Literature DB >> 34302010

Clinical utility of a serum biomarker panel in distinguishing prostate cancer from benign prostate hyperplasia.

Michael A Kiebish1, Poornima Tekumalla1, Shobha Ravipaty1, Albert Dobi2,3, Shiv Srivastava2,4, Wenfang Wu1, Saurabh Patil1, Tracey Friss1, Allison Klotz1, Alagarsamy Srinivasan2,3,5, Jennifer Cullen2,3,6, Inger L Rosner2,7, Amina Ali2,3, Sandra Laszlo8, Michele Petrovic8, Neil Fleshner8, Jeonifer Garren1, Greg Miller1, Nischal Mahaveer Chand1, Leonardo O Rodrigues1, Elder Granger1, Mark D Kellogg1,9, Shen Luan1, Eleftherios Diamandis10, Viatcheslav R Akmaev1, Rangaprasad Sarangarajan1, Chas Bountra11, Stephen J Freedland12,13, David G McLeod2, Niven R Narain14.   

Abstract

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer (PCa) is limited by the lack of specificity but is further complicated in the benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) population which also exhibit elevated PSA, representing a clear unmet need to distinguish BPH from PCa. Herein, we evaluated the utility of FLNA IP-MRM, age, and prostate volume to stratify men with BPH from those with PCa. Diagnostic performance of the biomarker panel was better than PSA alone in discriminating patients with negative biopsy from those with PCa, as well as those who have had multiple prior biopsies (AUC 0.75 and 0.87 compared to AUC of PSA alone 0.55 and 0.57 for patients who have had single compared to multiple negative biopsies, respectively). Of interest, in patients with PCa, the panel demonstrated improved performance than PSA alone in those with Gleason scores of 5-7 (AUC 0.76 vs. 0.56) and Gleason scores of 8-10 (AUC 0.74 vs. 0.47). With Gleason scores (8-10), the negative predictive value of the panel is 0.97, indicating potential to limit false negatives in aggressive cancers. Together, these data demonstrate the ability of the biomarker panel to perform better than PSA alone in men with BPH, thus preventing unnecessary biopsies.
© 2021. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34302010     DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94438-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  20 in total

1.  Development of an ELISA for sPSP94 and utility of the sPSP94/sPSA ratio as a diagnostic indicator to differentiate between benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer.

Authors:  Deepa R Mhatre; Smita D Mahale; Mohammed I Khatkhatay; Swapna S Desai; Dhanashree D Jagtap; Jayesh V Dhabalia; Hemant B Tongaonkar; Meena P Desai; Sucheta P Dandekar; Anand M Varadkar
Journal:  Clin Chim Acta       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 3.786

2.  Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA significantly improves the prediction of prostate cancer at initial extended prostate biopsies in patients with total PSA between 2.0 and 10 ng/ml: results of a prospective study in a clinical setting.

Authors:  Giorgio Guazzoni; Luciano Nava; Massimo Lazzeri; Vincenzo Scattoni; Giovanni Lughezzani; Carmen Maccagnano; Fernanda Dorigatti; Ferruccio Ceriotti; Marina Pontillo; Vittorio Bini; Massimo Freschi; Francesco Montorsi; Patrizio Rigatti
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA in combination with total PSA and free PSA improves diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer detection.

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

5.  Evaluating men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Authors:  Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2004

6.  Effect of the USPSTF Grade D Recommendation against Screening for Prostate Cancer on Incident Prostate Cancer Diagnoses in the United States.

Authors:  Daniel A Barocas; Katherine Mallin; Amy J Graves; David F Penson; Bryan Palis; David P Winchester; Sam S Chang
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 7.  Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology.

Authors:  Ethan Basch; Amy P Abernethy; C Daniel Mullins; Bryce B Reeve; Mary Lou Smith; Stephen Joel Coons; Jeff Sloan; Keith Wenzel; Cynthia Chauhan; Wayland Eppard; Elizabeth S Frank; Joseph Lipscomb; Stephen A Raymond; Merianne Spencer; Sean Tunis
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Alex Tsodikov; Angela Mariotto; Aniko Szabo; Seth Falcon; Jake Wegelin; Dante DiTommaso; Kent Karnofski; Roman Gulati; David F Penson; Eric Feuer
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2007-11-20       Impact factor: 2.506

9.  Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50-69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study.

Authors:  Henrik Grönberg; Jan Adolfsson; Markus Aly; Tobias Nordström; Peter Wiklund; Yvonne Brandberg; James Thompson; Fredrik Wiklund; Johan Lindberg; Mark Clements; Lars Egevad; Martin Eklund
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 41.316

10.  Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter.

Authors:  Ian M Thompson; Donna K Pauler; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Lori M Minasian; Leslie G Ford; Scott M Lippman; E David Crawford; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-05-27       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Molecular Biomarkers in Cancer.

Authors:  Virinder Kaur Sarhadi; Gemma Armengol
Journal:  Biomolecules       Date:  2022-07-23
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.