Literature DB >> 23213080

Multicenter evaluation of [-2]proprostate-specific antigen and the prostate health index for detecting prostate cancer.

Carsten Stephan1, Sébastien Vincendeau, Alain Houlgatte, Henning Cammann, Klaus Jung, Axel Semjonow.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) is flawed for prostate cancer (PCa) detection. [-2]proprostate-specific antigen (p2PSA), a molecular isoform of free PSA (fPSA), shows higher specificity compared with tPSA or percentage of free PSA (%fPSA). The prostate health index (Phi), a measure based on p2PSA and calculated as p2PSA/fPSA × √tPSA, was evaluated in a multicenter study for detecting PCa.
METHODS: A total of 1362 patients from 4 different study sites who had tPSA values of 1.6-8.0 μg/L (668 patients with PCa, 694 without PCa) underwent ≥10 core biopsies. Serum concentrations of tPSA, fPSA (both calibrated against a WHO reference material), and p2PSA were measured on Access2 or DxI800 analyzers (Beckman Coulter).
RESULTS: The percentage ratio of p2PSA to fPSA (%p2PSA) and Phi were significantly higher in all PCa subcohorts (positive initial or repeat biopsy result or negative digital rectal examination) (P < 0.0001) compared with patients without PCa. Phi had the largest area under the ROC curve (AUC) (AUC = 0.74) and provided significantly better clinical performance for predicting PCa compared with %p2PSA (AUC = 0.72, P = 0.018), p2PSA (AUC = 0.63, P < 0.0001), %fPSA (AUC = 0.61) or tPSA (AUC = 0.56). Significantly higher median values of Phi were observed for patients with a Gleason score ≥7 (Phi = 60) compared with a Gleason score <7 (Phi = 53; P = 0.0018). The proportion of aggressive PCa (Gleason score ≥7) increased with the Phi score.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this multicenter study show that Phi, compared with tPSA or %fPSA, demonstrated superior clinical performance in detecting PCa at tPSA 1.6-8.0 μg/L (i.e., approximately 2-10 μg/L in traditional calibration) and is better able to detect aggressive PCa.
© 2012 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23213080     DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2012.195784

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem        ISSN: 0009-9147            Impact factor:   8.327


  42 in total

1.  Comparison Between the Four-kallikrein Panel and Prostate Health Index for Predicting Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Tobias Nordström; Andrew Vickers; Melissa Assel; Hans Lilja; Henrik Grönberg; Martin Eklund
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 2.  Restoring TGFβ1 pathway-related microRNAs: possible impact in metastatic prostate cancer development.

Authors:  Juliana Inês Santos; Ana Luísa Teixeira; Francisca Dias; Mónica Gomes; Augusto Nogueira; Joana Assis; Rui Medeiros
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-04-25

Review 3.  Artificial neural networks and prostate cancer--tools for diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Xinhai Hu; Henning Cammann; Hellmuth-A Meyer; Kurt Miller; Klaus Jung; Carsten Stephan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 14.432

4.  Differentiating Molecular Risk Assessments for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Benjamin Press; Michael Schulster; Marc A Bjurlin
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2018

Review 5.  Next-generation prostate-specific antigen test: precursor form of prostate-specific antigen.

Authors:  Kazuto Ito; Yuji Fujizuka; Kiyohide Ishikura; Bernard Cook
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer.

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

Review 7.  Clinical performance of serum [-2]proPSA derivatives, %p2PSA and PHI, in the detection and management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ya-Qiang Huang; Tong Sun; Wei-De Zhong; Chin-Lee Wu
Journal:  Am J Clin Exp Urol       Date:  2014-12-25

Review 8.  Clinical Utility of Biomarkers in Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Michael S Leapman; Hao G Nguyen; Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 5.075

9.  The Prostate Health Index in predicting initial prostate biopsy outcomes in Asian men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 4-10 ng/mL.

Authors:  C F Ng; Peter K F Chiu; N Y Lam; H C Lam; Kim W M Lee; Simon S M Hou
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 10.  The Use of Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Screening and Treatment.

Authors:  Ashley V Alford; Joseph M Brito; Kamlesh K Yadav; Shalini S Yadav; Ashutosh K Tewari; Joseph Renzulli
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2017
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.