4.5 Article

Utility of PCA3 in patients undergoing repeat biopsy for prostate cancer

期刊

PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 100-105

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2011.52

关键词

nomogram; decision curve analysis; prostate cancer antigen 3; repeat prostate biopsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Men with persistently elevated and/or rising PSA levels after negative prostate biopsy often undergo multiple repeat biopsies. Prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) has emerged as a predictor of prostate cancer. METHODS: We sought to define the utility of PCA3 in combination with other clinical data in predicting the risk of prostate cancer on repeat biopsy. We retrospectively obtained PCA3, PSA, PSA density (PSAD), digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) findings from 103 patients at a single institution who had at least one prior negative prostate biopsy. The sensitivity and specificity of PCA3 in detecting prostate cancer was determined. Receiver operating characteristics curves were produced for each variable individually and in multivariable analysis, controlling for PCA3, PSAD, TRUS, PSA and DRE. A nomogram was created, internally validated and compared to another recently published nomogram. RESULTS: Of the 103 patients, 37 (31%) had prostate cancer on repeat biopsy. The sensitivity and specificity of PCA3 (using a cut point of 25) was 0.67 and 0.64, respectively. In multivariable analyses, PCA3 was independently associated with prostate cancer (odds ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.04), with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.64. A multivariable model containing PCA3, PSAD, PSA, DRE and TRUS findings showed the most diagnostic accuracy (AUC: 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of prior negative biopsies, PCA3 was independently associated with prostate cancer in a multivariable model. In combination with other clinical data, PCA3 is a valuable tool in assessing the risk of prostate cancer on repeat biopsy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据