Stacy Loeb1, Martin G Sanda2, Dennis L Broyles3, Sanghyuk S Shin3, Chris H Bangma4, John T Wei5, Alan W Partin6, George G Klee7, Kevin M Slawin8, Leonard S Marks9, Ron H N van Schaik10, Daniel W Chan11, Lori J Sokoll11, Amabelle B Cruz3, Isaac A Mizrahi3, William J Catalona12. 1. Department of Urology and Population Health, New York University, New York, New York. Electronic address: stacyloeb@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, Emory University and Emory Healthcare, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Beckman Coulter Incorporated, Carlsbad, California. 4. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Urology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 8. Vanguard Urologic Institute and Texas Prostate Center, Houston, Texas. 9. Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 10. Department of Clinical Chemistry, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 11. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 12. Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Prostate Health Index (phi) is a new test combining total, free and [-2]proPSA into a single score. It was recently approved by the FDA and is now commercially available in the U.S., Europe and Australia. We investigate whether phi improves specificity for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and can help reduce prostate cancer over diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a multicenter prospective trial we identified 658 men age 50 years or older with prostate specific antigen 4 to 10 ng/ml and normal digital rectal examination who underwent prostate biopsy. In this population we compared the performance of prostate specific antigen, % free prostate specific antigen, [-2]proPSA and phi to predict biopsy results and, specifically, the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiple criteria. RESULTS: The Prostate Health Index was significantly higher in men with Gleason 7 or greater and "Epstein significant" cancer. On receiver operating characteristic analysis phi had the highest AUC for overall prostate cancer (AUCs phi 0.708, percent free prostate specific antigen 0.648, [-2]proPSA 0.550 and prostate specific antigen 0.516), Gleason 7 or greater (AUCs phi 0.707, percent free prostate specific antigen 0.661, [-2]proPSA 0.558, prostate specific antigen 0.551) and significant prostate cancer (AUCs phi 0.698, percent free prostate specific antigen 0.654, [-2]proPSA 0.550, prostate specific antigen 0.549). At the 90% sensitivity cut point for phi (a score less than 28.6) 30.1% of patients could have been spared an unnecessary biopsy for benign disease or insignificant prostate cancer compared to 21.7% using percent free prostate specific antigen. CONCLUSIONS: The new phi test outperforms its individual components of total, free and [-2]proPSA for the identification of clinically significant prostate cancer. Phi may be useful as part of a multivariable approach to reduce prostate biopsies and over diagnosis.
PURPOSE: The Prostate Health Index (phi) is a new test combining total, free and [-2]proPSA into a single score. It was recently approved by the FDA and is now commercially available in the U.S., Europe and Australia. We investigate whether phi improves specificity for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and can help reduce prostate cancer over diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a multicenter prospective trial we identified 658 men age 50 years or older with prostate specific antigen 4 to 10 ng/ml and normal digital rectal examination who underwent prostate biopsy. In this population we compared the performance of prostate specific antigen, % free prostate specific antigen, [-2]proPSA and phi to predict biopsy results and, specifically, the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiple criteria. RESULTS: The Prostate Health Index was significantly higher in men with Gleason 7 or greater and "Epstein significant" cancer. On receiver operating characteristic analysis phi had the highest AUC for overall prostate cancer (AUCs phi 0.708, percent free prostate specific antigen 0.648, [-2]proPSA 0.550 and prostate specific antigen 0.516), Gleason 7 or greater (AUCs phi 0.707, percent free prostate specific antigen 0.661, [-2]proPSA 0.558, prostate specific antigen 0.551) and significant prostate cancer (AUCs phi 0.698, percent free prostate specific antigen 0.654, [-2]proPSA 0.550, prostate specific antigen 0.549). At the 90% sensitivity cut point for phi (a score less than 28.6) 30.1% of patients could have been spared an unnecessary biopsy for benign disease or insignificant prostate cancer compared to 21.7% using percent free prostate specific antigen. CONCLUSIONS: The new phi test outperforms its individual components of total, free and [-2]proPSA for the identification of clinically significant prostate cancer. Phi may be useful as part of a multivariable approach to reduce prostate biopsies and over diagnosis.
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Marc A Bjurlin; Joseph Nicholson; Teuvo L Tammela; David F Penson; H Ballentine Carter; Peter Carroll; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Flip H Jansen; Ron H N van Schaik; Joep Kurstjens; Wolfgang Horninger; Helmut Klocker; Jasmin Bektic; Mark F Wildhagen; Monique J Roobol; Chris H Bangma; Georg Bartsch Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-02-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sumit Isharwal; Danil V Makarov; Lori J Sokoll; Patricia Landis; Cameron Marlow; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; H Ballentine Carter; Robert W Veltri Journal: Urology Date: 2011-01-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: A Christensson; T Björk; O Nilsson; U Dahlén; M T Matikainen; A T Cockett; P A Abrahamsson; H Lilja Journal: J Urol Date: 1993-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Stacy Loeb; Anna Kettermann; Patricia Landis; Debra J Elliot; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; H Ballentine Carter; Lori J Sokoll Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Masood A Khan; Alan W Partin; Harry G Rittenhouse; Stephen D Mikolajczyk; Lori J Sokoll; Daniel W Chan; Robert W Veltri Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Anna Kettermann; Christopher Warlick; E Jeffrey Metter; Patricia Landis; Patrick C Walsh; Jonathan I Epstein Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Camila Lopes Vendrami; Robert J McCarthy; Argha Chatterjee; David Casalino; Edward M Schaeffer; William J Catalona; Frank H Miller Journal: Urology Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Safana S Al Saidi; Nafila B Al Riyami; Mohammed S Al Marhoon; Mohammed S Al Saraf; Salim S Al Busaidi; Riad Bayoumi; Waad-Allah S Mula-Abed Journal: Oman Med J Date: 2017-07
Authors: Howard B Lieberman; Alex J Rai; Richard A Friedman; Kevin M Hopkins; Constantinos G Broustas Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2018-01-14 Impact factor: 1.241