Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: We investigated the diagnostic efficacy of the prostate health index (PHI) and PHI density (PHID) to avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies in 3 urological practices. METHODS: In 122 patients, total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA (f-PSA), the quotient from total PSA and f-PSA (f-PSA%), and [-2]pro-PSA were measured in the serum; PHI, PHID, and PSA density (PSAD) were calculated prior to prostate biopsy. Tissue sampling via transrectal biopsy was indicated in case of suspicious PSA (progression and/or elevation of PSA) and/or suspicious digital rectal examination. PSAD, PHI, and PHID were not used for biopsy indication. The diagnostic efficacy was determined with receiver-operating characteristic (ROC)and decision curve analyses. RESULTS: Based on prostate biopsies, 38% (n = 46) of the cases had no prostate carcinoma (PCa), 21% (n = 26) no clinically significant (insignificant) PCa, and 41% (n = 50) had clinically significant PCa. ROC analyses of the PSA parameters showed higher diagnostic efficacy for PHI and PHID (AUC 0.722 and 0.739) than for f-PSA%, PSA, and PSAD (AUC 0.612, 0.595, and 0.698, respectively) regarding carcinoma diagnosis. With a combined use of PHI and PHID (cutoff >40 and >0.9, respectively), only 1 clinically significant PCa would have been missed (sensitivity 98%); in 24 (20%) patients, biopsy could have been avoided. CONCLUSION: The integration of PHI and PHID could improve the diagnostic efficacy of risk calculators to avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies. However, as a prerequisite, validation of cutoff values in prospective studies is urgently required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schulze et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: