scholarly journals PD06-02 IMPORTANCE OF [-2] PROPSA MEASUREMENT IN A DIAGNOSIS OF PROSTATE CANCER: PROSTATE HEALTH INDEX TRIAL (PROPHET) - DIAGNOSTIC IMPACTS OF PROSTATE VOLUME-ADJUSTED INDICES ON GLEASON GRADE GROUP ≥2 OR ≥3 CANCER

2018 ◽  
Vol 199 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuto Ito ◽  
Akira Yokomizo ◽  
Shoji Tokunaga ◽  
Gaku Arai ◽  
Mikio Sugimoto ◽  
...  
Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (18) ◽  
pp. 4723
Author(s):  
Matteo Ferro ◽  
Felice Crocetto ◽  
Dario Bruzzese ◽  
Massimo Imbriaco ◽  
Ferdinando Fusco ◽  
...  

Widespread use of PSA as the standard tool for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis led to a high rate of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the prostate health index (PHI) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the prediction of positive biopsy and of high-grade PCa at radical prostatectomy (RP). To this end, we prospectively enrolled 196 biopsy-naïve patients who underwent mpMRI. A subgroup of 116 subjects with biopsy-proven PCa underwent surgery. We found that PHI significantly outperformed both PI-RADS score (difference in AUC: 0.14; p < 0.001) and PHI density (difference in AUC: 0.08; p = 0.002) in the ability to predict positive biopsy with a cut-off value of 42.7 as the best threshold. Conversely, comparing the performance in the identification of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) at RP, we found that PHI ≥61.68 and PI-RADS score ≥4 were able to identify csPCa (Gleason score ≥7 (3 + 4)) both alone and added to a base model including age, PSA, fPSA-to-tPSA ratio and prostate volume. In conclusion, PHI had a better ability than PI-RADS score to predict positive biopsy, whereas it had a comparable performance in the identification of pathological csPCa.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shih-Ting Chiu ◽  
Yung-Ting Cheng ◽  
Yeong-Shiau Pu ◽  
Yu-Chuan Lu ◽  
Jian-Hua Hong ◽  
...  

BackgroundProstate-specific antigen (PSA) is considered neither sensitive nor specific for prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to compare total PSA (tPSA), percentage of free PSA (%fPSA), the PSA density (PSAD), Prostate Health Index (PHI), and the PHI density (PHID) to see which one could best predict clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa): a potentially lethal disease.MethodsA total of 412 men with PSA of 2–20 ng/mL were prospectively included. Serum biomarkers for PCa was collected before transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. PHI was calculated by the formula: (p2PSA/fPSA) x √tPSA. PHID was calculated as PHI divided by prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasound.ResultsOf the 412 men, 134 (32.5%) and 94(22.8%) were diagnosed with PCa and csPCa, respectively. We used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and decision curve analyses (DCA) to compare the performance of PSA related parameters, PHI and PHID in diagnosing csPCa. AUC for tPSA, %fPSA, %p2PSA, PSAD, PHI and PHID were 0.56、0.63、0.76、0.74、0.77 and 0.82 respectively for csPCa detection. In the univariate analysis, the prostate volume, tPSA, %fPSA, %p2PSA, PHI, PSAD, and PHID were all significantly associated with csPCa, and PHID was the most important predictor (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.15–1.72). Besides, The AUC of PHID was significantly larger than PHI in csPCa diagnosis (p=0.004). At 90% sensitivity, PHID had the highest specificity (54.1%) for csPCa and could reduce the most unnecessary biopsies (43.7%) and miss the fewest csPCa (8.5%) when PHID ≥ 0.67. In addition to AUC, DCA re-confirmed the clinical benefit of PHID over all PSA-related parameters and PHI in csPCa diagnosis. The PHID cut-off value was positively correlated with the csPCa ratio in the PHID risk table, which is useful for evaluating csPCa risk in a clinical setting.ConclusionThe PHID is an excellent predictor of csPCa. The PHID risk table may be used in standard clinical practice to pre-select men at the highest risk of harboring csPCa.


BJUI Compass ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Carbunaru ◽  
James Stinson ◽  
Rilwan Babajide ◽  
Courtney M. P. Hollowell ◽  
Ximing Yang ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 115 (4) ◽  
pp. 537-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Abrate ◽  
Massimo Lazzeri ◽  
Giovanni Lughezzani ◽  
Nicolòmaria Buffi ◽  
Vittorio Bini ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Robert Peters ◽  
Carsten Stephan ◽  
Klaus Jung ◽  
Michael Lein ◽  
Frank Friedersdorff ◽  
...  

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Beyond prostate-specific antigen (PSA), other biomarkers for prostate cancer (PCa) detection are available and need to be evaluated for clinical routine. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> The aim of the study was to evaluate the Prostate Health Index (PHI) density (PHID) in comparison with PHI in a large Caucasian group &#x3e;1,000 men. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> PHID values were used from available patient data with PSA, free PSA, and [−2]pro­PSA and prostate volume from 3 former surveys from 2002 to 2014. Those 1,446 patients from a single-center cohort included 701 men with PCa and 745 with no PCa. All patients received initial or repeat biopsies. The diagnostic accuracy was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves comparing area under the ROC curves (AUCs), precision-recall approach, and decision curve analysis (DCA). <b><i>Results:</i></b> PHID medians differed almost 2-fold between PCa (1.12) and no PCa (0.62) in comparison to PHI (48.6 vs. 33; <i>p</i> always &#x3c;0.0001). However, PHID and PHI were equal regarding the AUC (0.737 vs. 0.749; <i>p</i> = 0.226), and the curves of the precision-recall analysis also overlapped in the sensitivity range between 70 and 100%. DCA had a maximum net benefit of only ∼5% for PHID versus PHI between 45 and 55% threshold probability. Contrary, in the 689 men with a prostate volume ≤40 cm<sup>3</sup>, PHI (AUC 0.732) showed a significant larger AUC than PHID (AUC 0.69, <i>p</i> = 0.014). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Based on DCA, PHID had only a small advantage in comparison with PHI alone, while ROC analysis and precision-recall analysis showed similar results. In smaller prostates, PHI even outperformed PHID. The increment for PHID in this large Caucasian cohort is too small to justify a routine clinical use.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document