Serum (‐2)proPSA/freePSAratio, (‐2)proPSA/freePSA density, prostate health index, and prostate health index density as clues to reveal postoperative clinically significant prostate cancer in men with prostate‐specific antigen 2–10 ng/mL

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: There is a strong clinical need to fill the gap of identifying clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) gray zone values. Promising, but not definitive results have been obtained using PSA derivatives such as prostate health index (PHI) and PHI density (PHID) and the percentage (-2)proPSA/free PSA (%p2PSA/fPSA). Thus, this study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of PHI, PHID, %proPSA/fPSA, and (-2)proPSA/freePSA density (-2pPSA/fPSAD) for csPCa in the patients with PSA within 2-10 ng/mL. METHODS: Serum samples and clinicopathological features were prospectively collected from 142 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy between September 2021 and December 2023. According to the inclusion criteria, the patients with total PSA within 2 and 10 ng/mL and negative or suspicious digital rectal examination were enrolled. We used two different classifications for csPCa: 1) patients with Gleason score (GS) ≥ 7(4 + 3) and 2) patients with GS ≥ 7(3 + 4). The receiver operating characteristic curves and the area under the curve (AUC) values were used to assess the diagnostic performance. RESULTS: Of the 142 men included, 116 (82%) patients were diagnosed with csPCa as GS ≥ 3 + 4 and 107 (75%) defined as csPCa as GS ≥ 7(4 + 3), respectively. We found that p2PSA/fPSA, p2PSA/fPSAD, PHI, and PHID were significantly higher in csPCa classified as GS ≥ 7(3 + 4) as well as GS ≥ 7(4 + 3), with p-values 0.027, 0.054, 0.0016, and 0.0027, respectively. AUCs of the analyzed variables were higher when used to predict csPCa as GS ≥ 6 compared to csPCa as GS ≥7(4 + 3), with an AUC equal, respectively, to 0.679 (95% CI: 0.571-0.786), 0.685 (95% CI: 0.571-0.799), 0.737 (95% CI: 0.639-0.836), and 0.736 (95% CI: 0.630-0.841) in the first subgroup and with an AUC equal, respectively, to 0.653 (95% CI: 0.552-0.754), 0.665 (95% CI: 0.560-0.770), 0.668 (95% CI: 0.568-0.769), and 0.670 (95% CI: 0.567-0.773) in the second, respectively. Both PHID and p2PSA/fPSAD allowed improvement in the diagnostic accuracy with respect to PHI and p2PSA/fPSA ratio, however the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.409, 0.180 for csPCa as G ≥ Gleason grade (GG) 2 and 0.558 and 0.087 for csPCa as G ≥ GG3, respectively). We found that PHI, PHID, p2PSA/fPSA ratio, and p2PSA/fPSAD showed higher sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value when used to predict csPCa as GG ≥ 2, whereas negative predictive value of all four parameters was higher when used to predict GG ≥ 3. CONCLUSIONS: In men with a PSA level between 2 and 10 ng/mL, PHI and PHID, p2PSA/fPSA, and p2PSA/fPSAD showed good diagnostic performance for postoperative csPCa. However, PHID and p2PSA/fPSAD had a small advantage over PHI which needs to be further investigated for the reduction of unnecessary surgical interventions. This finding suggests that it could be a promising biomarker for making the treatment-decision strategy.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.