To determine whether PSA density (PSAD), can sub-stratify risk of biopsy upgrade among men on active surveillance (AS) with normal baseline MRI.
We identified a cohort of patients with low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on AS at two large academic centers from February 2013 - December 2017. Analysis was restricted to patients with GG1 cancer on initial biopsy and a negative baseline or surveillance mpMRI, defined by the absence of PI-RADS 2 or greater lesions. We assessed ability of PSA, prostate volume and PSAD to predict upgrading on confirmatory biopsy.
We identified 98 patients on AS with negative baseline or surveillance mpMRI. Median PSA at diagnosis was 5.8 ng/mL and median PSAD was 0.08 ng/mL/mL. Fourteen men (14.3%) experienced Gleason upgrade at confirmatory biopsy. Patients who were upgraded had higher PSA (7.9 vs 5.4 ng/mL, P = .04), PSAD (0.20 vs 0.07 ng/mL/mL, P < .001), and lower prostate volumes (42.5 vs 65.8 mL, P = .01). On multivariate analysis, PSAD was associated with pathologic upgrade (OR 2.23 per 0.1-increase, P = .007). A PSAD cutoff at 0.08 generated a NPV of 98% for detection of pathologic upgrade.
PSAD reliably discriminated the risk of Gleason upgrade at confirmatory biopsy among men with low-grade prostate cancer with negative MRI. PSAD could be clinically implemented to reduce the intensity of surveillance for a subset of patients.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Urology
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (cancer care ontario guideline): american society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement.J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34: 2182-2190
- Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013.JAMA. 2015; 314: 80-82
- Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in michigan with low-risk prostate cancer.Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 44-50
- Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.Lancet. 2017; 389: 815-822
- MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis.N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 1767-1777
- 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. 2014; 66: 22-29
- Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion–guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.JAMA. 2015; 313: 390-397
- A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging–ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of mr-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial.Eur Urol. 2014; 66: 343-351
- MRI in active surveillance: a critical review.Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019; 22: 5-15
- Outcomes of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent biopsy in men with low-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance.Eur Urol Focus. 2021; 7 (doi:10.106/j.euf.2019.05.011): 47-54
- Factors influencing disease progression of prostate cancer under active surveillance: a McGill University Health Center cohort.BJU Int. 2014; 114: E99-E104
- Risk stratification and validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance.J Urol. 2011; 185: 471-476
- Predictive factors of missed clinically significant prostate cancers in men with negative magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Urol. 2020; 204: 24-32
- PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2.Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 16-40
- The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system.Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40: 244-252
- Compliance rates with the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol and disease reclassification in noncompliers.Eur Urol. 2015; 68: 814-821
- How active is active surveillance? intensity of followup during active surveillance for prostate cancer in the United States.J Urol. 2016; 196: 721-726
- Histology core-specific evaluation of the european society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) standardised scoring system of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate.BJU Int. 2013; 112: 1080-1087
- mp-MRI prostate characterised PIRADS 3 lesions are associated with a low risk of clinically significant prostate cancer - a retrospective review of 92. Biopsied PIRADS 3 Lesions.Cur Urol. 2015; 8: 96-100
- Lesion volume predicts prostate cancer risk and aggressiveness: validation of its value alone and matched with prostate imaging reporting and data system score.BJU Int. 2017; 120: 92-103
- Preoperative assessment of prostate cancer using prebiopsy MRI.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 203: 341-346
- Prostate cancer: PI-RADS version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers.Radiology. 2016; 280: 108-116
- Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR.J Urol. 2016; 196: 1613-1618
- Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study.Eur Urol. 2013; 63: 597-603
- Predictors of pathologic progression on biopsy among men on active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: the value of the pattern of surveillance biopsies.Eur Urol. 2014; 66: 337-342
- Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.BJU Int. 2017; 120: 511-519
- Targeted biopsy to detect gleason score upgrading during active surveillance for men with low versus intermediate risk prostate cancer.J Urol. 2017; 197: 632-639
- Avoiding unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and Biopsies: Negative and Positive Predictive Value of MRI according to prostate-specific antigen density, 4K score and risk calculators.Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;
- The role of mpMRI and PSA density in patients with an initial negative prostatic biopsy.World J Urol. 2018; 36: 2021-2025
- Which patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging can safely avoid biopsy for prostate cancer?.J Urol. 2019; 201: 268-276
Published online: May 31, 2021
Published by Elsevier Inc.