Claire de la Calle1, Dattatraya Patil1, John T Wei2, Douglas S Scherr3, Lori Sokoll4, Daniel W Chan4, Javed Siddiqui2, Juan Miguel Mosquera5, Mark A Rubin6, Martin G Sanda7. 1. Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Department of Urology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 4. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. Department of Pathology, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York; Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 6. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York; Department of Pathology, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York; Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 7. Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: msanda@emory.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the ability of PHI to discriminate aggressive prostate cancer from indolent or no cancer in a biopsy naïve population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent prospective cohorts of 561 and 395 subjects, respectively, with no prior prostate biopsy who were enrolled at different clinical sites were used to validate the results. We compared the diagnostic specificity of PHI to prebiopsy total and percent free prostate specific antigen using prostate biopsy results. We also determined the optimal PHI threshold to discriminate aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason score 7 or greater) from indolent or no prostate cancer (Gleason score 6 or less). RESULTS: In the primary cohort higher PHI values were significantly associated with Gleason score 7 or greater. The AUC to detect aggressive prostate cancer was 0.815. At 95% sensitivity PHI specificity was 36.0% vs 17.2% and 19.4% for total and percent free prostate specific antigen, respectively. At 95% sensitivity for detecting aggressive prostate cancer the optimal PHI cutoff was 24, which would help avoid 41% of unnecessary biopsies. A cutoff of 24 led to 36% biopsies avoided with few aggressive cancers missed. These results were confirmed in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The PHI detected aggressive prostate cancer with better specificity than total and percent free prostate specific antigen in a biopsy naïve population. It could be a useful tool to decrease unnecessary prostate biopsies.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the ability of PHI to discriminate aggressive prostate cancer from indolent or no cancer in a biopsy naïve population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent prospective cohorts of 561 and 395 subjects, respectively, with no prior prostate biopsy who were enrolled at different clinical sites were used to validate the results. We compared the diagnostic specificity of PHI to prebiopsy total and percent free prostate specific antigen using prostate biopsy results. We also determined the optimal PHI threshold to discriminate aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason score 7 or greater) from indolent or no prostate cancer (Gleason score 6 or less). RESULTS: In the primary cohort higher PHI values were significantly associated with Gleason score 7 or greater. The AUC to detect aggressive prostate cancer was 0.815. At 95% sensitivity PHI specificity was 36.0% vs 17.2% and 19.4% for total and percent free prostate specific antigen, respectively. At 95% sensitivity for detecting aggressive prostate cancer the optimal PHI cutoff was 24, which would help avoid 41% of unnecessary biopsies. A cutoff of 24 led to 36% biopsies avoided with few aggressive cancers missed. These results were confirmed in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The PHI detected aggressive prostate cancer with better specificity than total and percent free prostate specific antigen in a biopsy naïve population. It could be a useful tool to decrease unnecessary prostate biopsies.
Authors: Lori J Sokoll; Daniel W Chan; George G Klee; William L Roberts; Ron H N van Schaik; Dorothy A Arockiasamy; Dennis L Broyles; Corey M Carlson; Isaac A Mizrahi; Tina B Pierson; Jeffrey E Tam Journal: Clin Chim Acta Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 3.786
Authors: William J Catalona; Alan W Partin; Martin G Sanda; John T Wei; George G Klee; Chris H Bangma; Kevin M Slawin; Leonard S Marks; Stacy Loeb; Dennis L Broyles; Sanghyuk S Shin; Amabelle B Cruz; Daniel W Chan; Lori J Sokoll; William L Roberts; Ron H N van Schaik; Isaac A Mizrahi Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Páez; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paula M Kujala; Bert G Blijenberg; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Andreas Huber; Kimmo Taari; Matti Hakama; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Allison S Glass; Janet E Cowan; Mahesh J Fuldeore; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll; Stacey A Kenfield; Kirsten L Greene Journal: Urology Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Massimo Lazzeri; Alexander Haese; Alexandre de la Taille; Joan Palou Redorta; Thomas McNicholas; Giovanni Lughezzani; Vincenzo Scattoni; Vittorio Bini; Massimo Freschi; Amy Sussman; Bijan Ghaleh; Philippe Le Corvoisier; Josep Alberola Bou; Salvador Esquena Fernández; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Carsten Stephan; Klaus Jung; Axel Semjonow; Kai Schulze-Forster; Henning Cammann; Xinhai Hu; Hellmuth-A Meyer; Martin Bögemann; Kurt Miller; Frank Friedersdorff Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Matteo Ferro; Dario Bruzzese; Sisto Perdonà; Ada Marino; Claudia Mazzarella; Giuseppe Perruolo; Vittoria D'Esposito; Vincenzo Cosimato; Carlo Buonerba; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Gennaro Musi; Ottavio De Cobelli; Felix K Chun; Daniela Terracciano Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-07-04 Impact factor: 3.240
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
Authors: Ricardo A Rendon; Ross J Mason; Karim Marzouk; Antonio Finelli; Fred Saad; Alan So; Phillipe Violette; Rodney H Breau Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: E David Crawford; Matt T Rosenberg; Alan W Partin; Matthew R Cooperberg; Michael Maccini; Stacy Loeb; Curtis A Pettaway; Neal D Shore; Paul Arangua; John Hoenemeyer; Mike Leveridge; Michael Leapman; Peter Pinto; Ian M Thompson; Peter Carroll; James Eastham; Leonard Gomella; Eric A Klein Journal: Urology Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 2.649