Preoperative Prostate-Specific Antigen Isoform p2PSA and Its Derivatives, %p2PSA and Prostate Health Index, Predict Pathologic Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer

2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Guazzoni ◽  
Massimo Lazzeri ◽  
Luciano Nava ◽  
Giovanni Lughezzani ◽  
Alessandro Larcher ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vojtěch Novák ◽  
Štěpán Veselý ◽  
Hana Lukšanová ◽  
Richard Průša ◽  
Otakar Čapoun ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: We aimed to explore the utility of prostate specific antigen (PSA) isoform [-2]proPSA and its derivatives for prediction of pathological outcome after radical prostatectomy (RP).Methods: Preoperative blood samples were prospectively and consecutively analyzed from 472 patients treated with RP for clinically localized prostate cancer at four medical centers. Measured parameters were PSA, free PSA (fPSA), fPSA/PSA ratio, [-2]proPSA (p2PSA), p2PSA/fPSA ratio and Prostate Health Index (PHI) (p2PSA/fPSA)*√PSA]. Logistic regression models were fitted to determine the accuracy of markers for prediction of pathological Gleason score (GS) ≥7, Gleason score upgrading, extracapsular extension of the tumor (pT3) and the presence of positive surgical margin (PSM). Results: Of 472 patients undergoing RP, 339 (72%) were found to have pathologic GS ≥ 7, out of them 178 (53%) experienced an upgrade from their preoperative GS=6. The findings of pT3 and PSM were present in 132 (28%) and 133 (28%) cases, respectively. At univariable analysis of all the preoperative parameters, PHI was the most accurate predictor of pathological GS ≥7, GS upgrading, pT3 disease and the presence of PSM. Adding of PHI into the base multivariable model increased significantly the accuracy for prediction of pathological GS and GS upgrading by 4.4% (p=0.015) and 5.0% (p=0.025), respectively. Conclusion: We found that PHI provides the highest accuracy in predicting prostate cancer aggressiveness and expansion of the tumor detected at final pathology. The ability of PHI to predict the risk of Gleason score upgrade may help to identify potentially high-risk patients among men with biopsy proven insignificant prostate cancer.


Author(s):  
Manuel M. Garrido ◽  
José C. Marta ◽  
Rui M. Bernardino ◽  
João Guerra ◽  
Francisco Fernandes ◽  
...  

Context.— There is a need to avoid the overdiagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) and to find more specific biomarkers. Objective.— To evaluate the clinical utility of [−2]pro–prostate-specific antigen ([−2]proPSA) derivatives in detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa) and to compare it with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and with the percentage of free PSA (%fPSA). Design.— Two hundred thirty-seven men (PSA: 2–10 ng/mL) scheduled for a prostate biopsy were enrolled. Parametric and nonparametric tests, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and logistic regression analysis were applied. Outcomes were csPCa and overall PCa. Results.— Both [−2]proPSA derivatives were significantly higher in csPCa and overall PCa (P < .001). The areas under the curves for the prediction of csPCa were higher for the percentage of [−2]proPSA (%[−2]proPSA) (0.781) and the prostate health index (PHI) (0.814) than for PSA (0.651) and %fPSA (0.724). There was a gain of 11% in diagnostic accuracy when %[−2]proPSA or PHI were added to a base model with PSA and %fPSA. Twenty-five percent to 29% of biopsies could have been spared with %[−2]proPSA (cutoff: ≥1.25%) and PHI (cutoff: ≥27), missing 10% of csPCa's. The same results could have been achieved by using [−2]proPSA as a reflex test, when %fPSA was 25% or less (cutoffs: ≥1.12% and ≥24 for %[−2]proPSA and PHI, respectively). Conclusions.— The [−2]proPSA derivatives improve the diagnostic accuracy of csPCa, when the PSA value is between 2 and 10 ng/mL, allowing to spare unnecessary biopsies and to select patients for active surveillance. [−2]proPSA can be used as a reflex test when %fPSA is 25% or less, without reducing the diagnostic accuracy for csPCa and the number of spared biopsies.


2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 275-283
Author(s):  
Safana S. Al Saidi ◽  
Nafila B. Al Riyami ◽  
Mohammed S. Al Marhoon ◽  
Mohammed S. Al Saraf ◽  
Salim S. Al Busaidi ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document