Validity of Prostate Health Index and Percentage of [-2] Pro-Prostate-Specific Antigen as Novel Biomarkers in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: Omani Tertiary Hospitals Experience

Oman Medical Journal

Riad Bayoumi¹  Nafila B. Al Riyami¹  Waad-Allah S. Mula-Abed²  Safana S. Al Saidi²  Mohammed S. Al Saraf³  Salim S. Al Busaidi³  Mohammed S. Al Marhoon⁴ 

[1] Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, Oman;Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman;Department of Urology, Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman;Department of Urology, Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, Oman;

关键词: Prostate cancer;    Prostate-Specific Antigen;    Prostate Health Index;    Biopsy;   

DOI  :  10.5001/omj.2017.55

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Objectives: Prostate cancer is the leading cancer in older men. The Ministry of Health Oman Cancer Incidence Registry 2013 lists cancer of the prostate as the first most common cancer in males. Therefore, early detection is important and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is widely used as an established laboratory test. However, despite its wide use, its value in screening, particularly in asymptomatic males, is controversial when considering the risks and benefits of early detection. Methods: This prospective, observational study included 136 males (67.0±8.9 years; range 45–90) who were scheduled for a prostate biopsy in two different tertiary care teaching hospitals in Oman: the Royal Hospital and Sultan Qaboos University Hospital. Blood specimens from these patients were collected at the same setting before obtaining a prostatic biopsy. Three PSA markers (total PSA (tPSA), free PSA (fPSA), and [-2]proPSA (p2PSA)) were measured and the Prostate Health Index (phi) calculated. The histopathological report of the prostatic biopsy for each patient was obtained from the histopathology laboratory of the concerned hospital along with clinical and laboratory data through the hospital information system. Results: Phi has the highest validity markers compared with other prostate markers, with a sensitivity of 82.1%, specificity of 80.6%, and area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.81 at a cutoff of 41.9. The other prostatic markers showed sensitivities and specificities of 78.6% and 25.9% for tPSA; 35.7% and 92.6% for %fPSA; and 64.3% and 82.4% for %p2PSA, respectively. The AUCs at the best cutoff values were 0.67 at 10.1 µg/L for tPSA; 0.70 at 11.6% for %fPSA; and 0.55 at 1.4% for %p2PSA. An association between phi values and aggressiveness of prostate malignancy was noted. Of the 28 patients with prostate cancer, 22 patients had tPSA > 4 µg/L. However, no patient had phi in the low-risk category, and five, six, and 17 patients had phi in the moderate-, high-, and very high-risk categories, respectively. Conclusions: Phi outperforms tPSA and fPSA when used alone or in combination, and appears to be more accurate than both markers in excluding prostate cancer before biopsy. Use of this biomarker helps clinicians to avoid unnecessary biopsies, particularly in patients with gray-zone tPSA level. Phi is the strongest marker that correlates proportionally with Gleason Score; therefore, it is also useful in predicting the aggressiveness of the disease. This is the first reported experience for the use of p2PSA and phi in Oman, the Middle East, and North Africa.

【 授权许可】

Unknown