Literature DB >> 22951161

PCA3 score and prostate cancer diagnosis at repeated saturation biopsy. Which cut-off: 20 or 35?

Pietro Pepe1, Filippo Fraggetta, Antonio Galia, Giorgio Skonieczny, Francesco Aragona.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare PCA3 score cut-off of 35 vs 20 in PCa diagnosis in patients undergoing repeated saturation prostate biopsy (SPBx).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: From January 2010 to May 2011, 118 patients (median 62.5 years) with primary negative extended biopsy underwent a transperineal SPBx (median 30 cores) for persistent suspicion of PCa. The indications for repeated biopsy were: persistently high or increasing PSA values; PSA > 10 ng/mL, PSA values between 4.1-10 or 2.6-4 ng/mL with free/total PSA ≤ 25% and ≤ 20 %, respectively; moreover, before performing SPBx urinary PCA3 score was evaluated.
RESULTS: All patients had negative DRE and median PSA was 8.5 ng/mL (range: 3.7-24 ng/mL). A T1c PCa was found in 32 patients (27.1 %): PCA3 score was 59 (median; range: 7-201) in the presence of PCa and 35 (median; range: 3-253) in the absence of cancer (p < 0.05). In the presence of ASAP and HGPIN median PCA3 score was 109 (range: 42-253) and 40 (range: 30-140), respectively. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of PCA3 score cut-off of 20 vs 35 in PCa diagnosis were 44.9 vs 50 %, 90.6 vs 71.9 %, 27.9 vs 41.8 %, 31.9 vs 31.5 % and 88.9 vs 80 %, respectively. ROC analysis demonstrated an AUC for PCA3 ≥ 20 vs ≥ 35 of 0.678 and 0.634, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that PCA3 is more useful as an exclusion tool; moreover, setting a PCA3 cut-off at 20 vs 35, would have avoided 22.9 vs 38.1 % of biopsies while missing 9.4 % and 28 % diagnosis of PCa.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22951161     DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382012000400008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Braz J Urol        ISSN: 1677-5538            Impact factor:   1.541


  10 in total

Review 1.  Addressing the need for repeat prostate biopsy: new technology and approaches.

Authors:  Michael L Blute; E Jason Abel; Tracy M Downs; Frederick Kelcz; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 2.  Screening and Detection of Prostate Cancer-Review of Literature and Current Perspective.

Authors:  Ananthakrishnan Sivaraman; Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam Bhat
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-01-23

3.  Multiparametric MRI Versus SelectMDx Accuracy in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant PCa in Men Enrolled in Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Pietro Pepe; Giuseppe Dibenedetto; Ludovica Pepe; Michele Pennisi
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 4.  The PCA3 test for guiding repeat biopsy of prostate cancer and its cut-off score: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yong Luo; Xin Gou; Peng Huang; Chan Mou
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2014 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.285

Review 5.  Evaluation of prostate cancer antigen 3 for detecting prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yong Cui; Wenzhou Cao; Quan Li; Hua Shen; Chao Liu; Junpeng Deng; Jiangfeng Xu; Qiang Shao
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  Somatic Mutation Analyses in Studies of the Clonal Evolution and Diagnostic Targets of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Dmitry S Mikhaylenko; Gennady D Efremov; Vladimir V Strelnikov; Dmitry V Zaletaev; Boris Y Alekseev
Journal:  Curr Genomics       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 2.236

7.  Electrochemical and optical detection and machine learning applied to images of genosensors for diagnosis of prostate cancer with the biomarker PCA3.

Authors:  Valquiria C Rodrigues; Juliana C Soares; Andrey C Soares; Daniel C Braz; Matias Eliseo Melendez; Lucas C Ribas; Leonardo F S Scabini; Odemir M Bruno; Andre Lopes Carvalho; Rui Manuel Reis; Rafaela C Sanfelice; Osvaldo N Oliveira
Journal:  Talanta       Date:  2020-08-07       Impact factor: 6.057

8.  A Combined CRISP3 and SPINK1 Prognostic Grade in EPS-Urine and Establishment of Models to Predict Prognosis of Patients With Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Lizhu Chen; Enchong Zhang; Johnny Guan; Zhengjie Chen; Jianfeng Ye; Wangmin Liu; Jieqian He; Bo Yin; Yongsheng Song; Mo Zhang
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-02-17

9.  Ubiquitin-related lncRNAs: The new tool for prognosis prediction in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Xiang Liu; Wangli Mei; Liang Jin; Xianchao Sun; Zhen Zhou; Shiyong Xin; Liqun Huang; Guosheng Yang; Jinyou Wang; Lin Ye
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 5.738

10.  Diagnosis accuracy of PCA3 level in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhiqiang Qin; Jianxiang Yao; Luwei Xu; Zheng Xu; Yuzheng Ge; Liuhua Zhou; Feng Zhao; Ruipeng Jia
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2020 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.050

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.