorable biopsy conversion prediction. Furthermore, phi and [-2]proPSA/%fPSA remained significant (P = .047 and P = .036, respectively) in the multivariate models and, combined with the biopsy tissue DNA content, showed improvement in the predictive accuracy (c-index, 0.6908 and 0.6884, respectively) for unfavorable biopsy conversion. CONCLUSIONS: The Prostate Health Index to proPSA/%fPSA, combined with biopsy tissue DNA content, improved the accuracy to about 70% to predict unfavorable biopsy conversion at the annual surveillance biopsy examination among men enrolled in an Active Surveillance program.
Authors: Brian V Le; Christopher R Griffin; Stacy Loeb; Gustavo F Carvalhal; Donghui Kan; Nikola A Baumann; William J Catalona Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mark H Kawachi; Robert R Bahnson; Michael Barry; J Erik Busby; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; William J Catalona; Michael S Cookson; Jonathan I Epstein; Ruth B Etzioni; Veda N Giri; George P Hemstreet; Richard J Howe; Paul H Lange; Hans Lilja; Kevin R Loughlin; James Mohler; Judd Moul; Robert B Nadler; Stephen G Patterson; Joseph C Presti; Antoinette M Stroup; Robert Wake; John T Wei Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Edward P Gelmann; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Richard B Hayes; Barnett S Kramer; Grant Izmirlian; Anthony B Miller; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Frej Filén; Mirja Ruutu; Hans Garmo; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Stefan Bratell; Anders Spångberg; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-08-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sumit Isharwal; Michael Craig Miller; Jonathan I Epstein; Leslie A Mangold; Elizabeth Humphreys; Alan W Partin; Robert W Veltri Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2008-12-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Uma R Chandran; Rajiv Dhir; Changqing Ma; George Michalopoulos; Michael Becich; John Gilbertson Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2005-05-13 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Martin G Sanda; Dennis L Broyles; Sanghyuk S Shin; Chris H Bangma; John T Wei; Alan W Partin; George G Klee; Kevin M Slawin; Leonard S Marks; Ron H N van Schaik; Daniel W Chan; Lori J Sokoll; Amabelle B Cruz; Isaac A Mizrahi; William J Catalona Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 7.450
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
Authors: Ottavio de Cobelli; Daniela Terracciano; Elena Tagliabue; Sara Raimondi; Danilo Bottero; Antonio Cioffi; Barbara Jereczek-Fossa; Giuseppe Petralia; Giovanni Cordima; Gilberto Laurino Almeida; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Carlo Buonerba; Deliu Victor Matei; Giuseppe Renne; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Matteo Ferro Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 3.240