OBJECTIVE: To overcome the well-known prostate-specific antigen limits, several new biomarkers have been proposed. Since its introduction in clinical practice, the urinary prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) assay has shown promising results for prostate cancer (PC) detection. Furthermore, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mMRI) has the ability to better describe several aspects of PC. METHODS: A prospective study of 171 patients with negative prostate biopsy findings and a persistent high prostate-specific antigen level was conducted to assess the role of mMRI and PCA3 in identifying PC. All patients underwent the PCA3 test and mMRI before a second transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. The accuracy and reliability of PCA3 (3 different cutoff points) and mMRI were evaluated. Four multivariate logistic regression models were analyzed, in terms of discrimination and the cost benefit, to assess the clinical role of PCA3 and mMRI in predicting the biopsy outcome. A decision curve analysis was also plotted. RESULTS: Repeated transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy identified 68 new cases (41.7%) of PC. The sensitivity and specificity of the PCA3 test and mMRI was 68% and 49% and 74% and 90%, respectively. Evaluating the regression models, the best discrimination (area under the curve 0.808) was obtained using the full model (base clinical model plus mMRI and PCA3). The decision curve analysis, to evaluate the cost/benefit ratio, showed good performance in predicting PC with the model that included mMRI and PCA3. CONCLUSION: mMRI increased the accuracy and sensitivity of the PCA3 test, and the use of the full model significantly improved the cost/benefit ratio, avoiding unnecessary biopsies.
OBJECTIVE: To overcome the well-known prostate-specific antigen limits, several new biomarkers have been proposed. Since its introduction in clinical practice, the urinary prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) assay has shown promising results for prostate cancer (PC) detection. Furthermore, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mMRI) has the ability to better describe several aspects of PC. METHODS: A prospective study of 171 patients with negative prostate biopsy findings and a persistent high prostate-specific antigen level was conducted to assess the role of mMRI and PCA3 in identifying PC. All patients underwent the PCA3 test and mMRI before a second transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. The accuracy and reliability of PCA3 (3 different cutoff points) and mMRI were evaluated. Four multivariate logistic regression models were analyzed, in terms of discrimination and the cost benefit, to assess the clinical role of PCA3 and mMRI in predicting the biopsy outcome. A decision curve analysis was also plotted. RESULTS: Repeated transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy identified 68 new cases (41.7%) of PC. The sensitivity and specificity of the PCA3 test and mMRI was 68% and 49% and 74% and 90%, respectively. Evaluating the regression models, the best discrimination (area under the curve 0.808) was obtained using the full model (base clinical model plus mMRI and PCA3). The decision curve analysis, to evaluate the cost/benefit ratio, showed good performance in predicting PC with the model that included mMRI and PCA3. CONCLUSION:mMRI increased the accuracy and sensitivity of the PCA3 test, and the use of the full model significantly improved the cost/benefit ratio, avoiding unnecessary biopsies.
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: S Kaufmann; J Bedke; S Gatidis; J Hennenlotter; U Kramer; M Notohamiprodjo; K Nikolaou; A Stenzl; S Kruck Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Stefano Salciccia; Anna Laura Capriotti; Aldo Laganà; Stefano Fais; Mariantonia Logozzi; Ettore De Berardinis; Gian Maria Busetto; Giovanni Battista Di Pierro; Gian Piero Ricciuti; Francesco Del Giudice; Alessandro Sciarra; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; Beatrice Sciarra; Martina Maggi Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Sanoj Punnen; Bruno Nahar; Nachiketh Soodana-Prakash; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Radka Stoyanova; Alan Pollack; Bruce Kava; Mark L Gonzalgo; Chad R Ritch; Dipen J Parekh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Nikhil Waingankar; Baris Turkbey; Oksana Yaskiv; Anna M Sonstegard; Mathew Fakhoury; Carl A Olsson; David N Siegel; Peter L Choyke; Eran Ben-Levi; Robert Villani Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joseph M Norris; Benjamin S Simpson; Marina A Parry; Clare Allen; Rhys Ball; Alex Freeman; Daniel Kelly; Hyung L Kim; Alex Kirkham; Sungyong You; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Hayley C Whitaker; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2020-07