Re-evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of PSA as a referral test to detect clinically significant prostate cancer in contemporary MRI-based image-guided biopsy pathways
View / Open Files
Authors
Lophatananon, A
Light, A
Burns-Cox, N
Maccormick, A
John, J
Otti, V
McGrath, J
Archer, P
Anning, J
McCracken, S
Page, T
Muir, K
Publication Date
2021Journal Title
Journal of Clinical Urology
ISSN
2051-4158
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Type
Article
This Version
AM
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Lophatananon, A., Light, A., Burns-Cox, N., Maccormick, A., John, J., Otti, V., McGrath, J., et al. (2021). Re-evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of PSA as a referral test to detect clinically significant prostate cancer in contemporary MRI-based image-guided biopsy pathways. Journal of Clinical Urology https://doi.org/10.1177/20514158211059057
Abstract
<jats:sec><jats:title>Introduction:</jats:title><jats:p> Modern image-guided biopsy pathways at diagnostic centres have greatly refined the investigations of men referred with suspected prostate cancer. However, the referral criteria from primary care are still based on historical prostate-specific antigen (PSA) cut-offs and age-referenced thresholds. Here, we tested whether better contemporary pathways and biopsy methods had improved the predictive utility value of PSA referral thresholds. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods:</jats:title><jats:p> PSA referral thresholds, age-referenced ranges and PSA density (PSAd) were assessed for positive predictive value (PPV) in detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa – histological ⩾ Grade Group 2). Data were analysed from men referred to three diagnostics centres who used multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-guided prostate biopsies for disease characterisation. Findings were validated in a separate multicentre cohort. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:</jats:title><jats:p> Data from 2767 men were included in this study. The median age, PSA and PSAd were 66.4 years, 7.3 ng/mL and 0.1 ng/mL<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>, respectively. Biopsy detected csPCa was found in 38.7%. The overall area under the curve (AUC) for PSA was 0.68 which is similar to historical performance. A PSA threshold of ⩾ 3 ng/mL had a PPV of 40.3%, but this was age dependent (PPV: 24.8%, 32.7% and 56.8% in men 50–59 years, 60–69 years and ⩾ 70 years, respectively). Different PSA cut-offs and age-reference ranges failed to demonstrate better performance. PSAd demonstrated improved AUC (0.78 vs 0.68, p < 0.0001) and improved PPV compared to PSA. A PSAd of ⩾ 0.10 had a PPV of 48.2% and similar negative predictive value (NPV) to PSA ⩾ 3 ng/mL and out-performed PSA age-reference ranges. This improved performance was recapitulated in a separate multi-centre cohort ( n = 541). </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion:</jats:title><jats:p> The introduction of MRI-based image-guided biopsy pathways does not appear to have altered PSA diagnostic test characteristics to positively detect csPCa. We find no added value to PSA age-referenced ranges, while PSAd offers better PPV and the potential for a single clinically useful threshold (⩾0.10) for all age groups. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Level of evidence:</jats:title><jats:p> IV </jats:p></jats:sec>
Keywords
Prostate cancer, PSA, PSA density, MRI, diagnosis, predictive value
Identifiers
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20514158211059057
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/330267
Statistics
Total file downloads (since January 2020). For more information on metrics see the
IRUS guide.
Recommended or similar items
The current recommendation prototype on the Apollo Repository will be turned off on 03 February 2023. Although the pilot has been fruitful for both parties, the service provider IKVA is focusing on horizon scanning products and so the recommender service can no longer be supported. We recognise the importance of recommender services in supporting research discovery and are evaluating offerings from other service providers. If you would like to offer feedback on this decision please contact us on: support@repository.cam.ac.uk