Advertisement

Utility of PSA Density in Predicting Upgraded Gleason Score in Men on Active Surveillance With Negative MRI

      Abstract

      Objectives

      To determine whether PSA density (PSAD), can sub-stratify risk of biopsy upgrade among men on active surveillance (AS) with normal baseline MRI.

      Methods

      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.

      Results

      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.

      Conclusion

      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
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Chen RC
        • Rumble RB
        • Loblaw DA
        • et al.
        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
        • Cooperberg MR
        • Carroll PR
        Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013.
        JAMA. 2015; 314: 80-82
        • Womble PR
        • Montie JE
        • Ye Z
        • Linsell SM
        • Lane BR
        • Miller DC
        Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in michigan with low-risk prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 44-50
        • Ahmed HU
        • El-Shater Bosaily A
        • Brown LC
        • Gabe R
        • Kaplan R
        • Parmar MK
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.
        Lancet. 2017; 389: 815-822
        • Kasivisvanathan V
        • Rannikko AS
        • Borghi M
        • et al.
        MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis.
        N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 1767-1777
        • Pokorny MR
        • de Rooij M
        • Duncan E
        • et al.
        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
        • Siddiqui MM
        • Rais-Bahrami S
        • Turkbey B
        • et al.
        Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion–guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
        JAMA. 2015; 313: 390-397
        • Wysock JS
        • Rosenkrantz AB
        • Huang WC
        • et al.
        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
        • Stavrinides V
        • Giganti F
        • Emberton M
        • Moore CM.
        MRI in active surveillance: a critical review.
        Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019; 22: 5-15
        • Hsiang W
        • Ghabili K
        • Syed JS
        • et al.
        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
        • Barayan GA
        • Brimo F
        • Begin LR
        • et al.
        Factors influencing disease progression of prostate cancer under active surveillance: a McGill University Health Center cohort.
        BJU Int. 2014; 114: E99-E104
        • San Francisco IF
        • Werner L
        • Regan MM
        • Garnick MB
        • Bubley G
        • DeWolf WC
        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
        • Pagniez MA
        • Kasivisvanathan V
        • Puech P
        • Drumez E
        • Villers A
        • Olivier J
        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
        • Weinreb JC
        • Barentsz JO
        • Choyke PL
        • et al.
        PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 16-40
        • Epstein JI
        • Egevad L
        • Amin MB
        • Delahunt B
        • Srigley JR
        • Humphrey PA
        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
        • Bokhorst LP
        • Alberts AR
        • Rannikko A
        • et al.
        Compliance rates with the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol and disease reclassification in noncompliers.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 68: 814-821
        • Loeb S
        • Walter D
        • Curnyn C
        • Gold HT
        • Lepor H
        • Makarov DV
        How active is active surveillance? intensity of followup during active surveillance for prostate cancer in the United States.
        J Urol. 2016; 196: 721-726
        • Kuru TH
        • Roethke MC
        • Rieker P
        • et al.
        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
        • Liddell H
        • Jyoti R
        • Haxhimolla HZ
        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
        • Martorana E
        • Pirola GM
        • Scialpi M
        • et al.
        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
        • Min JH
        • Park BK
        • Park JJ
        • Park SY
        • Kim CK
        Preoperative assessment of prostate cancer using prebiopsy MRI.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 203: 341-346
        • Park SY
        • Jung DC
        • Oh YT
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer: PI-RADS version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers.
        Radiology. 2016; 280: 108-116
        • Rosenkrantz AB
        • Verma S
        • Choyke P
        • et al.
        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
        • Bul M
        • Zhu X
        • Valdagni R
        • et al.
        Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study.
        Eur Urol. 2013; 63: 597-603
        • Cary KC
        • Cowan JE
        • Sanford M
        • et al.
        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
        • Alberts AR
        • Roobol MJ
        • Drost F-JH
        • et al.
        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
        • Nassiri N
        • Margolis DJ
        • Natarajan S
        • et al.
        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
        • Falagario UG
        • Martini A
        • Wajswol E
        • et al.
        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;
        • Kotb AF
        • Spaner S
        • Crump T
        • Hyndman ME.
        The role of mpMRI and PSA density in patients with an initial negative prostatic biopsy.
        World J Urol. 2018; 36: 2021-2025
        • Oishi M
        • Shin T
        • Ohe C
        • et al.
        Which patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging can safely avoid biopsy for prostate cancer?.
        J Urol. 2019; 201: 268-276