Literature DB >> 30926382

The Utility of Prostate Specific Antigen Density, Prostate Health Index, and Prostate Health Index Density in Predicting Positive Prostate Biopsy Outcome is Dependent on the Prostate Biopsy Methods.

Camila Lopes Vendrami1, Robert J McCarthy2, Argha Chatterjee1, David Casalino1, Edward M Schaeffer3, William J Catalona3, Frank H Miller4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prognostic markers, prostate-specific antigen, prostate health index (PHI), and prostate volume indexed measures (prostate-specific antigen density and prostate health index density) for predicting positive prostate cancer biopsies in magnetic resonance (MR) transrectal ultrasound fused versus nonfused transrectal ultrasonography biopsy.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 211 patients that had at least 1 suspected MR lesion, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System ≥3, and subsequent biopsy (2015-2017). Clinical characteristics and prognostic biomarkers were evaluated as predictors of prostate cancer detection by type of biopsy guidance (fused vs nonfused).
RESULTS: One-hundred twenty-one patients had nonfused and 90 had fused biopsies. PHI and PHID had greater area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) in predicting positive biopsies than prostate-specific antigen or PSAD for both nonfused and fused biopsy. PHI 0.78 (95% CI 0.67-0.88) and PHID 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.91) had the greatest AUC for predicting biopsy results for nonfused and fused biopsies, respectively. Multiple-variable models did not improve model fit compared to single variables. Based on Youden's index, a cut-off value of 45.9 for PHI in nonfused and 0.64 for PHID in fused biopsies would reduce the number of negative biopsies by 77.3% and 63.4%, respectively, but the percentage of missed clinically significant cancer biopsies would be 19% and 12%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that the choice of prognostic biomarkers for predicting positive biopsies is a function of the biopsy guidance method. Volume indexed derivatives appear to have greater value when a MRI-US fused method is used.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30926382      PMCID: PMC6592745          DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.03.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  30 in total

1.  Cancer statistics, 2018.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 508.702

2.  Dramatic increase in the utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for detection and management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Daniel T Oberlin; David D Casalino; Frank H Miller; Joshua J Meeks
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-04

3.  Combining Prostate Health Index density, magnetic resonance imaging and prior negative biopsy status to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sasha C Druskin; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Allen Young; Sarah Collica; Arnav Srivastava; Kamyar Ghabili; Katarzyna J Macura; H Ballentine Carter; Alan W Partin; Lori J Sokoll; Ashley E Ross; Christian P Pavlovich
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Prostate-specific Antigen Density Is a Good Predictor of Upstaging and Upgrading, According to the New Grading System: The Keys We Are Seeking May Be Already in Our Pocket.

Authors:  Aldo Brassetti; Riccardo Lombardo; Paolo Emiliozzi; Antonio Cardi; De Vico Antonio; Iannello Antonio; Scapellato Aldo; Riga Tommaso; Pansadoro Alberto; D'Elia Gianluca
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2017-10-12       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  A multicenter study of [-2]pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range.

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

Review 6.  The Current State of MR Imaging-targeted Biopsy Techniques for Detection of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Sadhna Verma; Peter L Choyke; Steven C Eberhardt; Aytekin Oto; Clare M Tempany; Baris Turkbey; Andrew B Rosenkrantz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Martin G Sanda; Dennis L Broyles; Sanghyuk S Shin; Chris H Bangma; John T Wei; Alan W Partin; George G Klee; Kevin M Slawin; Leonard S Marks; Ron H N van Schaik; Daniel W Chan; Lori J Sokoll; Amabelle B Cruz; Isaac A Mizrahi; William J Catalona
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 8.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 6.394

9.  Use of the Prostate Health Index for detection of prostate cancer: results from a large academic practice.

Authors:  J J Tosoian; S C Druskin; D Andreas; P Mullane; M Chappidi; S Joo; K Ghabili; J Agostino; K J Macura; H B Carter; E M Schaeffer; A W Partin; L J Sokoll; A E Ross
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 5.554

10.  MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Antti S Rannikko; Marcelo Borghi; Valeria Panebianco; Lance A Mynderse; Markku H Vaarala; Alberto Briganti; Lars Budäus; Giles Hellawell; Richard G Hindley; Monique J Roobol; Scott Eggener; Maneesh Ghei; Arnauld Villers; Franck Bladou; Geert M Villeirs; Jaspal Virdi; Silvan Boxler; Grégoire Robert; Paras B Singh; Wulphert Venderink; Boris A Hadaschik; Alain Ruffion; Jim C Hu; Daniel Margolis; Sébastien Crouzet; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Peter Pinto; Inderbir Gill; Clare Allen; Francesco Giganti; Alex Freeman; Stephen Morris; Shonit Punwani; Norman R Williams; Chris Brew-Graves; Jonathan Deeks; Yemisi Takwoingi; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-03-18       Impact factor: 176.079

View more
  5 in total

1.  Correlation between Gleason score distribution and Prostate Health Index in patients with prostate-specific antigen values of 2.5-10 ng/mL.

Authors:  Joongwon Choi; Minyong Kang; Hyun Hwan Sung; Hwang Gyun Jeon; Byong Chang Jeong; Seong Il Seo; Seong Soo Jeon; Hyun Moo Lee
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2020-11

2.  Prostate volume does not provide additional predictive value to prostate health index for prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer: results from a multicenter study in China.

Authors:  Da Huang; Yi-Shuo Wu; Ding-Wei Ye; Jun Qi; Fang Liu; Brian T Helfand; Siqun L Zheng; Qiang Ding; Dan-Feng Xu; Rong Na; Jian-Feng Xu; Ying-Hao Sun
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2020 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.285

3.  Circulating miRNAs as Potential Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy.

Authors:  Stefanos Kachris; Chara Papadaki; Konstantinos Rounis; Eliza Tsitoura; Chrysanthi Kokkinaki; Christoforos Nikolaou; George Sourvinos; Dimitrios Mavroudis
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2021-11-02       Impact factor: 3.989

4.  Prostate Health Index Density Outperforms Prostate Health Index in Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection.

Authors:  Shih-Ting Chiu; Yung-Ting Cheng; Yeong-Shiau Pu; Yu-Chuan Lu; Jian-Hua Hong; Shiu-Dong Chung; Chih-Hung Chiang; Chao-Yuan Huang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  PHI density prospectively improves prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  Carsten Stephan; Klaus Jung; Michael Lein; Hannah Rochow; Frank Friedersdorff; Andreas Maxeiner
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 4.226

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.