Literature DB >> 25327361

Accuracy of the prostate health index versus the urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 score to predict overall and significant prostate cancer at initial biopsy.

Thomas Seisen1, Morgan Rouprêt, Didier Brault, Priscilla Léon, Géraldine Cancel-Tassin, Eva Compérat, Raphaële Renard-Penna, Pierre Mozer, Jérome Guechot, Olivier Cussenot.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether the Prostate Health Index (PHI) or the urinary Prostate-Cancer Antigen 3 (PCA-3) score is more accurate at screening for prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the accuracy of PHI and PCA-3 scores to predict overall and significant PCa in men undergoing an initial prostate biopsy.
METHODS: Double-blind assessments of PHI and PCA-3 were conducted by referent physicians in 138 patients who subsequently underwent trans-rectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy according to a 12-core scheme. Predictive accuracies of PHI and PCA-3 were assessed using AUC and compared according to the DeLong method. Diagnostic performances with usual cut-off values for positivity (i.e., PHI >40 and PCA-3 >35) were calculated, and odds ratios associated with predicting PCa overall and significant PCa as defined by pathological updated Epstein criteria (i.e., Gleason score ≥7, more than three positive cores, or >50% cancer involvement in any core) were estimated using logistic regression.
RESULTS: Prevalences of overall and significant PCa were 44.9% and 28.3%, respectively. PCA-3 (AUC = 0.71) was the most accurate predictor of PCa overall, and significantly outperformed PHI (AUC = 0.65; P = 0.03). However, PHI (AUC = 0.80) remained the most accurate predictor when screening exclusively for significant PCa and significantly outperformed PCA-3 (AUC = 0.55; P = 0.03). Furthermore, PCA-3 >35 had the best accuracy, and positive or negative predictive values when screening for PCa overall whereas these diagnostic performances were greater for PHI >40 when exclusively screening for significant PCa. PHI > 40 combined with PCA-3 > 35 was more specific in both cases. In multivariate analyses, PCA-3 >35 (OR = 5.68; 95%CI = [2.21-14.59]; P < 0.001) was significantly correlated with the presence of PCa overall, but PHI >40 (OR = 9.60; 95%CI = [1.72-91.32]; P = 0.001) was the only independent predictor for detecting significant PCa.
CONCLUSIONS: Although PCA-3 score is the best predictor for PCa overall at initial biopsy, our findings strongly indicate that PHI should be used for population-based screening to avoid over-diagnosis of indolent tumors that are unlikely to cause death.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  antigens; biological markers; biopsy; early detection of cancer; prostate-specific antigen; prostatic neoplasm

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25327361     DOI: 10.1002/pros.22898

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate        ISSN: 0270-4137            Impact factor:   4.104


  15 in total

1.  Prostate cancer: Predicting prostate biopsy results--PCA3 versus phi.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Prostate Health Index improves multivariable risk prediction of aggressive prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Sanghyuk S Shin; Dennis L Broyles; John T Wei; Martin Sanda; George Klee; Alan W Partin; Lori Sokoll; Daniel W Chan; Chris H Bangma; Ron H N van Schaik; Kevin M Slawin; Leonard S Marks; William J Catalona
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-11-22       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 3.  The role of prostate cancer biomarkers in undiagnosed men.

Authors:  Hasan Dani; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.309

Review 4.  The Prostate Health Index: Its Utility in Prostate Cancer Detection.

Authors:  Abbey Lepor; William J Catalona; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.241

Review 5.  Beyond prostate-specific antigen: utilizing novel strategies to screen men for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Hans Lilja; Andrew Vickers
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.309

Review 6.  Whom to Biopsy: Prediagnostic Risk Stratification with Biomarkers, Nomograms, and Risk Calculators.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Hasan Dani
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 2.241

Review 7.  Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: From Current Knowledge to the Role of Metabolomics and Exosomes.

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

8.  Novel biomarkers for the detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Niels Asger Jakobsen; Freddie Charles Hamdy; Richard John Bryant
Journal:  J Clin Urol       Date:  2016-12-01

Review 9.  Personalized strategies in population screening for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sebastiaan Remmers; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Biomarkers for Prostate Biopsy and Risk Stratification of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Urol Pract       Date:  2016-10-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.