Abstract
Objectives
Clinical practice guidelines endorse the stratification of prostate cancer (PCa) risk according to individual total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) values and age to enhance the individual risk-benefit ratio. We defined two nomograms to predict the individual risk of high and low grade PCa by combining the assay of tPSA and %free/tPSA (%f/tPSA) in patients with a pre-biopsy tPSA between 2 and 10 μg/L.
Methods
The study cohort consisted of 662 patients that had fPSA, tPSA, and a biopsy performed (41.3% with a final diagnosis of PCa). Logistic regression including age, tPSA and %f/tPSA was used to model the probability of having high or low grade cancer by defining 3 outcome levels: no PCa, low grade (International Society of Urological Pathology grade, ISUP<3) and high grade PCa (ISUP≥3).
Results
The nomogram identifying patients with: (a) high vs. those with low grade PCa and without the disease showed a good discriminating capability (∼80%), but the calibration showed a risk of underestimation for predictive probabilities >30% (a considerable critical threshold of risk), (b) ISUP<3 vs. those without the disease showed a discriminating capability of 63% and overestimates predictive probabilities >50%. In ISUP 5 a possible loss of PSA immunoreactivity has been observed.
Conclusions
The estimated risk of high or low grade PCa by the nomograms may be of aid in the decision-making process, in particular in the case of critical comorbidities and when the digital rectal examinations are inconclusive. The improved characterization of the risk of ISUP≥3 might enhance the use for magnetic resonance imaging in this setting.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Author contributions: All authors confirmed they have contributed to the intellectual content of this paper and have met the following 4 requirements: (a) significant contributions to the conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (b) drafting or revising the article for intellectual content; (c) final approval of the published article; and (d) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the article thus ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the article are appropriately investigated and resolved. SF and DB, were involved in the provision of study material and conceptualization; MB, EV, FP, RR, FC, FB, MM, GM, AG were involved in the provision of study material; EB, MP, PK, CC, GZ revised and corrected the final draft. All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
-
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
-
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.
-
Ethical approval: The Review Board of our institution approved the study, carried out according to the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 1996.
References
1. Mottet, N, van den Bergh, RCN, Briers, E, Van den Broeck, T, Cumberbatch, MG, De Santis, M, et al.. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2021;79:243–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Ferraro, S, Bussetti, M, Panteghini, M. Serum prostate-specific antigen testing for early detection of prostate cancer: managing the gap between clinical and laboratory practice. Clin Chem 2021;67:602–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvab002.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Vickers, AJ. Redesigning prostate cancer screening strategies to reduce overdiagnosis. Clin Chem 2019;65:39–41. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2018.287094.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
4. Schröder, F, Kattan, MW. The comparability of models for predicting the risk of a positive prostate biopsy with prostate-specific antigen alone: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2008;54:274–90.10.1016/j.eururo.2008.05.022Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Nam, RK, Toi, A, Klotz, LH, Trachtenberg, J, Jewett, MA, Appu, S, et al.. Assessing individual risk for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3582–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.10.6450.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Ferraro, S, Bussetti, M, Bassani, N, Rossi, RS, Incarbone, GP, Bianchi, F, et al.. Definition of outcome-based prostate-specific antigen (PSA) thresholds for advanced prostate cancer risk prediction. Cancers 2021;13:3381–95. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13143381.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
7. Ferraro, S, Caruso, S, Panteghini, M. Reflex testing of free prostate-specific antigen as effective health care policy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2019;143:1045. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2019-0117-le.Search in Google Scholar
8. Roddam, AW, Duffy, MJ, Hamdy, FC, Ward, AM, Patnick, J, Price, CP, NHS Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme, et al.. Use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoforms for the detection of prostate cancer in men with a PSA level of 2–10 ng/mL: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2005;48:386–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.04.015.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Thompson, IM, Pauler, DK, Goodman, PJ, Tangen, CM, Lucia, MS, Parnes, HL, et al.. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2239–46. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa031918.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Brown, LC, Ahmed, HU, Faria, R, Bosaily, AES, Gabe, R, Kaplan, RS, et al.. Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study. Health Technol Assess 2018;22:1–176. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta22390.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
11. Ferraro, S, Biganzoli, G, Bussetti, M, Castaldi, S, Biganzoli, EM, Plebani, M. Managing the impact of inter-method bias of prostate specific antigen assays on biopsy referral: the key to move towards precision health in prostate cancer management. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022;61:142–53. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0874.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Ferraro, S, Biganzoli, EM. The clinical value of assessing the intermethod bias: the lesson from prostate specific antigen measurement. Clin Chem Lab Med 2021;60:149–51. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2021-1125.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Mohler, JL, Antonarakis, ES, Armstrong, AJ, D’Amico, AV, Davis, BJ, Dorff, T, et al.. Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2019;17:479–505. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0023.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Epstein, JI, Zalefky, MJ, Sjoberg, DD, Nelson, JB, Egevad, L, Magi-Galluzzi, C, et al.. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 2016;69:428–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
15. Ferraro, S, Bussetti, M, Rizzardi, S, Braga, F, Panteghini, M. Verification of harmonization of serum total and free prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements and implications for medical decisions. Clin Chem 2021;67:543–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaa268.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Jahn, JL, Giovannucci, EL, Stampfer, MJ. The high prevalence of undiagnosed prostate cancer at autopsy: implications for epidemiology and treatment of prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen-era. Int J Cancer 2015;137:2795–802. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29408.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
17. Harrell, FE. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. NewYork: Springer; 2001. Available from: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1.10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1Search in Google Scholar
18. Yee, TW, Hadi, AF. Row-column interaction models, with an R implementation. Comput Stat 2014;29:1427–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-014-0499-9.Search in Google Scholar
19. Penney, KL, Stampfer, MJ, Jahn, JL, Sinnott, JA, Flavin, R, Rider, JR, et al.. Gleason grade progression is uncommon. Cancer Res 2013;73:5163–8. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-13-0427.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
20. Etzioni, R, Penson, DF, Legler, JM, di Tommaso, D, Boer, R, Gann, PH, et al.. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from the US prostate cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:981–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/94.13.981.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Bangma, CH, Roemeling, S, Schroder, FH. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of early detected prostate cancer. World J Urol 2007;25:3–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0145-z.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
22. Drost, FH, Osses, DF, Nieboer, D, Steyerberg, EW, Bangma, CH, Roobol, MJ, et al.. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;4:CD012663. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
23. Kasivisvanathan, V, Rannikko, AS, Borghi, M, Panebianco, V, Mynderse, LA, Vaarala, MH, et al.. PRECISION study group Collaborators.MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1767–77. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1801993.Search in Google Scholar
24. Moore, CM, Kasivisvanathan, V, Eggener, S, Emberton, M, Futterer, JJ, GillI, S, et al.. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an international working group. Eur Urol 2013;64:544–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Bell, KJ, Del MarC, Wright, G, Dickinson, J, Glasziou, P. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: a systematic review of autopsy studies. Int J Cancer 2015;137:1749–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29538.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
Supplementary Material
This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2023-0008).
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
