Journal Article Page
Jump to
European Urology
Volume 58, issue 4, pages e39-e50, October 2010Prostate Cancer
Performance of the Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 (PCA3) Gene and Prostate-Specific Antigen in Prescreened Men: Exploring the Value of PCA3 for a First-line Diagnostic Test
00602-0/assets/eulogo1.jpg)
Accepted 29 June 2010, Published online 22 July 2010, pages 475 - 481
Abstract Full Text Full-Text PDF (267 KB) Create Platinum Slide Series
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Materials and methods
- Results
- Discussion
- Conclusions
- Contributions
- References
- Authors
- Data
3. Results
Our data are derived from a prescreened population of 965 men aged 64–77 and screened for the third time (n = 451), the fourth time (n = 502), or the fifth time (n = 12). One-third of the men had a history of previous negative biopsies. Of the 965 men, 721 (74.7%) were biopsied utilising either a PSA cut-off value of ≥3.0 ng/ml, following the ERSPC protocol, or a PCA3 score ≥10 with the intention of evaluating the performance characteristics of both markers in a setting where most men would present with a biopsy indication. A total of 122 PCa cases (16.9%) were detected.
Table 1 summarises the baseline characteristics for the total cohort and for men who were actually biopsied. The differences between the two cohorts are very small and have not been tested for statistical significance.
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the total study cohort (N = 965) and of men actually biopsied (n = 721)
| Total cohort (N = 965) | Men actually biopsied (n = 721) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean/median | Range | Mean/median | Range | |
| Age, yr | 70.0/70.2 | 63.6–77.5 | 70.07/70.23 | 63.7–74.0 |
| PSA, ng/ml | 2.5/1.6 | 0.1–23.0 | 2.74/1.8 | 0.2–23.0 |
| PCA3 score | 45.7/28.0 | 0–984 | 51.9/33.0 | 0–984 |
| Prostate volume, cm3 | 44.3/39.7 | 12.7–179.0 | 44.6/39.7 | 12.7–179.0 |
| Yes, No. (%) | No, No. (%) | Yes, No. (%) | No, No. (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSA ≥3.0 ng/ml | 260 (26.9) | 705 (73.1) | 229 (31.8) | 492 (68.2) |
| PCA3 ≥10 | 807 (83.6) | 158 (16.4) | 689 (95.6) | 32 (4.4) |
| DRE abnormal | 126 (13.1) | 839 (86.9) | 118 (16.4) | 603 (83.6) |
| TRUS abnormal | 23 (2.4) | 942 (97.6) | 21 (2.9) | 700 (97.1) |
| Previous negative biopsy | 245 (25.4) | 720 (74.6) | 212 (29.4) | 509 (70.6) |
| PCa detected | 122 (12.6) | 843 (87.4) | 122 (16.9) | 599 (83.1) |
DRE = digital rectal examination; PCa = prostate cancer; PCA3 = prostate cancer antigen 3 gene; PSA = prostate-specific antigen; TRUS = transrectal ultrasound.
References in context
-
Table 1 summarises the baseline characteristics for the total cohort and for men who were actually biopsied.
Go to context
In Table 2, the distribution of biopsy indications by PCA3 (cut-off score: ≥10) and PSA (cut-off ≥3.0 ng/ml) are shown for the total cohort and for those men who were actually biopsied. With this algorithm, 87.5% (n = 844) of all men had a biopsy indication and 74.7% (n = 721) actually underwent a prostate biopsy.
Table 2 Distribution of biopsy indications by PCA3 (cut-off: ≥10) and prostate-specific antigen (cut-off: ≥3.0 ng/ml): (a) total study cohort (N = 965); (b) men actually biopsied (n = 721)
| PSA ≥3.0 ng/ml | PSA <3.0 ng/ml | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: | |||
| PCA3 ≥10 | 223 | 584 | 807 |
| PCA3 <10 | 37 | 121 | 158 |
| Total | 260 | 705 | 965 |
| B: | |||
| PCA3 ≥10 | 197 | 492 | 689 |
| PCA3 <10 | 32 | 0 | 32 |
| Total | 229 | 492 | 721 |
PCA3 = prostate cancer antigen 3 gene; PSA = prostate-specific antigen.
References in context
-
In Table 2, the distribution of biopsy indications by PCA3 (cut-off score: ≥10) and PSA (cut-off ≥3.0ng/ml) are shown for the total cohort and for those men who were actually biopsied.
Go to context
Only 32 of the 721 men actually biopsied had a biopsy indication based on PSA alone, and 492 were based on PCA3 alone. Compliance with biopsy recommendations was very similar in all subgroups and varied between 84.3% and 88.3%. Correlation between the two markers was poor (ρ = 0.14; p < 0.0001).
Data on sensitivity and specificity of PSA (Table 3) are very much in line with published information 8 x I.M. Thompson, D.P. Ankerst, C. Chi, et al. Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/ml or lower. JAMA. 2005;294:66-70 Crossref. , and 11 x R. Kranse, P.M.M. Beemsterboer, J.B.W. Rietbergen, D. Habbema, J. Hugosson, F.H. Schröder. Predictors for biopsy outcome in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (Rotterdam region). Prostate. 1999;39:316-322 Crossref. . A PSA cut-off value of 3.0 ng/ml, as utilised in the ERSPC study, identifies 35.2% of all PCa cases and correctly identifies 69% of those men who do not have PCa. Compared with the recommended cut-off value of 35 for the PCA3 score, the sensitivity of PSA turns out to be higher; the specificity is comparable to the PSA cut-off value of 2.0 ng/ml. No cut-off value can be identified that matches a high sensitivity and specificity, with the possible exception of the PCA3 score of 35. To maximise detection to >80% of the detectable PCa, one would have to choose a PSA cut-off of >1.0 ng/ml and a PCA3 score >20. The areas under the curve (AUCs) are indicated in Fig. 1. Based on the ROC analyses, PCA3 performs marginally better than PSA (Fig. 1A; p = 0.143).
Table 3 Performance characteristics of prostate-specific antigen and PCA3 in 721 men biopsied with 122 prostate cancer cases detected
| PSA cut-off, ng/ml | Sensitivity, % | Specificity, % |
|---|---|---|
| ≥1.0 | 86.1 | 26.9 |
| ≥2.0 | 57.4 | 53.8 |
| ≥3.0 | 35.2 | 69.0 |
| ≥4.0 | 23.8 | 80.5 |
| ≥10.0 | 3.3 | 97.2 |
| PCA3 cut-off | ||
| ≥10 | 69.7 | 4.7 |
| ≥20 | 84.4 | 28.2 |
| ≥35 | 68.0 | 55.7 |
| ≥60 | 38.5 | 75.8 |
| ≥100 | 22.9 | 89.7 |
References in context
-
Data on sensitivity and specificity of PSA (Table 3) are very much in line with published information [8,11].
Go to context -
Still, a direct head-to-head comparison of PSA and PCA3 has not been available until now and is necessary to understand the relationship between the two markers and to better understand the performance of PCA3 in a setting where almost all men of a large cohort were biopsied. Table 3 shows that a commonality of both markers is that there is no cut-off value at which sensitivity and specificity achieve a reasonable balance.
Go to context
Fig. 1 Receiver operating charactertistic (ROC) curves of (A) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and the prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) gene in all men biopsied (n = 721), (B) PCA3 in men with PSA <3.0 ng/ml (n = 492), and (C) PCA3 in men with previous negative biopsy (n = 212).AUC = area under the curve; CI = confidence interval; PCa = prostate cancer; PCA3 = prostate cancer antigen 3 gene; PSA = prostate-specific antigen.*p = 0.143 for PSA versus PCA3.
References in context
-
Based on the ROC analyses, PCA3 performs marginally better than PSA (Fig. 1A; p=0.143).
Go to context -
Based on the ROC analyses, PCA3 performs marginally better than PSA (Fig. 1A; p=0.143).
Go to context
In Table 4, PCa detection with different PCA3 cut-off scores was compared with several PSA cut-off values. The low prevalence of serious disease (n = 19; 15.6%), of which almost half was present at low PSA values, reflects the prescreened study population. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the PCA3 test rises slightly with an increasing cut-off, contrary to PSA cut-offs, as can be expected in any PSA-based prescreened population. It is remarkable, however, that 62 of the 90 men (68.9%) with a PCA3 score ≥100 did not have a positive biopsy. A PCA3 score ≥20 identifies 18 of 19 serious PCa cases and avoids 26.1% of biopsies. A PCA3 score ≥35 misses five serious PCa cases, but 48.3% of all biopsies could have been avoided. It obviously remains unknown whether the missed serious cases still would have been curable and whether those cases might have escaped notice with all screening efforts anyway.
Table 4 Prostate cancer detection with different prostate-specific antigen and PCA3 cut-off values as biopsy indication*
| Biopsied men, No. (%) | PCa cases, No. (%) | PPV | Missed PCa, No. (%) (n = 122) | Missed serious PCa, No. (%) (n = 19) | Biopsies saved, No. (%) (n = 721) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cut-off | 721 | 122 | 16.9 | – | – | – |
| PSA, ng/ml | ||||||
| ≥2.0 | 347 (48.1) | 70 (57.4) | 20.2 | 52 (42.6) | 9 (47.4) | 374 (51.9) |
| ≥3.0 | 229 (31.8) | 43 (35.3) | 18.8 | 79 (64.7) | 11 (57.9) | 492 (68.2) |
| ≥4.0 | 146 (20.3) | 29 (23.8) | 19.9 | 93 (76.2) | 13 (68.4) | 575 (79.8) |
| ≥10.0 | 21 (2.9) | 4 (3.3) | 19.1 | 118 (96.7) | 18 (94.7) | 700 (97.1) |
| PCA3 score | ||||||
| ≥10 | 689 (95.6) | 118 (96.7) | 17.1 | 4 (3.3) | 0 (0.0) | 32 (4.4) |
| ≥20 | 533 (73.9) | 103 (84.4) | 19.3 | 19 (15.6) | 1 (5.3) | 188 (26.1) |
| ≥35 | 348 (48.3) | 83 (68.0) | 23.9 | 39 (32.0) | 5 (26.3) | 373 (51.7) |
| ≥100 | 90 (12.5) | 28 (23.0) | 31.1 | 94 (77.0) | 12 (63.2) | 631 (87.5) |
PCa = prostate cancer; PCA3 = prostate cancer antigen 3 gene; PPV = positive predictive value; PSA = prostate-specific antigen.
* 721 men biopsied with 122 PCa cases detected, of which 19 cases were classified as serious (T2a or higher and/or Gleason score >3 + 3).
References in context
-
In Table 4, PCa detection with different PCA3 cut-off scores was compared with several PSA cut-off values.
Go to context -
As Table 4 shows, of 90 men with a PCA3 score ≥100, only 28 (31%) had PCa.
Go to context
The data evaluating the performance of PCA3 in men with low PSA values and in men with a previous negative biopsy are presented in Table 5. If the small numbers could be considered trustworthy, 4 of the 11 serious PCa cases would be missed with a PCA3 score ≥35 and 10 would be missed with a PCA3 score ≥100. These results, together with the only marginal increase in the PPV with increasing PCA3 scores, do not support our working hypothesis that PCA3 might be useful in identifying aggressive cancers in the low PSA ranges, where only 13% of men were previously biopsied. However, it is encouraging to see rising PPVs with different PCA3 cut-off values and to see that most serious PCa cases are detected with a cut-off of 35.
Table 5 Prostate cancer detection with different PCA3 cut-off values as biopsy indication in men previously biopsied (n = 212*) and in men presenting with PSA <3.0 ng/ml (n = 492**)
| Men previously biopsied | Biopsied, No. (%) | PCa cases, No. (%) | PPV | Missed PCa, No. (%) (n = 21) | Missed serious PCa, No. (%) (n = 3) | Biopsies saved, No. (%) (n = 212) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total cohort | 212 | 21 | 9.9 | – | – | – |
| PCA3 score | ||||||
| ≥10 | 190 (89.6) | 19 (90.5) | 10.0 | 2 (9.5) | 0 (0.0) | 22 (10.4) |
| ≥20 | 157 (74.1) | 18 (85.7) | 11.5 | 3 (14.3) | 0 (0.0) | 55 (25.9) |
| ≥35 | 102 (48.1) | 18 (85.7) | 17.7 | 3 (14.3) | 0 (0.0) | 110 (51.9) |
| ≥100 | 26 (12.3) | 6 (28.6) | 23.1 | 15 (71.4) | 1 (33.3) | 186 (87.7) |
| Men with PSA <3.0 ng/ml | Biopsied, No. (%) | PCa, No. (%) | PPV | Missed PCa, No. (%) (n = 79) | Missed serious PCa, No. (%) (n = 11) | Biopsies saved, No. (%) (n = 492) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total cohort† | 492 | 79 | 16.1 | – | – | – |
| PCA3 score | ||||||
| ≥20 | 380 (77.2) | 69 (87.3) | 18.2 | 10 (12.7) | 0 (0.0) | 112 (22.8) |
| ≥35 | 245 (49.8) | 53 (67.1) | 21.6 | 26 (32.9) | 4 (36.4) | 247 (50.2) |
| ≥100 | 56 (11.4) | 15 (19.0) | 26.8 | 64 (81.0) | 10 (90.9) | 436 (88.6) |
PCa = prostate cancer; PCA3 = prostate cancer antigen 3 gene; PPV = positive predictive value; PSA = prostate-specific antigen.
* 21 PCa cases, 3 of which were serious.
** 79 PCa cases, 11 of which were serious.
† Total cohort numbers are equal to PCA3 cut-off ≥10 due to study design.
References in context
-
The data evaluating the performance of PCA3 in men with low PSA values and in men with a previous negative biopsy are presented in Table 5.
Go to context -
Table 5 addresses the value of PCA3 in the PSA range ≤3.0ng/ml, showing that 66.2% of these men have a PCA3 score ≥35, necessitating biopsy in about half of the population.
Go to context
Looking at 212 men who had undergone previous biopsy driven by a PSA ≥3.0 ng/ml, findings do not seem to be more encouraging. The numbers, however, are small and need to be confirmed.
Article information
PII: S0302-2838(10)00602-0
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.039
© 2010 European Association of Urology, Published by Elsevier B.V.
Recommend this article
Currently this article has a rating of 1. Please log in to recommend it.
Copyright ©