New strategy for the identification of prostate cancer: The combination of Proclarix and the prostate health index.
CTSD
PHI
Proclarix
THBS1
biomarkers
cathepsin D
prostate cancer
thrombospondin 1
Journal
The Prostate
ISSN: 1097-0045
Titre abrégé: Prostate
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8101368
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2022
11 2022
Historique:
revised:
10
06
2022
received:
21
02
2022
accepted:
11
07
2022
pubmed:
17
8
2022
medline:
24
9
2022
entrez:
16
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prostate health index (PHI) and, more recently, Proclarix have been proposed as serum biomarkers for prostate cancer (PCa). In this study, we aimed to evaluate Proclarix and PHI for predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Proclarix and PHI were measured using samples of 344 men from two different centers. All patients underwent prostate biopsy, and among those, 188 men with PCa on biopsy had an additional radical prostatectomy (RP). All men had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) between 2 and 10 ng/ml. Evaluation of area under the curve (AUC) and performance at predefined cut-offs of Proclarix and PHI risk scores as well as the linear combination thereof was performed to predict csPCa. PSA density was used as an independent comparator. The cohort median age and PSA were 65 (interquartile range [IQR]: 60-71) and 5.6 (IQR: 4.3-7.2) ng/ml, respectively. CsPCa was diagnosed in 161 (47%) men based on the RP specimen. ROC analysis showed that Proclarix and PHI accurately predicted csPCa with no significant difference (AUC of 0.79 and 0.76, p = 0.378) but significantly better when compared to PSA density (AUC of 0.66, p < 0.001). When using specific cut-offs, Proclarix (cut-off 10) revealed higher specificity and positive predictive value than PHI (cut-off 27) at similar sensitivities. The combination of Proclarix and PHI provided a significant increase in the AUC (p ≤ 0.007) compared to the individual tests alone and the highest clinical benefit was achieved. Results of this study show that both Proclarix and PHI accurately detect the presence of csPCa. The model combining Proclarix and PHI revealed the synergistic effect and improved the diagnostic performance of the individual tests.
Substances chimiques
Prostate-Specific Antigen
EC 3.4.21.77
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1469-1476Informations de copyright
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Harvey P, Basuita A, Endersby D, Curtis B, Iacovidou A, Walker M. A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate specific antigen. BMC Urol. 2009;9(1):14.
Lamy PJ, Allory Y, Gauchez AS, et al. Prognostic biomarkers used for localised prostate cancer management: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus. 2017;4:790-803.
Loeb S, Sanda MG, Broyles DL, et al. The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193(4):1163-1169.
Ferro M, De Cobelli O, Lucarelli G, et al. Beyond PSA: the role of prostate health index (phi). Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(4):1184.
Steuber T, Heidegger I, Kafka M, et al. PROPOSe: a real-life prospective study of proclarix, a novel blood-based test to support challenging biopsy decision-making in prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;5:321-327.
Kwast THV, derRoobol MJ. Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10(8):473-482.
Macagno A, Athanasiou A, Wittig A, et al. Analytical performance of thrombospondin-1 and cathepsin D immunoassays part of a novel CE-IVD marked test as an aid in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0233442.
Klocker H, Golding B, Weber S, et al. Development and validation of a novel multivariate risk score to guide biopsy decision for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Bjui Compass [Internet]. 2020;1(1):15-20.
Garrido MM, Marta JC, Bernardino RM, et al. The percentage of [−2]pro-prostate-specific antigen and the prostate health index outperform prostate-specific antigen and the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and can be used as reflex tests. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021;146:691-700.
Tango T. Equivalence test and confidence interval for the difference in proportions for the paired-sample design. Stat Med. 1998;17(8):891-908.
Moskowitz CS, Pepe MS. Comparing the predictive values of diagnostic tests: sample size and analysis for paired study designs. Clin Trials. 2006;3(3):272-279.
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837-845.
Sun X, Xu W. Fast implementation of DeLong's algorithm for comparing the areas under correlated receiver operating characteristic curves. Ieee Signal Proc Let. 2014;21(11):1389-1393.
Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(6):565-574.
Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):1019-1024.
Bullock N, Simpkin A, Fowler S, Varma M, Kynaston H, Narahari K. Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer treated with surgery in the United Kingdom: trends and risk factors from the British Association of Urological Surgeons Radical Prostatectomy Registry. BMC Urol. 2019;19(1):94.
Emiliozzi P, Longhi S, Scarpone P, Pansadoro A, DePaula F, Pansadoro V. The value of a single biopsy with 12 transperineal cores for detecting prostate cancer in patients with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urology. 2001;166(3):845-850.
Occhipinti S, Mengozzi G, Oderda M, et al. Low levels of urinary PSA better identify prostate cancer patients. Cancers. 2021;13(14):3570.
Visser WCH, Jong H, de Melchers WJG, Mulders PFA, Schalken JA. Commercialized blood-, urinary- and tissue-based biomarker tests for prostate cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Cancers. 2020;12:3790.
Shore ND, Pieczonka CM, Henderson RJ, et al. A comparison of prostate health index, total PSA, %free PSA, and proPSA in a contemporary US population-the MiCheck-01 prospective trial. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2020;38(8):683.
BeckmanCoulter. FDA Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (PMA P090026). FDA; 2012. Accessed July 27, 2022. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf9/P090026b.pdf
Wang W, Wang M, Wang L, Adams TS, Tian Y, Xu J. Diagnostic ability of %p2PSA and prostate health index for aggressive prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2014;4:5012.
Bruzzese D, Mazzarella C, Ferro M, et al. Prostate health index vs percent free prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in men with “gray” prostate-specific antigen levels at first biopsy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Res. 2014;164(6):444-451.
Huang D, Yang X, Wu Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of prostate health index in decision making for initial prostate biopsy. Front Oncol. 2020;10:565382.
Choi J, Kang M, Sung HH, et al. Correlation between Gleason score distribution and prostate health index in patients with prostate-specific antigen values of 2.5-10 ng/mL. Investig Clin Urol. 2020;61(6):582-587.
Fan YH, Pan PH, Cheng WM, et al. The prostate health index aids multi-parametric MRI in diagnosing significant prostate cancer. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):1286.
Jue JS, Barboza MP, Prakash NS, et al. Re-examining prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density: defining the optimal PSA range and patients for using PSA density to predict prostate cancer using extended template biopsy. Urology. 2017;105:123-128.
Cima I, Schiess R, Wild P, et al. Cancer genetics-guided discovery of serum biomarker signatures for diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(8):3342-3347.
Loeb S, Shin SS, Broyles DL, et al. Prostate health index improves multivariable risk prediction of aggressive prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017;120(1):61-68.
Tomlins SA. Urine PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG using cancer-specific markers to detect cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65(3):543-545.
Cantiello F, Russo GI, Cicione A, et al. PHI and PCA3 improve the prognostic performance of PRIAS and Epstein criteria in predicting insignificant prostate cancer in men eligible for active surveillance. World J Urol. 2015;34:485-493.