Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jun;26(2):347-352.
doi: 10.1038/s41391-022-00549-y. Epub 2022 May 6.

PSA density is complementary to prostate MP-MRI PI-RADS scoring system for risk stratification of clinically significant prostate cancer

Affiliations

PSA density is complementary to prostate MP-MRI PI-RADS scoring system for risk stratification of clinically significant prostate cancer

James W Frisbie et al. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023 Jun.

Abstract

Background: While prostate multiparametric-magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) has improved the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC), the complementary use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels to risk-stratify for CSPC requires further study. The objective of this project was to determine if prostate MP-MRI and PSA can provide complementary insights into CSPC risk stratification.

Methods: In an IRB-approved study, pathologic outcomes from patients who underwent MR/US fusion-targeted prostate biopsy were stratified by various parameters including PSA, PSA density (PSAD), age, race, and PI-RADS v2 score. CSPC was defined as a Gleason score ≥7. Logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). P values were reported as two-sided with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. ROC curves were generated for assessing the predictive value of tests and sensitivity + specificity optimization was performed to determine optimal testing cutoffs.

Results: A total of 327 patients with 709 lesions total were analyzed. PSAD and PI-RADS scores provided complementary predictive value for diagnosis of CSPC (AUC PSAD: 0.67, PI-RADS: 0.72, combined: 0.78, p < 0.001). When controlling for PI-RADS score, age, and race, multivariate analysis showed that PSAD was independently associated with CSPC (OR 1.03 per 0.01 PSAD increase, 95% CI 1.02-105, p < 0.001). The optimal cutoff of PSAD ≥ 0.1 ng/ml/cc shows that a high versus low PSAD was roughly equivalent to an increase in 1 in PI-RADS score for the presence of CSPC (4% of PI-RADS ≤3 PSAD low, 6% of PI-RADS 3 PSAD high vs. 5% of PI-RADS 4 PSAD low, 22% of PI-RADS 4 PSAD high vs. 29% of PI-RADS 5 PSAD low, 46% of PI-RADS 5 PSAD high were found to have CSPC).

Conclusions: PSAD with a cutoff of 0.1 ng/ml/cc appears to be a useful marker that can stratify the risk of CSPC in a complementary manner to prostate MP-MRI.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R, Guettler FV, Abubrig M, Grimm M-O, et al. Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radio. 2016;85:726–31. - DOI
    1. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:876–92. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Minhaj Siddiqui M, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion–guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313:390–7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, Moen G, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016;69:149–56. - DOI - PubMed

Substances