Francesco Cantiello1, Giorgio Ivan Russo2, Antonio Cicione3, Matteo Ferro4, Sebastiano Cimino2, Vincenzo Favilla2, Sisto Perdonà5, Ottavio De Cobelli4, Carlo Magno6, Giuseppe Morgia2, Rocco Damiano3. 1. Urology Unit, Doctorate Research Program, Magna Græcia University of Catanzaro, Viale Europa, Germaneto, Catanzaro, 88100, Italy. cantiello@unicz.it. 2. Urology Section, Department of Surgery, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 3. Urology Unit, Doctorate Research Program, Magna Græcia University of Catanzaro, Viale Europa, Germaneto, Catanzaro, 88100, Italy. 4. Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, National Cancer Institute of Naples, Naples, Italy. 6. Department of Urology, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the performance of prostate health index (PHI) and prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) when added to the PRIAS or Epstein criteria in predicting the presence of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer (IPCa) in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) but eligible for active surveillance (AS). METHODS: An observational retrospective study was performed in 188 PCa patients treated with laparoscopic or robot-assisted RP but eligible for AS according to Epstein or PRIAS criteria. Blood and urinary specimens were collected before initial prostate biopsy for PHI and PCA3 measurements. Multivariate logistic regression analyses and decision curve analysis were carried out to identify predictors of IPCa using the updated ERSPC definition. RESULTS: At the multivariate analyses, the inclusion of both PCA3 and PHI significantly increased the accuracy of the Epstein multivariate model in predicting IPCa with an increase of 17 % (AUC = 0.77) and of 32 % (AUC = 0.92), respectively. The inclusion of both PCA3 and PHI also increased the predictive accuracy of the PRIAS multivariate model with an increase of 29 % (AUC = 0.87) and of 39 % (AUC = 0.97), respectively. DCA revealed that the multivariable models with the addition of PHI or PCA3 showed a greater net benefit and performed better than the reference models. In a direct comparison, PHI outperformed PCA3 performance resulting in higher net benefit. CONCLUSIONS: In a same cohort of patients eligible for AS, the addition of PHI and PCA3 to Epstein or PRIAS models improved their prognostic performance. PHI resulted in greater net benefit in predicting IPCa compared to PCA3.
PURPOSE: To assess the performance of prostate health index (PHI) and prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) when added to the PRIAS or Epstein criteria in predicting the presence of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer (IPCa) in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) but eligible for active surveillance (AS). METHODS: An observational retrospective study was performed in 188 PCa patients treated with laparoscopic or robot-assisted RP but eligible for AS according to Epstein or PRIAS criteria. Blood and urinary specimens were collected before initial prostate biopsy for PHI and PCA3 measurements. Multivariate logistic regression analyses and decision curve analysis were carried out to identify predictors of IPCa using the updated ERSPC definition. RESULTS: At the multivariate analyses, the inclusion of both PCA3 and PHI significantly increased the accuracy of the Epstein multivariate model in predicting IPCa with an increase of 17 % (AUC = 0.77) and of 32 % (AUC = 0.92), respectively. The inclusion of both PCA3 and PHI also increased the predictive accuracy of the PRIAS multivariate model with an increase of 29 % (AUC = 0.87) and of 39 % (AUC = 0.97), respectively. DCA revealed that the multivariable models with the addition of PHI or PCA3 showed a greater net benefit and performed better than the reference models. In a direct comparison, PHI outperformed PCA3 performance resulting in higher net benefit. CONCLUSIONS: In a same cohort of patients eligible for AS, the addition of PHI and PCA3 to Epstein or PRIAS models improved their prognostic performance. PHI resulted in greater net benefit in predicting IPCa compared to PCA3.
Authors: Marc A Dall'Era; Peter C Albertsen; Christopher Bangma; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; Matthew R Cooperberg; Stephen J Freedland; Laurence H Klotz; Christopher Parker; Mark S Soloway Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Michael E Chen; Dennis Johnston; Adriana O Reyes; Cindy P Soto; R Joseph Babaian; Patricia Troncoso Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Mark Louie-Johnsun; Mischel Neill; Karien Treurnicht; Michael Jarmulowicz; Christopher Eden Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-05-07 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jamil S Syed; Juan Javier-Desloges; Stephanie Tatzel; Ansh Bhagat; Kevin A Nguyen; Kevin Hwang; Sarah Kim; Preston C Sprenkle Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Sascha Kaufmann; Giorgio I Russo; Fabian Bamberg; Lorenz Löwe; Giuseppe Morgia; Konstantin Nikolaou; Arnulf Stenzl; Stephan Kruck; Jens Bedke Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-01-27 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Timothy N Clinton; Aditya Bagrodia; Yair Lotan; Vitaly Margulis; Ganesh V Raj; Solomon L Woldu Journal: Expert Rev Precis Med Drug Dev Date: 2017-09-05
Authors: Belén Pastor-Navarro; José Rubio-Briones; Ángel Borque-Fernando; Luis M Esteban; Jose Luis Dominguez-Escrig; José Antonio López-Guerrero Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 5.923