Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Dec;66(6):1109-15.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.011. Epub 2014 Aug 26.

The added value of percentage of free to total prostate-specific antigen, PCA3, and a kallikrein panel to the ERSPC risk calculator for prostate cancer in prescreened men

Affiliations

The added value of percentage of free to total prostate-specific antigen, PCA3, and a kallikrein panel to the ERSPC risk calculator for prostate cancer in prescreened men

Moniek M Vedder et al. Eur Urol. 2014 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing has limited accuracy for the early detection of prostate cancer (PCa).

Objective: To assess the value added by percentage of free to total PSA (%fPSA), prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), and a kallikrein panel (4k-panel) to the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) multivariable prediction models: risk calculator (RC) 4, including transrectal ultrasound, and RC 4 plus digital rectal examination (4+DRE) for prescreened men.

Design, setting, and participants: Participants were invited for rescreening between October 2007 and February 2009 within the Dutch part of the ERSPC study. Biopsies were taken in men with a PSA level ≥3.0 ng/ml or a PCA3 score ≥10. Additional analyses of the 4k-panel were done on serum samples.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Outcome was defined as PCa detectable by sextant biopsy. Receiver operating characteristic curve and decision curve analyses were performed to compare the predictive capabilities of %fPSA, PCA3, 4k-panel, the ERSPC RCs, and their combinations in logistic regression models.

Results and limitations: PCa was detected in 119 of 708 men. The %fPSA did not perform better univariately or added to the RCs compared with the RCs alone. In 202 men with an elevated PSA, the 4k-panel discriminated better than PCA3 when modelled univariately (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.78 vs. 0.62; p=0.01). The multivariable models with PCA3 or the 4k-panel were equivalent (AUC: 0.80 for RC 4+DRE). In the total population, PCA3 discriminated better than the 4k-panel (univariate AUC: 0.63 vs. 0.56; p=0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the multivariable model with PCA3 (AUC: 0.73) versus the model with the 4k-panel (AUC: 0.71; p=0.18). The multivariable model with PCA3 performed better than the reference model (0.73 vs. 0.70; p=0.02). Decision curves confirmed these patterns, although numbers were small.

Conclusions: Both PCA3 and, to a lesser extent, a 4k-panel have added value to the DRE-based ERSPC RC in detecting PCa in prescreened men.

Patient summary: We studied the added value of novel biomarkers to previously developed risk prediction models for prostate cancer. We found that inclusion of these biomarkers resulted in an increase in predictive ability.

Keywords: Kallikrein panel (4k-panel); Percentage of free to total PSA; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3); Prostate cancer risk calculator; Validation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Net benefit of prediction models with prostate cancer antigen 3 and/or the kallikrein panel in the subgroup of men with prostate-specific antigen ≥3.0 ng/ml (n = 202). k-panel = kallikrein panel; PCA3 = prostate cancer antigen 3; RC = risk calculator.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Net benefit of prediction models with prostate cancer antigen 3 and/or the kallikrein panel in all men (n = 708). k-panel = kallikrein panel; PCA3 = prostate cancer antigen 3; RC = risk calculator.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol. 2011;59:61–71. - PubMed
    1. Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ, van der Cruijsen IW, et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:868–78. - PubMed
    1. Heijnsdijk EA, der Kinderen A, Wever EM, Draisma G, Roobol MJ, de Koning HJ. Overdetection, overtreatment and costs in prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:1833–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, van der Kwast TH, de Koning HJ, Schroder FH. Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol. 2007;177:107–12. discussion 112. - PubMed
    1. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, et al. Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:529–34. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

  NODES
twitter 2