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
. 2022 Nov-Dec;24(6):615-619.
doi: 10.4103/aja202220.

The role of prostate-specific antigen density and negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer for biopsy-naïve men: clinical outcomes from a high-volume center in China

Affiliations

The role of prostate-specific antigen density and negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer for biopsy-naïve men: clinical outcomes from a high-volume center in China

Chi-Chen Zhang et al. Asian J Androl. 2022 Nov-Dec.

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the role of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) and negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in predicting prostate cancer for biopsy-naïve men based on a large cohort of the Chinese population. From a prostate biopsy database between March 2017 and July 2021, we retrospectively identified 240 biopsy-naïve patients with negative prebiopsy mpMRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 [PI-RADS v2] score <3). Logistic regression analysis was performed to select the potential predictors for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy. The negative predictive values of mpMRI in excluding any cancer and csPCa were 83.8% (201/240) and 90.8% (218/240), respectively. ROC curve analysis indicated that PSAD was the most promising predictor, with an AUC value of 0.786 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.699-0.874), and multiparametric logistic regression analysis confirmed that higher PSAD remained a significant marker for predicting csPCa (odds ratio [OR]: 10.99, 95% CI: 2.75-44.02, P < 0.001). Combining negative mpMRI and PSAD below 0.20 ng ml-2 obviously increased the predictive value in excluding PCa (91.0%, 101/111) or csPCa (100.0%, 111/111). If a PSAD below 0.20 ng ml-2 was set as the criterion to omit biopsy, nearly 46.3% of patients (463 per 1000) with negative mpMRI could safely avoid unnecessary biopsy, with approximately 4.2% of patients (42 per 1000) at risk of missed diagnosis of PCa and no patients with csPCa missed. A PI-RADS v2 score <3 and a PSAD <0.20 ng ml-2 could be potential criteria for the Chinese population to omit prompt biopsy safely.

Keywords: biopsy; magnetic resonance imaging; predictive value; prostate cancer; prostate-specific antigen density; transrectal ultrasound.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patients selection flow chart. PI-RADS: Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System; mpMRI: multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; TRUS: transrectal ultrasound; PSA: prostate-specific antigen.
Figure 2
Figure 2
ROC curve analysis of the AUC was used to assess model accuracy for diagnostic markers. csPCa: clinically significant prostate cancer; PSA: prostate-specific antigen; PSAD: prostate-specific antigen density; tPSA: total prostate-specific antigen; fPSA%: free-total PSA ratio; PV: prostate volume; fPSA: free PSA; ROC: receiver operating characteristic; AUC: area under the ROC curve.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Culp MB, Soerjomataram I, Efstathiou JA, Bray F, Jemal A. Recent global patterns in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2020;77:38–52. - PubMed
    1. Mottet N, van den Bergh RC, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, 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. - PubMed
    1. Pilatz A, Veeratterapillay R, Köves B, Cai T, Bartoletti R, et al. Update on strategies to reduce infectious complications after prostate biopsy. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5:20–8. - PubMed
    1. Roberts MJ, Bennett HY, Harris PN, Holmes M, Grummet J, et al. Prostate biopsy-related infection:a systematic review of risk factors, prevention strategies, and management approaches. Urology. 2017;104:11–21. - PubMed
    1. Cicione A, De Nunzio C, Manno S, Damiano R, Posti A, et al. An update on prostate biopsy in the era of magnetic resonance imaging. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2018;70:264–74. - PubMed

Substances