PURPOSE: We evaluated the impact of age on PCA3 score and the utility of age-specific reference values in predicting initial prostate biopsy (pBx) outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included 205 men who underwent an initial 14-core TRUS-guided pBx due to PSA > 3.0 ng/ml or suspicious digital-rectal examination (DRE). PCA3 scores were measured with the Progensa assay. Linear regression models were fit to identify factors that impact PCA3 score and to determine age-specific reference values. Predictive accuracies of logistic regression models predicting presence of prostate cancer (PCa) were analyzed. RESULTS: The positive biopsy rate was 37%. In multivariable linear regression, age (P < 0.001), presence of PCa (P < 0.001), and multifocal HG-PIN (P = 0.012) were independent predictors of PCA3 score. Age showed the strongest impact on PCA3 score (T = 4.77). The upper 95% confidence interval of PCA3 score in each age category was defined as the age-specific limit. A PCA3-score over the age-specific limit (PCA3-age) was associated with an 4.17-fold increased odds of being diagnosed with PCa (P < 0.001). In multivariable logistic regression models predicting the presence of PCa, predictive accuracy of a base model (age, DRE, PSA, volume) increased from 69.6 to 75.4% (P = 0.037) by adding the continuous PCA3 score, to 73.9% (P = 0.098) with the 35 cutoff (PCA3-35) and to 77.1% (P = 0.008) with PCA3-age. CONCLUSIONS: PCA3 score increases with age, independent of PCa presence. Age-specific PCA3 score reference values are superior to PSA, continuous PCA3 score, and PCA3-35 in predicting initial pBx outcome. Therefore, an age-adjusted PCA3 score should be used for interpretation of the results.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the impact of age on PCA3 score and the utility of age-specific reference values in predicting initial prostate biopsy (pBx) outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included 205 men who underwent an initial 14-core TRUS-guided pBx due to PSA > 3.0 ng/ml or suspicious digital-rectal examination (DRE). PCA3 scores were measured with the Progensa assay. Linear regression models were fit to identify factors that impact PCA3 score and to determine age-specific reference values. Predictive accuracies of logistic regression models predicting presence of prostate cancer (PCa) were analyzed. RESULTS: The positive biopsy rate was 37%. In multivariable linear regression, age (P < 0.001), presence of PCa (P < 0.001), and multifocal HG-PIN (P = 0.012) were independent predictors of PCA3 score. Age showed the strongest impact on PCA3 score (T = 4.77). The upper 95% confidence interval of PCA3 score in each age category was defined as the age-specific limit. A PCA3-score over the age-specific limit (PCA3-age) was associated with an 4.17-fold increased odds of being diagnosed with PCa (P < 0.001). In multivariable logistic regression models predicting the presence of PCa, predictive accuracy of a base model (age, DRE, PSA, volume) increased from 69.6 to 75.4% (P = 0.037) by adding the continuous PCA3 score, to 73.9% (P = 0.098) with the 35 cutoff (PCA3-35) and to 77.1% (P = 0.008) with PCA3-age. CONCLUSIONS:PCA3 score increases with age, independent of PCa presence. Age-specific PCA3 score reference values are superior to PSA, continuous PCA3 score, and PCA3-35 in predicting initial pBx outcome. Therefore, an age-adjusted PCA3 score should be used for interpretation of the results.
Authors: Alexandre de la Taille; Jacques Irani; Markus Graefen; Felix Chun; Theo de Reijke; Paul Kil; Paolo Gontero; Alain Mottaz; Alexander Haese Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sheila M J Aubin; Jennifer Reid; Mark J Sarno; Amy Blase; Jacqueline Aussie; Harry Rittenhouse; Roger Rittmaster; Gerald L Andriole; Jack Groskopf Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Juan Morote; Marina Rigau; Marta Garcia; Carmen Mir; Carlos Ballesteros; Jacques Planas; Carles X Raventós; José Placer; Inés M de Torres; Jaume Reventós; Andreas Doll Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-07-07 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Celia Prior; Francisco Guillen-Grima; Jose E Robles; David Rosell; Jose M Fernandez-Montero; Xabier Agirre; Raúl Catena; Alfonso Calvo Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Daniella Bianchi-Frias; Funda Vakar-Lopez; Ilsa M Coleman; Stephen R Plymate; May J Reed; Peter S Nelson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daniel W Lin; Lisa F Newcomb; Elissa C Brown; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Ziding Feng; Martin E Gleave; Raymond S Lance; Martin G Sanda; Ian M Thompson; John T Wei; Peter S Nelson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Rodney L Dunn; Yashar S Niknafs; Anjan Saha; Randy A Vince; Jennifer L St Sauver; Debra J Jacobson; Michaela E McGree; Javed Siddiqui; Jack Groskopf; Steven J Jacobsen; Scott A Tomlins; Lakshmi P Kunju; Todd M Morgan; Simpa S Salami; John T Wei; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Aruna V Sarma Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-05-25