Clinical value of serum isoform -2 proprostate-specific antigen and its derivatives in predicting aggressive prostate cancer.
- Author:
Kui Xia SUN
1
;
Cun Ling YAN
1
;
Zhi Yan LI
1
;
Ping LIU
1
;
Wei ZHANG
1
;
Qun HE
1
Author Information
1. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Humans;
Male;
Neoplasm Grading;
Prostate-Specific Antigen;
Prostatectomy;
Prostatic Neoplasms;
Protein Isoforms;
ROC Curve
- From:
Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences)
2020;52(2):234-239
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To explore the clinical value of serum isoform [-2] proprostate-specific antigen (p2PSA) and its derivatives %p2PSA and prostate health index (PHI) in predicting aggressive prostate cancer (PCa).
METHODS:The pre-operation serum and basic clinical data of 322 patients with PCa (including 143 patients diagnosed with PCa by transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and 179 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy) in Peking University First Hospital were collected from August 2015 to May 2018. Serum total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA), free prostate antigen (fPSA) and fPSA/tPSA (f/t) and the p2PSA level of all these patients were measured on automatic immune analyzers DxI800, and then %p2PSA and PHI were calculated. The prostate pathologic result was considered as the gold standard to evaluate the Gleason score of the patients with PCa. Receiver operator curves (ROC) were used to assess the ability of p2PSA, %p2PSA and PHI to predict aggressive PCa (pathologic Gleason score≥7) compared with those traditional markers tPSA, fPSA and f/t.
RESULTS:Among these patients, the p2PSA, %p2PSA and PHI median levels were significantly higher in patients with pathologic Gleason score≥7 than those with Gleason score<7 (p2PSA: 30.22 ng/L vs. 18.33 ng/L; %p2PSA: 2.50 vs. 1.27; PHI: 91.81 vs. 35.44; all P<0.01). The area under curve (AUC) of %p2PSA and PHI (0.770, 0.760) in predicting Gleason score≥7 were higher than those of the traditional indicators tPSA, fPSA and f/t (AUC were 0.648, 0.536 and 0.693, respectively). Among those patients diagnosed with PCa by transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, the AUC of %p2PSA and PHI (AUC were 0.808 and 0.801, respectively) in predicting Gleason score≥7 were higher than those of the traditional indicators tPSA, fPSA and f/t (AUC were 0.729, 0.655 and 0.665 respectively). Among those patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, PHI and %p2PSA also had the trend of higher predictive value than those of the traditional indicators. The AUC of %p2PSA and PHI were 0.798 and 0.744, respectively while the AUC of tPSA, fPSA and f/t were 0.625, 0.507 and 0.697, respectively.
CONCLUSION:Compared with traditional markers tPSA, fPSA and f/t, %p2PSA and PHI had much higher predictive value for aggressive PCa, which may help clinicians to evaluate the therapeutic regime and make more appropriate management plan for the patients.
