Evaluation of prostate‑specific antigen density in the diagnosis of prostate cancer combined with magnetic resonance imaging before biopsy in men aged 70 years and older with elevated PSA

Yanai,Yoshinori; Kosaka,Takeo; Hongo,Hiroshi; Matsumoto,Kazuhiro; Shinojima,Toshiaki; Kikuchi,Eiji; Miyajima,Akira; Mizuno,Ryuichi; Mikami,Shuji; Jinzaki,Masahiro; Oya,Mototsugu

doi:10.3892/mco.2018.1725

Evaluation of prostate‑specific antigen density in the diagnosis of prostate cancer combined with magnetic resonance imaging before biopsy in men aged 70 years and older with elevated PSA

Authors:
- Yoshinori Yanai
- Takeo Kosaka
- Hiroshi Hongo
- Kazuhiro Matsumoto
- Toshiaki Shinojima
- Eiji Kikuchi
- Akira Miyajima
- Ryuichi Mizuno
- Shuji Mikami
- Masahiro Jinzaki
- Mototsugu Oya
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo 160‑8582, Japan, Division of Diagnostic Pathology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo 160‑8582, Japan, Division of Diagnostic Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo 160‑8582, Japan
Published online on: September 19, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2018.1725
Pages: 656-660

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

There is an increasing proportion of individuals aged 70 years and older, as well as an increasing life expectancy worldwide. The present study may guide the management of older patients with elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA). The medical records of 241 older men aged >70 years who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) before prostate biopsy (PBx) at our institution were reviewed retrospectively. Multiple variables were evaluated as predictors for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). The variables included serum PSA level, digital rectal examination, size of region of interest on mpMRI, prostate volume and PSA density. PCa was positive in 162 (67.2%). Prostate volume and PSA density were significant PCa predictors (P<0.001). In patients aged 70‑75 and >75 years, PSA density was significantly higher in patients with PCa (0.21 ng/ml/cc, P=0.014 and 0.24 ng/ml/cc, P<0.001, respectively). Similarly, PSA density was significant higher in patients with significant PCa (0.24 ng/ml/cc, P=0.004 and 0.29 ng/ml/cc, P<0.001, respectively). The cut‑off value of PSA density was calculated using receiver operating characteristic curves. Area under curve of PSA density was 0.698, and the best cut‑off value was 0.20 ng/ml/cc. These results indicate that the combination of PSA density with mpMRI before PBx is a helpful method and can be a decision‑making model for a selection of PBx.

View Figures

View References

1	Daskivich TJ, Fan KH, Koyama T, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Hoffman RM, Stanford JL, Stroup AM and Litwin MS: Original research effect of age, tumor risk and comorbidity on competing risks. Ann Intern Med. 158:709–717. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Siegel RL, Miller KD and Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 65:5–29. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Honorable T and Lew JJ: Social security. Available via DIALOG. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/population/longevity.htmlMarch 1–2018
4	Smith RA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Brooks D, Doroshenk M, Fedewa S, Saslow D, Brawley OW and Wender R: Cancer screening in the United States, 2015: A review of current American cancer society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 65:30–54. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, et al: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol. 65:124–137. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Lin K, Lipsitz R, Miller T and Janakiraman S; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, : Benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: An evidence update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 149:192–199. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Carter HB, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, Etzioni R, Freedland SJ, Greene KL, Holmberg L, Kantoff P, Konety BR, Murad MH, et al: Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol. 190:419–426. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Williamson DA, Barrett LK, Rogers BA, Freeman JT, Hadway P and Paterson DL: Infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: New challenges in the era of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Clin Infect Dis. 57:267–274. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Schröder F and Kattan MW: The comparability of models for predicting the risk of a positive prostate biopsy with prostate-specific antigen alone: A systematic review. Eur Urol. 54:274–290. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, Huang J, Dorey FJ, Reiter RE and Marks LS: Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol. 65:809–815. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, Schröder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO and Thompson LC: Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol. 66:22–29. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, Hoogendoorn SP, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Hambrock T, Vergunst H, Sedelaar JP, Fütterer JJ and Barentsz JO: Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: Detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol. 62:902–909. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Hattori S, Kosaka T, Mizuno R, Kanao K, Miyajima A, Yasumizu Y, Yazawa S, Nagata H, Kikuchi E, Mikami S, et al: Prognostic value of preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for predicting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 113:741–747. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V and Fütterer JJ; European Society of Urogenital Radiology, : ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 22:746–757. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Kikuchi E, Nakashima J, Ishibashi M, Ohigashi T, Asakura H, Tachibana M and Murai M: Prostate specific antigen adjusted for transition zone volume: The most powerful method for detecting prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 89:842–849. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, Kesch C, Schlemmer HP, Wieczorek K, Kirchner M, Pahernik S, Hohenfellner M and Hadaschik BA: The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS^TM for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. J Urol. 198:575–582. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Kubota Y, Kamei S, Nakano M, Ehara H, Deguchi T and Tanaka O: The potential role of prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging combined with prostate-specific antigen density in the detection of prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 15:322–327. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Kosaka T, Mizuno R, Shinojima T, Miyajima A, Kikuchi E, Tanaka N, Shinoda K, Morita S, Mikami S and Oya M: The implications of prostate-specific antigen density to predict clinically significant prostate cancer in men ≤50 years. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2:332–336. 2014.PubMed/NCBI
19	Daskivich TJ, Fan KH, Koyama T, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Hoffman RM, Stanford JL, Stroup AM, Litwin MS and Penson DF: Effect of age, tumor risk, and comorbidity on competing risks for survival in a U.S. population-based cohort of men with prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 158:709–717. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Aus G, Hugosson J, Rannikko AS, Tammela TL, Bangma CH and Schröder FH: Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol. 55:1–8. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, Feng Z, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Walsh PC and Carter HB: Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: An update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol. 29:2185–2190. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI