Is PCA3 Score Useful in Preoperative Staging of a Single Microfocus of Prostate Cancer Diagnosed at Saturation Biopsy

Pepe, Pietro; Fraggetta, Filippo; Galia, Antonio; Aragona, Francesco

doi:10.1159/000340055

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Including the PCA3 score into multivariable models increased the accuracy of CIPCa prediction [ 118 ]. Also, more recent studies confirm this result with high diagnostic accuracy (equal to 86.8%) of PCA3 score cut-off >20 in the presence of a microfocus of significant prostate cancer [ 126 ]. Contrary to these data, Durand et al suggested that the PCA3 score of >35 represented an independent predictor in a multivariate analysis of a tumor volume >0.5 mL [ 127 ].…”

Section: Markers In the Diagnosis Of Prostate Cancermentioning

confidence: 65%

Imaging and Markers as Novel Diagnostic Tools in Detecting Insignificant Prostate Cancer: A Critical Overview

Рева

Носов

Novikov

et al. 2014

International Scholarly Research Notices

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent therapeutic advances for managing low-risk prostate cancer include the active surveillance and focal treatment. However, locating a tumor and detecting its volume by adequate sampling is still problematic. Development of predictive biomarkers guiding individual therapeutic choices remains an ongoing challenge. At the same time, prostate cancer magnetic resonance imaging is gaining increasing importance for prostate diagnostics. The high morphological resolution of T2-weighted imaging and functional MRI methods may increase the specificity and sensitivity of diagnostics. Also, recent studies founded an ability of novel biomarkers to identify clinically insignificant prostate cancer, risk of progression, and association with poor differentiation and, therefore, with clinical significance. Probably, the above mentioned methods would improve tumor characterization in terms of its volume, aggressiveness, and focality. In this review, we attempted to evaluate the applications of novel imaging techniques and biomarkers in assessing the significance of the prostate cancer.

show abstract

Section: Markers In the Diagnosis Of Prostate Cancermentioning

confidence: 65%

Imaging and Markers as Novel Diagnostic Tools in Detecting Insignificant Prostate Cancer: A Critical Overview

Рева

Носов

Novikov

et al. 2014

International Scholarly Research Notices

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This terminology was introduced in 1996; subsequently, EPE was confirmed to be an adverse prognostic factor for PCa (22). Several variables, including the Partin table, MRI, TRUS and digital rectal examination findings, and prostate cancer antigen 3 score, have been studied to assess the predictive power of EPE; however, sensitivities have ranged from only 50-70% (8,9,(23)(24)(25). Thus, there is an urgent need to explore novel and more effective approaches for predicting EPE for determining an appropriate surgical strategy and also for delineating a favourable postoperative adjuvant therapy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ERG rearrangement as a novel marker for predicting the extra-prostatic extension of clinically localised prostate cancer

Zhang

Pang

et al. 2016

Oncology Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Currently, there are no well-established preoperative clinicopathological parameters for predicting extra-prostatic extension (EPE) in patients with clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). The transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2)-ETS-related gene (ERG) fusion gene is a specific biomarker of PCa and is considered a prognostic predictor. The aim of the present study was to assess the value of this marker for predicting EPE in patients with clinically localised PCa. In total, 306 PCa patients with clinically localised disease, including 220 patients (71.9%) with organ-confined disease and 86 EPE cases (28.1%), were included in the study. Receiver operating characteristic curves and logistic regression were employed to establish the optimal cut-off value and to investigate whether ERG rearrangement was an independent predictor for the EPE of clinically localised PCa. A leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) model was implemented to validate the predictive power of ERG rearrangement. An increase in ERG rearrangements was identified to be associate`d with EPE, and the optimal cut-off for predicting EPE was determined to be 2.25%, with a sensitivity of 70.24% [95% confidence interval (CI), 62.6-78.9%], a specificity of 80. 43% (95% CI,, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.781 (95% CI,. In the LOOCV model, ERG rearrangement also demonstrated good performance for predicting EPE (sensitivity, 76.923%; specificity, 71.429%; 95% CI for AUC, 0.724-0.958). In addition, a high Gleason score (≥7) and a cT2c classification upon biopsy were independent factors for EPE.

show abstract

“…Various strategies, including Partin nomogram, MRI, prostate cancer gene 3 score, etc., have been studied in an attempt to improve the accuracy of the prediction of ECE [3,21,22,23], but the sensitivity for the detection is still limited to 50-70% [10,14,15]. In 1997, Partin et al [21] established Partin nomograms using tPSA, biopsy Gleason score, and clinical T classification to predict ECE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of Extraprostatic Extension in Patients with Clinically Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer

Lin

Zhang²,

Li³

et al. 2013

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Preoperative parameters for predicting extraprostatic extension (ECE) in clinically organ-confined prostate cancer patients are not well defined. Our aim was to evaluate the roles of the biopsy Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based parameters, volume, and clinical T classification in prediction of ECE. Materials and Methods: A total of 188 patients with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from January 1998 to December 2007 were included in the study. Age, prostate volume, preoperative total serum PSA (tPSA), free PSA, PSA density (PSAD), biopsy Gleason score, and clinical T classification were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses to predict ECE. Results: Pathologic examination revealed 130 patients had organ-confined disease and 58 patients were positive for ECE. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that tPSA was an independent predictor of ECE. Gleason score ≥8 had a trend for predicting ECE. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves suggested that tPSA and PSAD had a similar diagnosis performance in the whole cohort. For patients with Gleason score of 7, PSAD was found to be statistically better than tPSA for predicting ECE. Conclusions: tPSA remains one of the most important factors for predicting ECE in prostate cancer patients. PSAD may be more helpful than tPSA for predicting ECE in the patients with Gleason score of 7.

show abstract

Is PCA3 Score Useful in Preoperative Staging of a Single Microfocus of Prostate Cancer Diagnosed at Saturation Biopsy

Cited by 3 publications

References 54 publications

Imaging and Markers as Novel Diagnostic Tools in Detecting Insignificant Prostate Cancer: A Critical Overview

Imaging and Markers as Novel Diagnostic Tools in Detecting Insignificant Prostate Cancer: A Critical Overview

ERG rearrangement as a novel marker for predicting the extra-prostatic extension of clinically localised prostate cancer

Prediction of Extraprostatic Extension in Patients with Clinically Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About