Introduction: In current study, we compared the accuracy of the PSA isoform p2PSA and its derivatives, the percentage of p2PSA to free PSA (%p2PSA) and the Prostate Health Index (PHI) in the detection of prostate cancer (PC) characteristics at the final pathology with respect to reference standards. Materials and Methods: This was an observational prospective study evaluating 43 consecutive PC patients treated with laparoscopic/robotic radical prostatectomy (RP). Logistic regression models were fitted to test the predictors of pT3 stage, pathologic Gleason score ≥8 or Gleason score upgrading, margin status, lymph node invasion, and the presence of high-risk disease (pT3 disease and/or Gleason score ≥8 and/or positive lymph node). The comparative base model included tPSA, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score, and percentage of positive core. Results: Seventeen patients (39.5%) were affected by pT3 disease or had a pathologic Gleason score ≥8; positive margins were detected in 12 patients (27.9%), lymph node invasion was found in 2 patients (4.7%), and 15 patients (34.8%) harbored high-risk disease. In the univariate analysis, p2PSA, %p2PSA, and PHI were significant predictors of pT3 disease, pathologic Gleason score, and the presence of high-risk disease (all p < 0.05), whereas only PHI was an independent predictor of pT3 disease, margin status, and presence of high-risk disease, increasing the accuracy of a base multivariable model by 6.3% (p < 0.05) and 4.2% (p < 0.05) for the prediction of pT3 and high-risk disease, respectively. Conclusions: p2PSA and its derivatives, primarily PHI, were significant predictors of unfavorable PC characteristics as detected at the final pathology, thus improving the clinical performance of standard prognostic factors for aggressive disease.

1.
Hoffman RM, Stone SN, Espey D, Potosky AL: Differences between men with screening-detected versus clinically diagnosed prostate cancers in the USA. BMC Cancer 2005;5:27.
2.
Hayes JH, Barry MJ: Screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen test: a review of current evidence. JAMA 2014; 311:1143-1149.
3.
Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, et al: Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:529-534.
4.
van Vugt HA, Roobol MJ, Kranse R, Määttänen L, Finne P, Hugosson J, et al: Prediction of prostate cancer in unscreened men: external validation of a risk calculator. Eur J Cancer 2011;47:903-909.
5.
Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T, et al: Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 2006;49:820-826.
6.
Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, Walsh PC, Wojno KJ, Oesterling JE, et al: Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997;277:1445-1451.
7.
Chun FK, Karakiewicz PI, Briganti A, Walz J, Kattan MW, Huland H, et al: A critical appraisal of logistic regression-based nomograms, artificial neural networks, classification and regression-tree models, look-up tables and risk-group stratification models for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007;99:794-800.
8.
Johnson LM, Turkbey B, Figg WD, Choyke PL: Multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2014;11:346-353.
9.
Stephan C, Kahrs AM, Cammann H, Lein M, Schrader M, Deger S, et al: A [-2]proPSA-based artificial neural network significantly improves differentiation between prostate cancer and benign prostatic diseases. Prostate 2009;69:198-207
10.
Lazzeri M, Haese A, de la Taille A, Palou Redorta J, McNicholas T, Lughezzani G, et al: Serum isoform [-2]proPSA derivatives significantly improve prediction of prostate cancer at initial biopsy in a total PSA range of 2-10 ng/ml: a multicentric European study. Eur Urol 2013;63:986-994.
11.
Lughezzani G, Lazzeri M, Haese A, McNicholas T, de la Taille A, Buffi NM, et al: multicenter European external validation of a Prostate Health Index-based nomogram for predicting prostate cancer at extended biopsy. Eur Urol 2014;66:906-912.
12.
Mearini L, Ferri C, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Nunzi E, Fiorini D, et al: Evaluation of prostate-specific antigen isoform p2PSA and its derivates, %p2PSA, prostate health index and prostate dimension-adjusted related index in the detection of prostate cancer at first biopsy: an exploratory, prospective study. Urol Int 2014;93:135-145.
13.
Guazzoni G, Lazzeri M, Nava L, Lughezzani G, Larcher A, Scattoni V, et al: Preoperative prostate-specific antigen isoform p2PSA and its derivatives, %p2PSA and prostate health index, predict pathologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2012;61:455-466.
14.
Fossati N, Buffi NM, Haese A, Stephan C, Larcher A, McNicholas T, et al: Preoperative prostate-specific antigen isoform p2PSA and its derivatives, %p2PSA and Prostate Health Index, predict pathologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: results from a multicentric European prospective study. Eur Urol 2014, DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.034.
15.
Tallon L, Luangphakdy D, Ruffion A, Colombel M, Devonec M, Champetier D, et al: Comparative evaluation of urinary PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG scores and serum PHI in predicting prostate cancer aggressiveness. Int J Mol Sci 2014;15:13299-13316.
16.
Heidegger I, Klocker H, Steiner E, Skradski V, Ladurner M, Pichler R, et al: [-2]proPSA is an early marker for prostate cancer aggressiveness. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2014;17:70-74.
17.
Eminaga O, Bögemann M, Breil B, Titze U, Wötzel F, Eltze E, et al: Preoperative prostate-specific antigen isoform p2PSA ≤22.5 pg/ml predicts advanced prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2014;32:1317-1326.
18.
Semjonow A, Kopke T, Eltze E, Pepping-Schefers B, Bürgel H, Darte C: Pre-analytical in-vitro stability of [-2]proPSA in blood and serum. Clin Biochem 2010;47:926-928.
19.
Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH, Røder MA, Berg KD, Iversen P: Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer - a systematic review. J Surg Oncol 2014;109:830-835.
20.
Montironi R, Hammond EH, Lin DW, Gore JL, Srigley JR, Samaratunga H, et al: Consensus statement with recommendations on active surveillance inclusion criteria and definition of progression in men with localized prostate cancer: the critical role of the pathologist. Virchows Arch 2014;465:623-628.
21.
Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, et al: Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol 2014;192:385-390.
22.
Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Feng Z, Isharwal S, Landis P, Elliot DJ, et al: Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2012;188:1131-1136.
23.
Hirama H, Sugimoto M, Ito K, Shiraishi T, Kakehi Y: The impact of baseline [-2]proPSA-related indices on the prediction of pathological reclassification at 1 year during active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: the Japanese multicenter study cohort. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2014;140:257-263.
24.
Eifler JB, Feng Z, Lin BM, Partin MT, Humphreys EB, Han M, et al: An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int 2013;111:22-29.
25.
D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969-974.
26.
Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Presti JC Jr: Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology 2007;69:495-499.
27.
Van Praet C, Libbrecht L, D'Hondt F, Decaestecker K, Fonteyne V, Verschuere S, et al; Uro-Oncology Group Ghent: Agreement of Gleason score on prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: is there improvement with increased number of biopsy cylinders and the 2005 revised Gleason scoring? Clin Genitourin Cancer 2014;12:160-166.
28.
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al; European Association of Urology: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent - update 2013. Eur Urol 2014;65:124-137.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.