+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found



      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          The Prostate Health Index (phi) outperforms PSA and other PSA derivatives for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). The impact of phi testing in the real-world clinical setting has not been previously assessed.


          In a single, large, academic center, phi was tested in 345 patients presenting for diagnostic evaluation for PCa. Findings on prostate biopsy (including Grade Group [GG], defined as GG1: Gleason score [GS] 6, GG2: GS 3+4=7, GG3: GS 4+3=7, GG4: GS 8, and GG5: GS 9-10), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and radical prostatectomy (RP) were prospectively recorded. Biopsy rates and outcomes were compared to a contemporary cohort that did not undergo phi testing (n=1318).


          Overall, 39% of men with phi testing underwent prostate biopsy. No men with phi<19.6 were diagnosed with PCa, and only 3 men with phi<27 had cancer of GG≥2. Phi was superior to PSA for the prediction of any PCa (AUC 0.72 vs. 0.47) and GG≥2 PCa (AUC 0.77 vs. 0.53) on prostate biopsy. Among men undergoing MRI and phi, no men with phi<27 and PI-RADS≤3 had GG≥2 cancer. For those men proceeding to RP, increasing phi was associated with higher pathologic GG (p=0.002) and stage (p=0.001). Compared to patients who did not undergo phi testing, the use of phi was associated with a 9% reduction in the rate of prostate biopsy (39% vs. 48%; p<0.001). Importantly, the reduction in biopsy among the phi population was secondary to decreased incidence of negative (8%) and GG1 (1%) biopsies, while the proportion of biopsies detecting GG≥2 cancers remained unchanged.


          In this large, real-time clinical experience, phi outperformed PSA alone, was associated with high-grade PCa, and provided complementary information to MRI. Incorporation of phi into clinical practice reduced the rate of unnecessary biopsies without changing the frequency of detection of higher grade cancers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A multicenter study of [-2]pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range.

          Prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen have limited specificity to detect clinically significant, curable prostate cancer, leading to unnecessary biopsy, and detection and treatment of some indolent tumors. Specificity to detect clinically significant prostate cancer may be improved by [-2]pro-prostate specific antigen. We evaluated [-2]pro-prostate specific antigen, free prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen using the formula, ([-2]pro-prostate specific antigen/free prostate specific antigen × prostate specific antigen(1/2)) to enhance specificity to detect overall and high grade prostate cancer. We enrolled 892 men with no history of prostate cancer, normal rectal examination, prostate specific antigen 2 to 10 ng/ml and 6-core or greater prostate biopsy in a prospective multi-institutional trial. We examined the relationship of serum prostate specific antigen, free-to-total prostate specific antigen and the prostate health index with biopsy results. Primary end points were specificity and AUC using the prostate health index to detect overall and Gleason 7 or greater prostate cancer on biopsy compared with those of free-to-total prostate specific antigen. In the 2 to 10 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range at 80% to 95% sensitivity the specificity and AUC (0.703) of the prostate health index exceeded those of prostate specific antigen and free-to-total prostate specific antigen. An increasing prostate health index was associated with a 4.7-fold increased risk of prostate cancer and a 1.61-fold increased risk of Gleason score greater than or equal to 4 + 3 = 7 disease on biopsy. The AUC of the index exceeded that of free-to-total prostate specific antigen (0.724 vs 0.670) to discriminate prostate cancer with Gleason 4 or greater + 3 from lower grade disease or negative biopsy. Prostate health index results were not associated with age and prostate volume. The prostate health index may be useful in prostate cancer screening to decrease unnecessary biopsy in men 50 years old or older with prostate specific antigen 2 to 10 ng/ml and negative digital rectal examination with minimal loss in sensitivity. Copyright © 2011 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer.

            The Prostate Health Index (phi) is a new test combining total, free and [-2]proPSA into a single score. It was recently approved by the FDA and is now commercially available in the U.S., Europe and Australia. We investigate whether phi improves specificity for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and can help reduce prostate cancer over diagnosis.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA in combination with total PSA and free PSA improves diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer detection.

              Novel markers for prostate cancer (PCa) detection are needed. Total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) and percent free prostate-specific antigen (%fPSA=tPSA/fPSA) lack diagnostic specificity. To evaluate the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoforms p2PSA and benign prostatic hyperplasia-associated PSA (BPHA). Our study included 405 serum samples from the Rotterdam arm of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer and 351 samples from the Urology Department of Innsbruck Medical University. BPHA, tPSA, fPSA, and p2PSA levels were measured by Beckman-Coulter Access Immunoassay. In addition, the Beckman Coulter Prostate Health Index was calculated: phi=(p2PSA/fPSA)×√(tPSA). The p2PSA and phi levels differed significantly between men with and without PCa. No difference in BPHA levels was observed. The highest PCa predictive value in both cohorts was achieved by phi with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.750 and 0.709, a significant increase compared to tPSA (AUC: 0.585 and 0.534) and %fPSA (AUC: 0.675 and 0.576). Also, %p2PSA (p2PSA/fPSA) showed significantly higher AUCs compared to tPSA and %fPSA (AUC: 0.716 and 0.695, respectively). At 95% and 90% sensitivity, the specificities of phi were 23% and 31% compared to 10% and 8% for tPSA, respectively. In both cohorts, multivariate analysis showed a significant increase in PCa predictive value after addition of p2PSA to a model consisting of tPSA and fPSA (increase in AUC from 0.675 to 0.755 and from 0.581 to 0.697, respectively). Additionally, the specificity at 95% sensitivity increased from 8% to 24% and 7% to 23%, respectively. Furthermore, %p2PSA, phi, and the model consisting of tPSA and fPSA with or without the addition of p2PSA missed the least of the tumours with a biopsy or pathologic Gleason score ≥7 at 95% and 90% sensitivity. This study shows significant increases in PCa predictive value and specificity of phi and %p2PSA compared to tPSA and %fPSA. p2PSA has limited additional value in identifying aggressive PCa (Gleason score ≥7). Copyright © 2010 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

                Author and article information

                Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
                Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis.
                Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases
                25 December 2016
                24 January 2017
                June 2017
                24 July 2017
                : 20
                : 2
                : 228-233
                [1 ]The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
                [2 ]Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
                [3 ]Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
                [4 ]Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
                [5 ]The Department of Urology at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
                [6 ]Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA
                Author notes
                CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Jeffrey J. Tosoian, MD, MPH, James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street / Marburg 134, Baltimore, Maryland 21287, jt@ 123456jhmi.edu , Phone: 410-955-2139, Fax: 410-614-8096

                Users may view, print, copy, and download text and data-mine the content in such documents, for the purposes of academic research, subject always to the full Conditions of use: http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html#terms


                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy


                Comment on this article