Martin Boegemann1, Carsten Stephan2,3, Henning Cammann4, Sébastien Vincendeau5, Alain Houlgatte6, Klaus Jung2,3, Jean-Sebastien Blanchet7, Axel Semjonow1. 1. Department of Urology, Prostate Center, University Medical Centre, Münster, Germany. 2. Department of Urology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 3. Berlin Institute for Urologic Research, Berlin, Germany. 4. Institute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 5. Department of Urology, Hospital Pontchallou, Rennes, France. 6. Department of Urology, HIA du Val de Grâce, Paris, France. 7. Department of Scientific Affairs, Beckman Coulter Eurocenter, Nyon, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively test the diagnostic accuracy of the percentage of prostate specific antigen (PSA) isoform [-2]proPSA (%p2PSA) and the Prostate Health Index (PHI), and to determine their role for discrimination between significant and insignificant prostate cancer at initial and repeat prostate biopsy in men aged ≤65 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The diagnostic performance of %p2PSA and PHI were evaluated in a multicentre study. In all, 769 men aged ≤65 years scheduled for initial or repeat prostate biopsy were recruited in four sites based on a total PSA (t-PSA) level of 1.6-8.0 ng/mL World Health Organization (WHO) calibrated (2-10 ng/mL Hybritech-calibrated). Serum samples were measured for the concentration of t-PSA, free PSA (f-PSA) and p2PSA with Beckman Coulter immunoassays on Access-2 or DxI800 instruments. PHI was calculated as (p2PSA/f-PSA × √t-PSA). Uni- and multivariable logistic regression models and an artificial neural network (ANN) were complemented by decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: In univariate analysis %p2PSA and PHI were the best predictors of prostate cancer detection in all patients (area under the curve [AUC] 0.72 and 0.73, respectively), at initial (AUC 0.67 and 0.69) and repeat biopsy (AUC 0.74 and 0.74). t-PSA and %f-PSA performed less accurately for all patients (AUC 0.54 and 0.62). For detection of significant prostate cancer (based on Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance [PRIAS] criteria) the %p2PSA and PHI equally demonstrated best performance (AUC 0.70 and 0.73) compared with t-PSA and %f-PSA (AUC 0.54 and 0.59). In multivariate analysis PHI we added to a base model of age, prostate volume, digital rectal examination, t-PSA and %f-PSA. PHI was strongest in predicting prostate cancer in all patients, at initial and repeat biopsy and for significant prostate cancer (AUC 0.73, 0.68, 0.78 and 0.72, respectively). In DCA for all patients the ANN showed the broadest threshold probability and best net benefit. PHI as single parameter and the base model + PHI were equivalent with threshold probability and net benefit nearing those of the ANN. For significant cancers the ANN was the strongest parameter in DCA. CONCLUSION: The present multicentre study showed that %p2PSA and PHI have a superior diagnostic performance for detecting prostate cancer in the PSA range of 1.6-8.0 ng/mL compared with t-PSA and %f-PSA at initial and repeat biopsy and for predicting significant prostate cancer in men aged ≤65 years. They are equally superior for counselling patients before biopsy.
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively test the diagnostic accuracy of the percentage of prostate specific antigen (PSA) isoform [-2]proPSA (%p2PSA) and the Prostate Health Index (PHI), and to determine their role for discrimination between significant and insignificant prostate cancer at initial and repeat prostate biopsy in men aged ≤65 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The diagnostic performance of %p2PSA and PHI were evaluated in a multicentre study. In all, 769 men aged ≤65 years scheduled for initial or repeat prostate biopsy were recruited in four sites based on a total PSA (t-PSA) level of 1.6-8.0 ng/mL World Health Organization (WHO) calibrated (2-10 ng/mL Hybritech-calibrated). Serum samples were measured for the concentration of t-PSA, free PSA (f-PSA) and p2PSA with Beckman Coulter immunoassays on Access-2 or DxI800 instruments. PHI was calculated as (p2PSA/f-PSA × √t-PSA). Uni- and multivariable logistic regression models and an artificial neural network (ANN) were complemented by decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: In univariate analysis %p2PSA and PHI were the best predictors of prostate cancer detection in all patients (area under the curve [AUC] 0.72 and 0.73, respectively), at initial (AUC 0.67 and 0.69) and repeat biopsy (AUC 0.74 and 0.74). t-PSA and %f-PSA performed less accurately for all patients (AUC 0.54 and 0.62). For detection of significant prostate cancer (based on Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance [PRIAS] criteria) the %p2PSA and PHI equally demonstrated best performance (AUC 0.70 and 0.73) compared with t-PSA and %f-PSA (AUC 0.54 and 0.59). In multivariate analysis PHI we added to a base model of age, prostate volume, digital rectal examination, t-PSA and %f-PSA. PHI was strongest in predicting prostate cancer in all patients, at initial and repeat biopsy and for significant prostate cancer (AUC 0.73, 0.68, 0.78 and 0.72, respectively). In DCA for all patients the ANN showed the broadest threshold probability and best net benefit. PHI as single parameter and the base model + PHI were equivalent with threshold probability and net benefit nearing those of the ANN. For significant cancers the ANN was the strongest parameter in DCA. CONCLUSION: The present multicentre study showed that %p2PSA and PHI have a superior diagnostic performance for detecting prostate cancer in the PSA range of 1.6-8.0 ng/mL compared with t-PSA and %f-PSA at initial and repeat biopsy and for predicting significant prostate cancer in men aged ≤65 years. They are equally superior for counselling patients before biopsy.
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: Luca Cindolo; Riccardo Bertolo; Andrea Minervini; Francesco Sessa; Gianluca Muto; Pierluigi Bove; Matteo Vittori; Giorgio Bozzini; Pietro Castellan; Filippo Mugavero; Mario Falsaperla; Luigi Schips; Antonio Celia; Maida Bada; Angelo Porreca; Antonio Pastore; Yazan Al Salhi; Marco Giampaoli; Giovanni Novella; Riccardo Rizzetto; Nicoló Trabacchin; Guglielmo Mantica; Giovannalberto Pini; Riccardo Lombardo; Andrea Tubaro; Alessandro Antonelli; Cosimo De Nunzio Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-01-06 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: Esther Llop; Montserrat Ferrer-Batallé; Sílvia Barrabés; Pedro Enrique Guerrero; Manel Ramírez; Radka Saldova; Pauline M Rudd; Rosa N Aleixandre; Josep Comet; Rafael de Llorens; Rosa Peracaula Journal: Theranostics Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: V J Gnanapragasam; K Burling; A George; S Stearn; A Warren; T Barrett; B Koo; F A Gallagher; A Doble; C Kastner; R A Parker Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 4.379