Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Review ArticleClinical StudiesR

New Markers and Multivariate Models for Prostate Cancer Detection

CARSTEN STEPHAN, HARRY RITTENHOUSE, HENNING CAMMANN, MICHAEL LEIN, MARK SCHRADER, SERDAR DEGER, KURT MILLER and KLAUS JUNG
Anticancer Research July 2009, 29 (7) 2589-2600;
CARSTEN STEPHAN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: carsten.stephan{at}charite.de
HARRY RITTENHOUSE
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HENNING CAMMANN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MICHAEL LEIN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARK SCHRADER
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SERDAR DEGER
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KURT MILLER
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KLAUS JUNG
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Specificity of PSA has been enhanced by using molecular forms of PSA and free PSA (fPSA) such as percent free PSA (% fPSA), proPSA, intact PSA or BPHA and/or new serum markers. Most of these promising new serum markers like EPCA2 or ANXA3 still lack confirmation of outstanding initial results or show only marginal enhanced specificity at high sensitivity levels. PCA3, TMPRSS2-ERG, and other analytes in urine collected after digital rectal examination with application of mild digital pressure have potential to preferentially detect aggressive PCa and to decrease the rate of unnecessary repeat biopsies. The combination of these new urinary markers with new and established serum markers seems to be most promising to further increase specificity of tPSA. Multivariate models e.g. artificial neural networks (ANN) or logistic regression (LR)-based nomograms have been recently developed by incorporating these new markers in several studies. There is generally an advantage to including new markers and clinical data as additional parameters to PSA and % fPSA within ANN and LR models. The results and unexpected pitfalls of these studies are shown.

  • PSA
  • PCA3
  • prostate cancer
  • ANN
  • review

Abbreviations: ANN, Artificial neural network; ANXA3, annexin A3; AUC, area under receiver operating characteristic curve; BPH, benign prostatic hyperplasia; BPHA, BPH associated (fPSA); cav-1, caveolin-1; cPSA, complexed PSA; DRE, digital rectal examination; EPCA, early PCa antigen; fPSA, free PSA; inPSA, intact PSA; IGF-1, insulin-like growth factor 1; KLK, human kallikrein; LOO, leave-one-out; LR, logistic regression; MIC-1, macrophage inhibitory cytokine 1; MIF, macrophage migration inhibitory factor; NEM, no evidence of malignancy; PCa, prostate cancer; PCA3, prostate cancer antigen 3; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; PSP94, prostatic secretory protein 94; % fPSA, percentage free PSA; tPSA, total PSA; proPSA, precursor form of PSA; p2PSA, (-2)proPSA; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.

With 186,320 new cases of prostate cancer (PCa) expected in the US in 2008, accounting for 25% of all cancers in men, this cancer has remained for more than 10 years as the malignancy with the highest incidence in the Western world (1). Without any doubt, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) plays the major role in the management of PCa. PSA values are directly related to a higher PCa probability (2-4) and no other marker currently replaces PSA as a first-line marker for PCa diagnosis. However, other non-malignant conditions of the prostate such as benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) can also increase serum PSA and are often responsible for elevated PSA values in the absence of biopsy-detected PCa (5). On the other hand, several studies have shown that a single elevated PSA value (6, 7) or the PSA velocity as PSA increase over time (8, 9) can detect PCa with clinical sensitivities in the presence of other benign diseases of the prostate. The specificity of PSA remains problematic. With a positive PCa detection rate of 20-40% in initial biopsies, the dilemma of low specificity and a low positive predictive value of only 25% in a pooled meta-analysis at the cutoff >4.0 μg/L was clearly shown (10). This results in many unnecessary biopsies. Although there is a need to improve PCa detection it is even more important to detect aggressive and life threatening cancers and to stratify less-aggressive PCa which may best managed with less-aggressive therapy or active surveillance. The wide-spread use of PSA to detect early PCa has led to a serious over-treatment problem (11). On the other hand, the continuous mortality from PCa demonstrates delayed detection in many patients. Results of two large randomized trials in Europe and the USA are awaited in 2009/10 to show if PSA screening can reduce PCa-related mortality. The additional performance of a digital rectal examination (DRE) is routine in urological practice because some PCa can be detected only with a suspicious DRE but comparing DRE and PSA shows a clear advantage for PSA (12).

PSA remains the gold standard for staging or for detection of biochemical recurrence in PCa patients. To date, no other test shows the power to predict advanced or metastatic PCa. An excellent review summarizing PSA screening studies and the role of PSA for recurrence was published recently by Lilja et al. (13).

PSA-based analysis such as PSA velocity, PSA density or PSA doubling time have been extensively summarized (14, 15). However, a multivariate model incorporating PSA velocity and % fPSA was not successful at improving PCa detection (16).

Data from valid tissue markers such as hepsin, prostate stem cell antigen, prostate-specific membrane antigen, AMACR and others such as proteomic pattern for PCa have been recently summarized elsewhere (17). AMACR is currently used in biopsy tissue as a molecular pathology parameter with p63 and cytokeratin as part of the triple-antibody cocktail for PCa detection (18).

Silencing of the glutathione-S-transferase pi (GSTP1) gene by methylation is a frequent somatic genome alteration reported in PCa and high grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia tissue (19). Data on GSTP1 hypermethylation in urine sediment and serum have been inconsistent and has been reviewed by others (20, 21). The use of PCa tissue markers in multiplex urine analysis have been introduced recently (22, 23) and the most interesting parameters will be discussed later. Possible mechanisms of molecular alterations in PCa such as upstream epigenetic changes and genetic polymorphisms to downstream modulations through alternative splicing and other post-translational processes have been recently reviewed (24).

One of the most transforming discoveries in many years has been the identification of gene fusion (translocation) of the nuclear transcription factor genes ERG and ETV1 with the 5′DHT regulated promoter TMPRSS2 (25). The frequency of this PCa specific gene fusion represents approximately 50% of PSA-screened PCa (26). TMPRSS2 is an androgen-regulated gene and is more commonly associated with Gleason scores >7 (41% versus 12%) and more PCa deaths and/or metastatic disease development (53% versus 23%) (27). A urinary test for the detection of TMPRSS2:ERG fusion products has been developed using RNA amplification and quantitative PCR (28). Apart from being promising biomarkers, these fusion genes may be important for prognosis and treatment selection. The gene-fusion products are now candidates as targets for therapy. Important new data on this topic have also been reviewed (29).

New serum and urine markers and their application in multivariate models will be described below.

Serum Markers

Free PSA and PSA complexes. In the early 1990s, two independent groups discovered that PSA exists in different molecular forms, such as free (unbound) PSA and PSA bound to alpha1-antichymotrypsin (PSA-ACT) (30, 31). In general, 65-95% of the PSA is PSA-ACT, whereas free PSA represents, on average, only 5-35% of the total PSA (tPSA). The relative amount of fPSA tends to be increased in benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) compared with PCa. Possible explanations for these differences, including the clinical impact on the ratio of free PSA (fPSA) to PSA (% fPSA), have been reviewed (13, 32-34). The % fPSA can avoid approximately 20-25% of unnecessary biopsies in the PSA range of 4-10 μg/L (35, 36). To date, % fPSA is the only accepted routine reflex assay with PSA.

At least two other PSA complexes are also known to exist, PSA-alpha2-macroglobulin (PSA-A2M) and PSA-alpha1-protease inhibitor (PSA-API) (37, 38). Their clinical relevance is limited due to the complicated technology required to measure the PSA-A2M complex or due to the relatively small amount of PSA-API related to total PSA (tPSA). PSA assays do not detect the complex with A2M. The sum of PSA-ACT and PSA-API is termed as complex PSA (cPSA) and can be assayed by using a blocking antibody against fPSA (39) but this method does not detect the PSA-A2M complex. It had been initially proposed that cPSA can be used as a single marker instead of % fPSA (40) but only the ratio cPSA/tPSA can reach equivalent results compared with % fPSA (41, 42). Possibly cPSA can be used as the initial marker with a small advantage compared with tPSA.

ProPSA. PSA is initially synthesized as a pre-proprotein with 261 amino acids. The removal of an amino-terminal leader generates a 244 amino acid non-catalytic proform of PSA named proPSA. The removal of the 7-residue propeptide generates the catalytically active fPSA form, a 237-residue single-chain enzyme. ProPSA is a distinct molecular form of fPSA. fPSA exists in blood as a mixture of enzymatically inactive forms including several truncated proPSA forms with the propeptide N-terminally truncated at various positions (43, 44). These different proPSA forms contain 1-5 amino acids in the proleader peptide instead of the native 7 amino acids and were described as (-2)proPSA and (-4)proPSA. In marked contrast to the rapid activation of the native (-7)proPSA, the truncated (-2)proPSA is not activated and accumulates in prostate tissue.

The (-7) and (-5)proPSA forms are detected by a research assay (Roche Diagnostics, Penzberg, Germany) with limited success to distinguish PCa from BPH and to separate aggressive and non-aggressive PCa (45, 46). However, in a study of 376 men with PCa undergoing prostatectomy, the ratio (-5, -7)proPSA/% PSA was associated with higher Gleason grade (p=0.001) and non-organ-confined PCa (p<0.0001) (47).

Based on early promising results with a combination of (-2) proPSA and (-4)proPSA in an assay (Beckman Coulter, San Diego, CA, USA) regarding the discrimination of PCa and patients with no evidence of malignancy (NEM) (48) and detection of aggressive PCa (49), there is now an automated research assay available measuring only the (-2)proPSA (p2PSA). New data show that p2PSA/fPSA (named % p2PSA) had the greatest area under the ROC curve (AUC) with 0.69 followed by % fPSA (AUC: 0.61) (50). In addition, in the 2-10 μg/L tPSA range the % p2PSA had the largest AUC of 0.73 (50). Both proPSA assays, the (-5, -7)proPSA and (-2) proPSA have been included in multivariate models and data will be shown below. Helpful reviews on proPSA have been published (51, 52).

BPSA (BPHA). BPSA (named BPH associated: BPHA) is another form of fPSA that is identical to native PSA containing 237 amino acids like PSA, but with 2 internal peptide bond cleavages at Lys182 and Lys145, which inactivates PSA and prevents it from forming complexes with protease inhibitors (53, 54). BPSA is correlated with benign disease and specifically with clinically benign prostatic hyperplasia (55, 56).

A review focused on BPSA has been published (57). In line with the recently available automated p2PSA assay, BPSA can also be measured on the same analyzer (Access analyzer, Beckman Coulter). Recent data in 541 histologically proven PCa and NEM patients showed an improved discrimination between BPH and PCa for BPHA/tPSA (AUC 0.69) when compared with tPSA alone (AUC 0.59) but % fPSA had the largest AUC at 0.775 (58).

A combination of both assays, the p2PSA and BPHA on the same analyzer, may be more advantageous than a combination of (-2)proPSA, (-4)proPSA and BPSA (59).

Intact fPSA. An additional form of fPSA is intact, non-native PSA (inPSA), which has been identified in tissue and serum (60). inPSA is not internally clipped but is inactive PSA that does not form complexes with serum proteins. In a simplified fPSA model, inPSA can be calculated by subtracting BPSA and the sum of all proPSA forms from fPSA (51). The fPSA in serum contains, on average, roughly equal proportions of the 3 molecular forms. However, the relative amounts of proPSA and BPSA vary significantly in individual patients. The proportion of inPSA in serum is elevated in patients with NEM and tends to be the inverse of the proPSA concentration. A possible explanation for the correlation of free PSA with benign tissue is the combined amounts of BPSA and inPSA (32).

Another specific monoclonal antibody to a free PSA form, fPSA-I, detects only the non-clipped forms of free PSA (61). Thus, the fPSA-I assay would be expected to detect both proPSA and inPSA but not BPSA. Studies with fPSA-I have yielded encouraging results for PCa detection (62, 63). However, as yet no commercial assay for fPSA-I is available and it is questionable if the sum of proPSA and inPSA, which theoretically equals the difference of fPSA and BPSA, can be a better tumor marker than the more PCa-specific proPSA alone.

It should be noted that all of these PSA forms are worthy of further research to determine whether they can improve the accuracy of PCa detection. Initial results are mostly promising and a combination into a panel of markers or multivariate models with some of these markers may further improve PCa detection. Since the mechanism of release into blood is the same for all PSA isoforms i.e. disruption of the prostate architectural integrity, molecular markers with a distinctly different mechanism, and the direct detection of PCa cells in urine are predicted to be more synergistic. Nomograms with combinations of PSA and PCA3 have already demonstrated synergy.

With the exception of proPSA, all other molecular forms of fPSA failed to demonstrate consistently improved specificity over PSA and % fPSA for PCa detection. A better detection of BPH may not be a goal since patients often have both PCa and BPH concurrently.

The kallikrein family. Within the last decade, the human kallikrein family has been identified, which contains at least 15 genes (64). From the initially known 3 kallikreins KLK1 to KLK3, the human glandular kallikrein 2 (KLK2) and especially KLK3 (PSA), have been used as PCa serum markers. A new nomenclature for all kallikrein genes simplified their classification as KLK1 to KLK15 encoding for the proteins KLK1 to KLK15 (65). Beside PSA, KLK2 has been shown to add information for detecting PCa (66, 67) but this marker is not used routinely for PCa detection nor exists as a commercially available assay. Research assays of KLK4 or KLK15 show only marginal success in PCa diagnosis. Only KLK11 improves specificity of tPSA or % fPSA in combination with both parameters (68). Due to close relationships and similarities of all kallikreins and differential expression of several kallikreins in PCa tissue, applications for prognosis may be possible (17).

MIC-1. An immunoassay in 1,000 men for macrophage inhibitory cytokine 1 (MIC-1) showed it to be an independent predictor of the presence of PCa and tumors with a Gleason score >6 (69). A diagnostic algorithm (MIC-PSA score) based on serum levels of MIC-1, tPSA and % fPSA potentially reduced the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies by 27% (69). Data from another study showed also significant lower MIC-1 serum concentrations for PCa compared with BPH but the AUC for MIC-1 reached only 0.6 and was lower than the AUC for PSA (0.64) and % fPSA (0.69), respectively (70).

MIF. Another marker, the cytokine macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), was elevated in serum of PCa patients compared with BPH patients (71). MIF strongly correlated to tPSA (rs=0.61) in 509 analyzed patients, but unfortunately a histological diagnosis of PCa was only available in 152 patients, making interpretation of these data difficult (71). Another group could not confirm these data in 213 PCa and BPH patients, showing no correlation of MIF to tPSA (rs=-0.05). In addition, MIF values were in fact decreased and not significantly higher in PCa (72). A third study using the MIF assay also found decreased MIF values in PCa compared with BPH and a low AUC of 0.54 for MIF (70).

Caveolin. An immunoassay with specificity for caveolin-1 (cav-1), the major protein component of caveolae, which appear to mediate molecular transport, cell adhesion and signal transduction activities in a cell, showed highest concentrations in 102 PCa patients (median: 0.463 μg/L) compared with 81 healthy men (0.324 μg/L) and 107 BPH patients (0.172 μg/L) (73). Unfortunately, PSA was not available for all patients (73). The same group measured cav-1 in serum of 419 PCa patients with a median serum level of 1.01 μg/L being 2-fold higher than in the previous study (74). However, data are yet to be confirmed.

EPCA. An assay for a nuclear matrix protein in serum, the so-called early PCa antigen (EPCA) showed highly promising values with 92% diagnostic sensitivity and 94% specificity in a small cohort of 46 patients including 12 PCa (75). A study performed with a larger cohort of 385 men resulted in a 92% diagnostic specificity and a 94% sensitivity with an AUC of 0.89 (76). However, methodological deficiencies have been identified and the validation of this marker by other researchers is needed (77). Analysis of a second EPCA epitope, the EPCA-2.19 revealed in 328 patients a 100% specificity at 91% sensitivity with an AUC of 0.98 (78). Independent studies have not yet been completed.

IGF. High serum levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) have been retrospectively shown to be associated with the future development of PCa (79). However, this could not be confirmed in screening studies (80, 81). In plasma, most IGF-1 is bound to several binding proteins, of which IGFBP-3 is the major one. However, adjustment for IGFBP-3 has not been found to modulate the impact of IGF-1 on the PCa risk (79). A recent meta-analysis of 12 prospective studies in ~3700 men indicated that high circulating IGF-I concentrations are associated with a moderately increased risk for prostate cancer (82).

PSP94. While an investigation in 1993 found no differences between PCa, BPH and controls in serum concentrations of prostatic secretory protein of 94 amino acid residues (PSP94) (83), a recent study in 1,212 men (49.2% with PCa) using a sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay showed significantly lower values in PCa (84). Among a subgroup of 649 men with lower PCa risk, PSP94 could discriminate aggressive PCa from moderate grade disease (Gleason score 7) and low grade disease (p=0.007) (84). PSA and % fPSA were not able to distinguish between patients with different grades in this group.

Multivariate analysis showed that PSP94-binding protein (PSPBP) and the bound/free PSP94 ratio were independent predictors of biochemical relapse following radical prostatectomy (85).

Urine Markers

Annexin A3. Annexin A3 (ANXA3) is a calcium-binding protein with lower production in PCa than in BPH, prostate intraepithelial neoplasia, and healthy tissues (86). ANXA3 in tissue was also able to stratify 969 PCa intermediate-risk patients into high- and low-risk subgroups (87). Quantification by ANXA3 using Western blots of 591 urine samples showed significantly lower values in PCa compared with BPH patients, with low specificities at high sensitivities but an improved sensitivity at high specificities compared with tPSA (88). However, the combination of ANXA3 and PSA (AUC 0.81) had higher AUC compared with % fPSA (0.73) (88).

PCA3. Prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), also known as DD3, is a non-coding RNA produced almost exclusively in the prostate and has been shown to be 66-fold overexpressed in PCa tissue compared with normal prostate tissue (89). The commercially available test APTIMA® (Gen-Probe) uses transcription mediated amplification (90) and in a large European prospective multicenter study clearly demonstrated a greater probability of a positive repeat biopsy with increasing PCA3 scores (91). In those 463 men, the PCA3 score was significantly higher in men with Gleason score ≥7 versus <7, and “significant” versus “indolent” PCa indicating a possible role to predict aggressiveness and stage (91). Furthermore, PCA3 has the advantage compared with PSA that it is independent of prostate volume (91), correlates to tumor volume (92, 93) and may even predict extracapsular tumor extension (93). In a recent study of a small population, data from 62 prostatectomy specimens showed a trend of PCA3 to correlate with expression of the progression marker EZH2 (94).

Methylation markers. A multicenter study of DNA methylation markers in urine-based assays with a clinical prototype has recently been published (23). This multiplexed, quantitative methylation-specific PCR assay consisting of the 3 methylation markers, GSTP1, RARB and APC, and an endogenous control, was tested in 234 patients from 9 clinical sites (23). In two independent cohorts, where the multiplexed assay was combined with serum tPSA, DRE status and age, the AUCs of 0.69 and 0.65 showed only marginal overall success (23). However, a good correlation of GSTP1 with the number of tumor-positive or suspicious cores on biopsy or higher tumor volumes in samples that exhibited methylation for either GSTP1 or RARB indicated some potential use as an aid for prostate biopsy (23).

GOLM 1. GOLM1 is consistently up-regulated in PCa and has been demonstrated at the protein level. Prostate epithelial cells were identified as the cellular source of GOLM1 expression using laser capture microdissection technique (95). GOLM1 transcript levels in urine sediments (AUC 0.62) were a significant predictor of PCa outperforming PSA (AUC 0.495) (95). This indicates that up-regulation of GOLM1 expression and its appearance in patients' urine has potential as a novel biomarker for clinically localized PCa.

Simultaneous measurement of potential discriminative urine metabolites including sarcosine and combined analysis with other markers should be investigated (96, 97). The recent upsurge in studies of molecular assays for PCa cells in urine and metabolites associated with PCa in urine highlight the value of this specimen to provide increased specificity and prognostic value for PCa compared with current serum immunoassays.

Multivariate Models with Available New Markers

When estimating the diagnostic validity of the single tumor marker PSA it is obvious that lower thresholds increase sensitivity with the caveat of lower specificity. Consequently, this results in more unnecessary biopsies. Higher cutoff levels increase the specificity but many PCa are missed. One approach to predict the likelihood of a positive prostate biopsy is to combine PSA and other markers with classification models like logistic regression (LR)-based nomograms, artificial neural networks (ANN), classification and regression tree analyses and risk-group systems. Nomograms have been widely utilized for different indications to detect PCa, predict recurrence, extracapsular extension or lymph node invasion compared with other classification models (98). Nomograms show advantages compared with the PCa risk calculator, and PSA alone (99). Some author groups concluded in summaries (98, 100) and others in comparison studies (101-103) that nomograms are more accurate and have better performance characteristics than other alternatives. In contrast, several other studies (104-106) and reviews (107, 108) showed advantages for ANN compared with LR-based nomograms. Disparate results from the same group favoring LR (102) or ANN (105), or lack of advantage for LR when considering different PSA assays (101, 109) show that ambivalent results may be due to population or input parameter differences rather than true methodological differences. When comparing both LR and ANN in large populations (>5,000), they tie in 7 out of 8 studies (108). This strongly supports the notion that there is no mathematical advantage for either method. A summary on the differences and similarities of these models from a technical point of view of both LR and ANN and further classification models such as linear discriminant analysis, support vector machines or nearest neighbour classifier can be recommended for further details (107).

In the following pages most of the already mentioned new markers were analyzed regarding their performance in LR and/or ANN models.

PSA, % fPSA and cPSA based multivariate models. After initiation of ANN models into PCa diagnostics in 1994 by Snow et al. (110) one important further improvement was the introduction of % fPSA into clinical routine use (36). Soon after, several LR and ANN studies incorporating % fPSA showed a further improvement of up to 50% specificity compared with % fPSA alone (104, 105, 111, 112). A recent review summarizes all these studies with additional aspects of commercial PSA assays (113). A valuable comparison of all available ANN and LR studies to detect PCa has been recently published by Schröder and Kattan (114).

An ANN was published in 2003 from a model based on 7 clinical features including age, race, family history, International Prostate Symptom Score, DRE, tPSA and cPSA (106). An evaluation of 5 different tPSA assays including fPSA or cPSA in 780 patients found similar high AUC for the ANN model with cPSA/tPSA (0.89) compared with those models including % fPSA (AUC 0.88-0.89) (115). The ANN for those 5 different tPSA assays is freely available online (http://www.charite.de/pcaberlin/ann5/ann5.html) and differences in this study are mostly based on assay variations and not on population variances, which limited other earlier ANN and LR comparisons (116, 117). Especially for the use of cPSA in a limited tPSA range, a new method called discordance analysis characteristics (DAC) promises to be useful in improving PCa detection (118). A view of this program is given in Figure 1.

Free PSA subforms in multivariate models. A study on a relatively small population using the (-5, -7)proPSA and KLK2 showed only marginal success when using LR to distinguish between BPH and PCa (45). Another investigation in 898 patients from two centers showed only in the referred group in the 4-10 μg/L tPSA range that a leave-one-out (LOO) ANN model including the two variables % fPSA and (-5, -7) proPSA could reach the same performance as a routinely used ANN with PSA, % fPSA, age, prostate volume and DRE (119). However, at 95% sensitivity the ANN could not improve specificity compared with % fPSA (119).

The (-2)proPSA assay measured with an automated research assay (named as p2PSA) showed in an initial study in 123 men that the LR model with % p2PSA had the greatest AUC compared with % fPSA and % p2PSA (50). However, this advantage diminished in the 2-10 μg/L tPSA range, with equal AUC (0.73) for % p2PSA and the LR model (50).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

“ProstataClass” program (German version) with age, PSA assay (5 possibilities), total PSA, percent free PSA, prostate volume and status of digital rectal exam as input factors. Example of the ANN output indicating lower risk at the 95% sensitivity level.

The first study with the new automated p2PSA assay in combination with LR and ANN models in 586 patients by using tPSA, % fPSA, % p2PSA and age but not prostate volume showed the highest AUCs for the LOO ANN and LR model (0.85 and 0.84) and best specificities (ANN: 62.1% and 45.5%; LR: 53.1% and 41.2%) compared with tPSA (22.7% and 11.4%) and % fPSA (45.5% and 26.1%) at 90% and 95% sensitivity (120). These ANN models also did not require prostate volume like the (-5, -7)proPSA-based ANN (119) but the advantage over % fPSA was consistently significant at both 90% and 95% sensitivity. Furthermore, % p2PSA was better than tPSA and % fPSA at distinguishing between pT2 and pT3, and Gleason score <7 and ≥7 PCa, indicating a possible role in the preferential detection of aggressive and clinically significant tumors (120).

Data from the first study on the automated BPHA assay and an ANN application showed a further improved discrimination between BPH and PCa when comparing % fPSA (AUC: 0.775) or BPHA/tPSA (AUC 0.69) with a LOO ANN (AUC: 0.81) with Bayesian regularization utilizing the input factors age, prostate volume, tPSA, % fPSA and BPHA/tPSA (58). Within the 0-10 μg/L tPSA range the ANN model with BPHA/tPSA also reached the best specificities (53.9% and 44.5%) compared with the ANN without BPHA/tPSA (50% and 40.6%) and % fPSA (40.9% and 27.2%) at 90% and 95% sensitivity. Incorporation of BPHA/tPSA into an ANN model increased the specificity compared with % fPSA by 13% and 17%, at 90% and 95% sensitivity (58). Possibly, the automated BPHA assay can be used as an additional tool to improve PCa detection for instance in combination with p2PSA by incorporating those new markers into an ANN.

One survey with fPSA-I using a logarithmic combination of fPSA-I, % fPSA and tPSA showed only a slightly higher, but non-significant AUC (0.773) compared with fPSA-I/tPSA (0.755) (63). In the 2-10 μg/L tPSA subgroup only the AUC of logarithmic fPSA-I, % fPSA and tPSA (0.706) and fPSA-I/tPSA (0.704) were significantly larger compared to the AUC of tPSA (0.602) (63).

A panel of the kallikrein markers with % fPSA, intact PSA and KLK2 in a screening cohort of 740 men improved the AUC from 0.68 to 0.83 compared with a model including only age and PSA (121). Multiple kallikrein forms measured in blood may predict the result of the biopsy.

Kallikreins and other serum markers in multivariate models. The incorporation of other kallikreins into PSA and % fPSA based ANN was first performed with KLK2, which only slightly increased specificity over % fPSA (45, 122). At the low tPSA range 1-4 μg/L, the KLK2 and % fPSA ANN model was also able to significantly improve specificity at high sensitivity cutoffs compared with % fPSA, but this was not possible within the tPSA range 4-10 μg/L (122).

After initial promising results on KLK11, which showed improved specificity in combination with % fPSA (68), another subsequent study again showed marginal improvement of PCa differentiation from BPH when using a % fPSA and KLK11 based ANN (123). While the AUC with 0.84 for the ANN was significantly larger than for % fPSA, significantly better specificities at 90% sensitivity for the ANN compared with tPSA and % fPSA but not KLK11/tPSA could only be reached in a subpopulation with a higher PCa risk and % fPSA values <15% (123).

Incorporation of the other already mentioned new serum markers MIC-1 and MIF into the % fPSA and KLK11 based ANN showed an improved AUC (0.86) compared with % fPSA (0.81) but no difference at 90 or 95% sensitivity (70). However, when also including prostate volume, the advantage for the ANN with KLK11, MIC-1 and MIF compared with % fPSA was always visible (70). Application of kallikreins and their role in multivariate models and other biomarkers have been reviewed extensively (17, 113, 124, 125).

Two studies have been published on IGF-1 as input factor in a multivariate model (126, 127). Whereas the discriminatory value of KLK2 and IGF-1 alone was absent between PCa and NEM patients within the diagnostic “gray zone”, the KLK2/fPSA ratio at tPSA 4-10 μg/L and the IGF-1/fPSA ratio at tPSA >10 μg/L showed the largest odds ratio in multivariate analysis. However, for all 345 patients, % fPSA had the best odds ratio (126). The AUC comparison showed a slight advantage for KLK2/fPSA (0.74) and IGF-1/fPSA (0.75) compared with % fPSA (0.71) at tPSA 4-10 μg/L (126). A similar improvement in AUC for IGF-1/fPSA (0.75) compared with % fPSA (0.69) was observed in another study of 586 patients at tPSA 4-10 μg/L (127). An LR model confirmed the higher potential of the IGF-1/fPSA ratio to discriminate benign prostate disease from PCa (crude odds ratio for IGF-1/fPSA: 4.74) and at 90% sensitivity IGF-1/fPSA had a 10% higher specificity compared with % fPSA (127).

Multivariate analysis of PSP94 in a study with 1,212 men showed an improved AUC (0.74) for a model with PSP94 and % fPSA compared with the baseline model with age, DRE, ethnic background and tPSA (AUC: 0.66) and those models with PSP94 or % fPSA alone (each 0.72) (84). Further, among a subgroup of 649 men with tPSA <20 μg/L, the model with both PSP94 and % fPSA (AUC: 0.75) clearly improved performance of the baseline models with tPSA (0.56), % fPSA (0.64) or PSP94 alone (0.67) (84).

Use of urine marker PCA3 in novel multivariate models. Recently, first results on the combination of PCA3 and the TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion product have been presented (128, 129). The first study combined both urinary analytes in 108 patients (129). While in the 78 PCa patients the semiquantitative RT-PCR analysis followed by hybridization for the TMPRSS2-ERG detection had a sensitivity of 37%, the PCA3 assay had a sensitivity of 62% and the combination of both parameters increased sensitivity to 73% (129). More importantly, in those men with persistently elevated tPSA levels and a history of negative biopsies the positive predictive value of TMPRSS2-ERG fusion transcripts was 94% (129).

The second study had data available from serum PSA in addition to the urinary measured PCA3 and the TMPRSS2-ERG in 105 patients (128). PCA3 alone had an AUC of 0.65 when comparing the 32 PCa and 73 NEM patients, while the combination of PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG increased the AUC to 0.77. Further addition of serum PSA to PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG resulted in an AUC of 0.80 (128). At 67% sensitivity, 77% specificity was achieved when combining all three input parameters. Both the LR and individual cut-off approaches produced the same sensitivity and specificity results.

Data from both studies showed synergy between PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG assays for predicting biopsy outcome and suggest that further improvement in diagnostic accuracy could be achieved using LR-based nomograms that also incorporate serum PSA.

There might be more promising results when incorporating also other serum parameters such as % fPSA or p2PSA into urinary-based measurements of PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG to detect PCa. Prospective data of 252 PCa patients with 9 years of follow-up indicated that the TMPRSS2:ERG fusion was highly associated with aggressive PCa (Gleason score >7) and PCa-related death (27). Thus, PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG do have a potential to be used, especially to detect aggressive and life-threatening PCa.

Multivariate regression analysis in a multiplexed model, including SPINK1, PCA3, GOLPH2 and TMPRSS2:ERG showed significantly greater AUC (0.758) than PCA3 (0.662) or serum PSA (0.51) alone (22).

The other recent multiplexed survey with the 3 methylation markers, GSTP1, RARB and APC in urine showed an improved AUC of 0.65 for the multivariate combination of all 3 markers, tPSA, DRE status and age compared with tPSA (0.54), the 3 markers together (0.6), and the clinical data tPSA, DRE and age together (0.6) (23). However, the AUC increase was not statistically significant (23).

Conclusion

The use of % fPSA and especially the incorporation of this ratio into multivariate models increased the specificity of PSA in the last decade. Of all molecular forms of fPSA, (-2)proPSA measured with an automated p2PSA assay most likely further improves the specificity of % fPSA but only within LR and ANN models. After initial promising results especially for the kallikrein KLK2, no marker of the kallikrein family besides PSA (KLK3) has been used so far in the clinical routine diagnosis of PCa. Of all new serum markers, EPCA2 had the most promising initial results, with extremely high sensitivities and specificities, but these findings are yet to be confirmed. PCA3 as a urine marker has the potential to detect PCa in previous biopsy-negative patients and especially to detect aggressive PCa. Here, most studies from different working groups are in line with the first positive data. The combination of TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion data, PCA3 or other new urine markers and serum markers should be tested in the future as one of the most promising models to further increase the specificity of tPSA. A combination of the results from individual assays for PCA3, gene fusion and PSA forms may enable significantly improved management of PCa including early detection, prognosis and treatment selection. This review also showed that critical examination of LR-based nomograms and ANNs designed to predict the risk of a positive prostate biopsy for PCa is necessary and that, to date, both methods should be used in preference to single markers or other classification models.

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the DFG (STE 996/2-1) and the SONNENFELD-Stiftung.

  • Received January 5, 2009.
  • Revision received March 13, 2009.
  • Accepted April 2, 2009.
  • Copyright© 2009 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Jemal A,
    2. Siegel R,
    3. Ward E,
    4. Hao Y,
    5. Xu J,
    6. Murray T,
    7. Thun MJ
    : Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 58: 71-96, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Aus G,
    2. Damber JE,
    3. Khatami A,
    4. Lilja H,
    5. Stranne J,
    6. Hugosson J
    : Individualized screening interval for prostate cancer based on prostate-specific antigen level: results of a prospective, randomized, population-based study. Arch Intern Med 165: 1857-1861, 2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Postma R,
    2. Schroder FH,
    3. van Leenders GJ,
    4. Hoedemaeker RF,
    5. Vis AN,
    6. Roobol MJ,
    7. van der Kwast TH
    : Cancer detection and cancer characteristics in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) - Section Rotterdam. A comparison of two rounds of screening. Eur Urol 52: 89-97, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Thompson IM,
    2. Pauler DK,
    3. Goodman PJ,
    4. Tangen CM,
    5. Lucia MS,
    6. Parnes HL,
    7. Minasian LM,
    8. Ford LG,
    9. Lippman SM,
    10. Crawford ED,
    11. Crowley JJ,
    12. Coltman CA Jr.
    : Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level ≤4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 350: 2239-2246, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Stamey TA,
    2. Caldwell M,
    3. McNeal JE,
    4. Nolley R,
    5. Hemenez M,
    6. Downs J
    : The prostate-specific antigen era in the United States is over for prostate cancer: What happened in the last 20 years? J Urol 172: 1297-1301, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Schroder FH,
    2. Roobol MJ,
    3. van der Kwast TH,
    4. Kranse R,
    5. Bangma CH
    : Does PSA velocity predict prostate cancer in pre-screened populations? Eur Urol 49: 460-465, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Thompson IM,
    2. Ankerst DP,
    3. Chi C,
    4. Goodman PJ,
    5. Tangen CM,
    6. Lucia MS,
    7. Feng Z,
    8. Parnes HL,
    9. Coltman CA Jr.
    : Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 529-534, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Berger AP,
    2. Deibl M,
    3. Strasak A,
    4. Bektic J,
    5. Pelzer AE,
    6. Klocker H,
    7. Steiner H,
    8. Fritsche G,
    9. Bartsch G,
    10. Horninger W
    : Large-scale study of clinical impact of PSA velocity: long-term PSA kinetics as method of differentiating men with from those without prostate cancer. Urology 69: 134-138, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Loeb S,
    2. Roehl KA,
    3. Catalona WJ,
    4. Nadler RB
    : Prostate-specific antigen velocity threshold for predicting prostate cancer in young men. J Urol 177: 899-902, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Mistry K,
    2. Cable G
    : Meta-analysis of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination as screening tests for prostate carcinoma. J Am Board Fam Pract 16: 95-101, 2003.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Draisma G,
    2. Boer R,
    3. Otto SJ,
    4. van dC I,
    5. Damhuis RA,
    6. Schroder FH,
    7. De Koning HJ
    : Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95: 868-878, 2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Vis AN,
    2. Hoedemaeker RF,
    3. Roobol M,
    4. Der Kwast TH,
    5. Schroder FH
    : Tumor characteristics in screening for prostate cancer with and without rectal examination as an initial screening test at low PSA (0.0-3.9 ng/ml). Prostate 47: 252-261, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Lilja H,
    2. Ulmert D,
    3. Vickers AJ
    : Prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer: prediction, detection and monitoring. Nat Rev Cancer 8: 268-278, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Loeb S,
    2. Catalona WJ
    : Prostate-specific antigen in clinical practice. Cancer Lett 249: 30-39, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Schroder FH,
    2. Carter HB,
    3. Wolters T,
    4. van den Bergh RC,
    5. Gosselaar C,
    6. Bangma CH,
    7. Roobol MJ
    : Early detection of prostate cancer in 2007. Part 1: PSA and PSA kinetics. Eur Urol 53: 468-477, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Buker N,
    3. Cammann H,
    4. Meyer HA,
    5. Lein M,
    6. Jung K
    : Artificial neural network (ANN) velocity better identifies benign prostatic hyperplasia but not prostate cancer compared with PSA velocity. BMC Urol 8: 10, 2008.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Sardana G,
    2. Dowell B,
    3. Diamandis EP
    : Emerging biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. Clin Chem 54: 1951-1960, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Herawi M,
    2. Epstein JI
    : Immunohistochemical antibody cocktail staining (p63/HMWCK/AMACR) of ductal adenocarcinoma and Gleason pattern 4 cribriform and noncribriform acinar adenocarcinomas of the prostate. Am J Surg Pathol 31: 889-894, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Harden SV,
    2. Sanderson H,
    3. Goodman SN,
    4. Partin AA,
    5. Walsh PC,
    6. Epstein JI,
    7. Sidransky D
    : Quantitative GSTP1 methylation and the detection of prostate adenocarcinoma in sextant biopsies. J Natl Cancer Inst 95: 1634-1637, 2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Reynolds MA,
    2. Kastury K,
    3. Groskopf J,
    4. Schalken JA,
    5. Rittenhouse H
    : Molecular markers for prostate cancer. Cancer Lett 249: 5-13, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Wright JL,
    2. Lange PH
    : Newer potential biomarkers in prostate cancer. Rev Urol 9: 207-213, 2007.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Laxman B,
    2. Morris DS,
    3. Yu J,
    4. Siddiqui J,
    5. Cao J,
    6. Mehra R,
    7. Lonigro RJ,
    8. Tsodikov A,
    9. Wei JT,
    10. Tomlins SA,
    11. Chinnaiyan AM
    : A first-generation multiplex biomarker analysis of urine for the early detection of prostate cancer. Cancer Res 68: 645-649, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Vener T,
    2. Derecho C,
    3. Baden J,
    4. Wang H,
    5. Rajpurohit Y,
    6. Skelton J,
    7. Mehrotra J,
    8. Varde S,
    9. Chowdary D,
    10. Stallings W,
    11. Leibovich B,
    12. Robin H,
    13. Pelzer A,
    14. Schafer G,
    15. Auprich M,
    16. Mannweiler S,
    17. Amersdorfer P,
    18. Mazumder A
    : Development of a multiplexed urine assay for prostate cancer diagnosis. Clin Chem 54: 874-882, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Reynolds MA
    : Molecular alterations in prostate cancer. Cancer Lett 271: 13-24, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Tomlins SA,
    2. Rhodes DR,
    3. Perner S,
    4. Dhanasekaran SM,
    5. Mehra R,
    6. Sun XW,
    7. Varambally S,
    8. Cao X,
    9. Tchinda J,
    10. Kuefer R,
    11. Lee C,
    12. Montie JE,
    13. Shah RB,
    14. Pienta KJ,
    15. Rubin MA,
    16. Chinnaiyan AM
    : Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science 310: 644-648, 2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Tomlins SA,
    2. Laxman B,
    3. Dhanasekaran SM,
    4. Helgeson BE,
    5. Cao X,
    6. Morris DS,
    7. Menon A,
    8. Jing X,
    9. Cao Q,
    10. Han B,
    11. Yu J,
    12. Wang L,
    13. Montie JE,
    14. Rubin MA,
    15. Pienta KJ,
    16. Roulston D,
    17. Shah RB,
    18. Varambally S,
    19. Mehra R,
    20. Chinnaiyan AM
    : Distinct classes of chromosomal rearrangements create oncogenic ETS gene fusions in prostate cancer. Nature 448: 595-599, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Demichelis F,
    2. Fall K,
    3. Perner S,
    4. Andren O,
    5. Schmidt F,
    6. Setlur SR,
    7. Hoshida Y,
    8. Mosquera JM,
    9. Pawitan Y,
    10. Lee C,
    11. Adami HO,
    12. Mucci LA,
    13. Kantoff PW,
    14. Andersson SO,
    15. Chinnaiyan AM,
    16. Johansson JE,
    17. Rubin MA
    : TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion associated with lethal prostate cancer in a watchful waiting cohort. Oncogene 26: 4596-4599, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Laxman B,
    2. Tomlins SA,
    3. Mehra R,
    4. Morris DS,
    5. Wang L,
    6. Helgeson BE,
    7. Shah RB,
    8. Rubin MA,
    9. Wei JT,
    10. Chinnaiyan AM
    : Noninvasive detection of TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcripts in the urine of men with prostate cancer. Neoplasia 8: 885-888, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Morris DS,
    2. Tomlins SA,
    3. Montie JE,
    4. Chinnaiyan AM
    : The discovery and application of gene fusions in prostate cancer. BJU Int 102: 276-282, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Stenman UH,
    2. Leinonen J,
    3. Alfthan H,
    4. Rannikko S,
    5. Tuhkanen K,
    6. Alfthan O
    : A complex between prostate-specific antigen and alpha 1-antichymotrypsin is the major form of prostate-specific antigen in serum of patients with prostatic cancer: assay of the complex improves clinical sensitivity for cancer. Cancer Res 51: 222-226, 1991.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Lilja H,
    2. Christensson A,
    3. Dahlen U,
    4. Matikainen MT,
    5. Nilsson O,
    6. Pettersson K,
    7. Lovgren T
    : Prostate-specific antigen in serum occurs predominantly in complex with alpha 1-antichymotrypsin. Clin Chem 37: 1618-1625, 1991.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. De Angelis G,
    2. Rittenhouse HG,
    3. Mikolajczyk SD,
    4. Blair SL,
    5. Semjonow A
    : Twenty years of PSA: from prostate antigen to tumor marker. Rev Urol 9: 113-123, 2007.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Stenman UH,
    2. Abrahamsson PA,
    3. Aus G,
    4. Lilja H,
    5. Bangma C,
    6. Hamdy FC,
    7. Boccon-Gibod L,
    8. Ekman P
    : Prognostic value of serum markers for prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl pp. 64-81, 2005.
  32. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Jung K,
    3. Lein M,
    4. Diamandis EP
    : PSA and other tissue kallikreins for prostate cancer detection. Eur J Cancer 43: 1918-1926, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Catalona WJ,
    2. Smith DS,
    3. Wolfert RL,
    4. Wang TJ,
    5. Rittenhouse HG,
    6. Ratliff TL,
    7. Nadler RB
    : Evaluation of percentage of free serum prostate-specific antigen to improve specificity of prostate cancer screening. JAMA 274: 1214-1220, 1995.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Catalona WJ,
    2. Partin AW,
    3. Slawin KM,
    4. Brawer MK,
    5. Flanigan RC,
    6. Patel A,
    7. Richie JP,
    8. deKernion JB,
    9. Walsh PC,
    10. Scardino PT,
    11. Lange PH,
    12. Subong EN,
    13. Parson RE,
    14. Gasior GH,
    15. Loveland KG,
    16. Southwick PC
    : Use of the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. JAMA 279: 1542-1547, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Zhang WM,
    2. Finne P,
    3. Leinonen J,
    4. Vesalainen S,
    5. Nordling S,
    6. Rannikko S,
    7. Stenman UH
    : Characterization and immunological determination of the complex between prostate-specific antigen and alpha2-macroglobulin. Clin Chem 44: 2471-2479, 1998.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Zhang WM,
    2. Finne P,
    3. Leinonen J,
    4. Vesalainen S,
    5. Nordling S,
    6. Stenman UH
    : Measurement of the complex between prostate-specific antigen and alpha 1-protease inhibitor in serum. Clin Chem 45: 814-821, 1999.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Allard WJ,
    2. Zhou Z,
    3. Yeung KK
    : Novel immunoassay for the measurement of complexed prostate-specific antigen in serum. Clin Chem 44: 1216-1223, 1998.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Brawer MK,
    2. Meyer GE,
    3. Letran JL,
    4. Bankson ER,
    5. Morris DL,
    6. Yeung KK,
    7. Allard WJ
    : Measurement of complexed PSA improves specificity for early detection of prostate cancer. Urology 52: 372-378, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Lein M,
    2. Kwiatkowski M,
    3. Semjonow A,
    4. Luboldt HJ,
    5. Hammerer P,
    6. Stephan C,
    7. Klevecka V,
    8. Taymoorian K,
    9. Schnorr D,
    10. Recker F,
    11. Loening SA,
    12. Jung K
    : A multicenter clinical trial on the use of complexed prostate-specific antigen in low prostate specific antigen concentrations. J Urol 170: 1175-1179, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Schnorr D,
    3. Loening SA,
    4. Jung K
    : Re: Roddam AW, Duffy MJ, Hamdy FC et al: Use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoforms for the detection of prostate cancer in men with a PSA level of 2-10 ng/ml: systematic review and meta-analysis. (Eur Urol 48: 386-399, 2005). Eur Urol 48: 1059-1060, 2005.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Mikolajczyk SD,
    2. Grauer LS,
    3. Millar LS,
    4. Hill TM,
    5. Kumar A,
    6. Rittenhouse HG,
    7. Wolfert RL,
    8. Saedi MS
    : A precursor form of PSA (pPSA) is a component of the free PSA in prostate cancer serum. Urology 50: 710-714, 1997.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Peter J,
    2. Unverzagt C,
    3. Krogh TN,
    4. Vorm O,
    5. Hoesel W
    : Identification of precursor forms of free prostate-specific antigen in serum of prostate cancer patients by immunosorption and mass spectrometry. Cancer Res 61: 957-962, 2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Bangma CH,
    2. Wildhagen MF,
    3. Yurdakul G,
    4. Schroder FH,
    5. Blijenberg BG
    : The value of (-7, -5)pro-prostate-specific antigen and human kallikrein-2 as serum markers for grading prostate cancer. BJU Int 93: 720-724, 2004.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Lein M,
    2. Semjonow A,
    3. Graefen M,
    4. Kwiatkowski M,
    5. Abramjuk C,
    6. Stephan C,
    7. Haese A,
    8. Chun F,
    9. Schnorr D,
    10. Loening SA,
    11. Jung K
    : A multicenter clinical trial on the use of (-5, -7) pro prostate specific antigen. J Urol 174: 2150-2153, 2005.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Meyer HA,
    3. Paul EM,
    4. Kristiansen G,
    5. Loening SA,
    6. Lein M,
    7. Jung K
    : Serum (-5, -7) proPSA for distinguishing stage and grade of prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 27: 1833-1836, 2007.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Catalona WJ,
    2. Bartsch G,
    3. Rittenhouse HG,
    4. Evans CL,
    5. Linton HJ,
    6. Amirkhan A,
    7. Horninger W,
    8. Klocker H,
    9. Mikolajczyk SD
    : Serum proprostate-specific antigen improves cancer detection compared to free and complexed prostate-specific antigen in men with prostate-specific antigen 2 to 4 ng/ml. J Urol 170: 2181-2185, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Catalona WJ,
    2. Bartsch G,
    3. Rittenhouse HG,
    4. Evans CL,
    5. Linton HJ,
    6. Horninger W,
    7. Klocker H,
    8. Mikolajczyk SD
    : Serum proprostate-specific antigen preferentially detects aggressive prostate cancers in men with 2 to 4 ng/ml prostate-specific antigen. J Urol 171: 2239-2244, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Sokoll LJ,
    2. Wang Y,
    3. Feng Z,
    4. Kagan J,
    5. Partin AW,
    6. Sanda MG,
    7. Thompson IM,
    8. Chan DW
    : (-2)proenzyme prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer detection: a national cancer institute early detection research network validation study. J Urol 180: 539-543, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Mikolajczyk SD,
    2. Rittenhouse HG
    : Pro PSA: a more cancer specific form of prostate-specific antigen for the early detection of prostate cancer. Keio J Med 52: 86-91, 2003.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Peyromaure M,
    2. Fulla Y,
    3. Debre B,
    4. Dinh-Xuan AT
    : Pro PSA: a “pro cancer” form of PSA? Med Hypotheses 64: 92-95, 2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Mikolajczyk SD,
    2. Millar LS,
    3. Wang TJ,
    4. Rittenhouse HG,
    5. Wolfert RL,
    6. Marks LS,
    7. Song W,
    8. Wheeler TM,
    9. Slawin KM
    : “BPSA”, a specific molecular form of free prostate-specific antigen, is found predominantly in the transition zone of patients with nodular benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 55: 41-45, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Wang TJ,
    2. Slawin KM,
    3. Rittenhouse HG,
    4. Millar LS,
    5. Mikolajczyk SD
    : Benign prostatic hyperplasia-associated prostate-specific antigen (BPSA) shows unique immunoreactivity with anti-PSA monoclonal antibodies. Eur J Biochem 267: 4040-4045, 2000.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Canto EI,
    2. Singh H,
    3. Shariat SF,
    4. Lamb DJ,
    5. Mikolajczyk SD,
    6. Linton HJ,
    7. Rittenhouse HG,
    8. Kadmon D,
    9. Miles BJ,
    10. Slawin KM
    : Serum BPSA outperforms both total PSA and free PSA as a predictor of prostatic enlargement in men without prostate cancer. Urology 63: 905-910, 2004.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Linton HJ,
    2. Marks LS,
    3. Millar LS,
    4. Knott CL,
    5. Rittenhouse HG,
    6. Mikolajczyk SD
    : Benign prostate-specific antigen (BPSA) in serum is increased in benign prostate disease. Clin Chem 49: 253-259, 2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    1. Slawin KM,
    2. Shariat S,
    3. Canto E
    : BPSA: A Novel Serum Marker for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Rev Urol 7(Suppl 8): S52-S56, 2005.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Cammann H,
    3. Lein M,
    4. Schrader M,
    5. Deger S,
    6. Miller K,
    7. Jung K
    : BPHA (bPSA) improves detection of prostate cancer in an artificial neural network. Urology: in press 2009.
  57. ↵
    1. de Vries SH,
    2. Raaijmakers R,
    3. Blijenberg BG,
    4. Mikolajczyk SD,
    5. Rittenhouse HG,
    6. Schroder FH
    : Additional use of [-2] precursor prostate-specific antigen and “benign” PSA at diagnosis in screen-detected prostate cancer. Urology 65: 926-930, 2005.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Mikolajczyk SD,
    2. Marks LS,
    3. Partin AW,
    4. Rittenhouse HG
    : Free prostate-specific antigen in serum is becoming more complex. Urology 59: 797-802, 2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Nurmikko P,
    2. Vaisanen V,
    3. Piironen T,
    4. Lindgren S,
    5. Lilja H,
    6. Pettersson K
    : Production and characterization of novel anti-prostate-specific antigen (PSA) monoclonal antibodies that do not detect internally cleaved Lys145-Lys146 inactive PSA. Clin Chem 46: 1610-1618, 2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Nurmikko P,
    2. Pettersson K,
    3. Piironen T,
    4. Hugosson J,
    5. Lilja H
    : Discrimination of prostate cancer from benign disease by plasma measurement of intact, free prostate-specific antigen lacking an internal cleavage site at Lys145-Lys146. Clin Chem 47: 1415-1423, 2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Steuber T,
    2. Nurmikko P,
    3. Haese A,
    4. Pettersson K,
    5. Graefen M,
    6. Hammerer P,
    7. Huland H,
    8. Lilja H
    : Discrimination of benign from malignant prostatic disease by selective measurements of single chain, intact free prostate-specific antigen. J Urol 168: 1917-1922, 2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Yousef GM,
    2. Diamandis EP
    : The new human tissue kallikrein gene family: structure, function, and association to disease. Endocr Rev 22: 184-204, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Lundwall A,
    2. Band V,
    3. Blaber M,
    4. Clements JA,
    5. Courty Y,
    6. Diamandis EP,
    7. Fritz H,
    8. Lilja H,
    9. Malm J,
    10. Maltais LJ,
    11. Olsson AY,
    12. Petraki C,
    13. Scorilas A,
    14. Sotiropoulou G,
    15. Stenman UH,
    16. Stephan C,
    17. Talieri M,
    18. Yousef GM
    : A comprehensive nomenclature for serine proteases with homology to tissue kallikreins. Biol Chem 387: 637-641, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Kwiatkowski MK,
    2. Recker F,
    3. Piironen T,
    4. Pettersson K,
    5. Otto T,
    6. Wernli M,
    7. Tscholl R
    : In prostatism patients the ratio of human glandular kallikrein to free PSA improves the discrimination between prostate cancer and benign hyperplasia within the diagnostic “gray zone” of total PSA 4 to 10 ng/mL. Urology 52: 360-365, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Partin AW,
    2. Catalona WJ,
    3. Finlay JA,
    4. Darte C,
    5. Tindall DJ,
    6. Young CY,
    7. Klee GG,
    8. Chan DW,
    9. Rittenhouse HG,
    10. Wolfert RL,
    11. Woodrum DL
    : Use of human glandular kallikrein 2 for the detection of prostate cancer: preliminary analysis. Urology 54: 839-845, 1999.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Nakamura T,
    2. Scorilas A,
    3. Stephan C,
    4. Jung K,
    5. Soosaipillai AR,
    6. Diamandis EP
    : The usefulness of serum human kallikrein 11 for discriminating between prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cancer Res 63: 6543-6546, 2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    1. Brown DA,
    2. Stephan C,
    3. Ward RL,
    4. Law M,
    5. Hunter M,
    6. Bauskin AR,
    7. Amin J,
    8. Jung K,
    9. Diamandis EP,
    10. Hampton GM,
    11. Russell PJ,
    12. Giles GG,
    13. Breit SN
    : Measurement of serum levels of macrophage inhibitory cytokine 1 combined with prostate-specific antigen improves prostate cancer diagnosis. Clin Cancer Res 12: 89-96, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Xu C,
    3. Brown DA,
    4. Breit SN,
    5. Michael A,
    6. Nakamura T,
    7. Diamandis EP,
    8. Meyer H,
    9. Cammann H,
    10. Jung K
    : Three new serum markers for prostate cancer detection within a percent free PSA-based artificial neural network. Prostate 66: 651-659, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Meyer-Siegler KL,
    2. Bellino MA,
    3. Tannenbaum M
    : Macrophage migration inhibitory factor evaluation compared with prostate-specific antigen as a biomarker in patients with prostate carcinoma. Cancer 94: 1449-1456, 2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Michael A,
    2. Stephan C,
    3. Kristiansen G,
    4. Burckhardt M,
    5. Loening SA,
    6. Schnorr D,
    7. Jung K
    : Diagnostic validity of macrophage migration inhibitory factor in serum of patients with prostate cancer: a re-evaluation. Prostate 62: 34-39, 2005.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Tahir SA,
    2. Ren C,
    3. Timme TL,
    4. Gdor Y,
    5. Hoogeveen R,
    6. Morrisett JD,
    7. Frolov A,
    8. Ayala G,
    9. Wheeler TM,
    10. Thompson TC
    : Development of an immunoassay for serum caveolin-1: a novel biomarker for prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 9: 3653-3659, 2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. ↵
    1. Tahir SA,
    2. Frolov A,
    3. Hayes TG,
    4. Mims MP,
    5. Miles BJ,
    6. Lerner SP,
    7. Wheeler TM,
    8. Ayala G,
    9. Thompson TC,
    10. Kadmon D
    : Preoperative serum caveolin-1 as a prognostic marker for recurrence in a radical prostatectomy cohort. Clin Cancer Res 12: 4872-4875, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. ↵
    1. Paul B,
    2. Dhir R,
    3. Landsittel D,
    4. Hitchens MR,
    5. Getzenberg RH
    : Detection of prostate cancer with a blood-based assay for early prostate cancer antigen. Cancer Res 65: 4097-4100, 2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Leman ES,
    2. Cannon GW,
    3. Trock BJ,
    4. Sokoll LJ,
    5. Chan DW,
    6. Mangold L,
    7. Partin AW,
    8. Getzenberg RH
    : EPCA-2: a highly specific serum marker for prostate cancer. Urology 69: 714-720, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Diamandis EP
    : POINT: EPCA-2: a promising new serum biomarker for prostatic carcinoma? Clin Biochem 40: 1437-1439, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Leman ES,
    2. Magheli A,
    3. Cannon GW,
    4. Sokoll LJ,
    5. Chan DW,
    6. Mangold L,
    7. Partin AW,
    8. Getzenberg RH
    : Analysis of a second EPCA-2 epitope as a serum test for prostate cancer. J Urol (Suppl) 179: 704, 2008.
    OpenUrl
  77. ↵
    1. Stattin P,
    2. Rinaldi S,
    3. Biessy C,
    4. Stenman UH,
    5. Hallmans G,
    6. Kaaks R
    : High levels of circulating insulin-like growth factor-I increase prostate cancer risk: a prospective study in a population-based nonscreened cohort. J Clin Oncol 22: 3104-3112, 2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. ↵
    1. Finne P,
    2. Auvinen A,
    3. Koistinen H,
    4. Zhang WM,
    5. Maattanen L,
    6. Rannikko S,
    7. Tammela T,
    8. Seppala M,
    9. Hakama M,
    10. Stenman UH
    : Insulin-like growth factor I is not a useful marker of prostate cancer in men with elevated levels of prostate-specific antigen. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85: 2744-2747, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Oliver SE,
    2. Holly J,
    3. Peters TJ,
    4. Donovan J,
    5. Persad R,
    6. Gillatt D,
    7. Pearce A,
    8. Hamdy FC,
    9. Neal DE,
    10. Gunnell D
    : Measurement of insulin-like growth factor axis does not enhance specificity of PSA-based prostate cancer screening. Urology 64: 317-322, 2004.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Roddam AW,
    2. Allen NE,
    3. Appleby P,
    4. Key TJ,
    5. Ferrucci L,
    6. Carter HB,
    7. Metter EJ,
    8. Chen C,
    9. Weiss NS,
    10. Fitzpatrick A,
    11. Hsing AW,
    12. Lacey JV Jr.,
    13. Helzlsouer K,
    14. Rinaldi S,
    15. Riboli E,
    16. Kaaks R,
    17. Janssen JA,
    18. Wildhagen MF,
    19. Schroder FH,
    20. Platz EA,
    21. Pollak M,
    22. Giovannucci E,
    23. Schaefer C,
    24. Quesenberry CP Jr.,
    25. Vogelman JH,
    26. Severi G,
    27. English DR,
    28. Giles GG,
    29. Stattin P,
    30. Hallmans G,
    31. Johansson M,
    32. Chan JM,
    33. Gann P,
    34. Oliver SE,
    35. Holly JM,
    36. Donovan J,
    37. Meyer F,
    38. Bairati I,
    39. Galan P
    : Insulin-like growth factors, their binding proteins, and prostate cancer risk: analysis of individual patient data from 12 prospective studies. Ann Intern Med 149: 461-468, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. von der Kammer H,
    2. Jurincic-Winkler C,
    3. Horlbeck R,
    4. Klippel KF,
    5. Pixberg HU,
    6. Scheit KH
    : The potential use of prostatic secretory protein of 94 amino acid residues (PSP94) as a serum marker for prostatic tumor. Urol Res 21: 227-233, 1993.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Nam RK,
    2. Reeves JR,
    3. Toi A,
    4. Dulude H,
    5. Trachtenberg J,
    6. Emami M,
    7. Daigneault L,
    8. Panchal C,
    9. Sugar L,
    10. Jewett MA,
    11. Narod SA
    : A novel serum marker, total prostate secretory protein of 94 amino acids, improves prostate cancer detection and helps identify high grade cancers at diagnosis. J Urol 175: 1291-1297, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Reeves JR,
    2. Dulude H,
    3. Panchal C,
    4. Daigneault L,
    5. Ramnani DM
    : Prognostic value of prostate secretory protein of 94 amino acids and its binding protein after radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res 12: 6018-6022, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. ↵
    1. Wozny W,
    2. Schroer K,
    3. Schwall GP,
    4. Poznanovic S,
    5. Stegmann W,
    6. Dietz K,
    7. Rogatsch H,
    8. Schaefer G,
    9. Huebl H,
    10. Klocker H,
    11. Schrattenholz A,
    12. Cahill MA
    : Differential radioactive quantification of protein abundance ratios between benign and malignant prostate tissues: cancer association of annexin A3. Proteomics 7: 313-322, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Kollermann J,
    2. Schlomm T,
    3. Bang H,
    4. Schwall GP,
    5. von Eichel-Streiber C,
    6. Simon R,
    7. Schostak M,
    8. Huland H,
    9. Berg W,
    10. Sauter G,
    11. Klocker H,
    12. Schrattenholz A
    : Expression and prognostic relevance of annexin A3 in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 54: 1314-1323, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. ↵
    1. Schostak M,
    2. Schwall GP,
    3. Poznanovic S,
    4. Groebe K,
    5. Muller M,
    6. Messinger D,
    7. Miller K,
    8. Krause H,
    9. Pelzer A,
    10. Horninger W,
    11. Klocker H,
    12. Hennenlotter J,
    13. Feyerabend S,
    14. Stenzl A,
    15. Schrattenholz A
    : Annexin A3 in urine: a highly specific noninvasive marker for prostate cancer early detection. J Urol 181: 343-353, 2009.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  87. ↵
    1. Hessels D,
    2. Klein Gunnewiek JM,
    3. van O I,
    4. Karthaus HF,
    5. van Leenders GJ,
    6. van BB,
    7. Kiemeney LA,
    8. Witjes JA,
    9. Schalken JA
    : DD3(PCA3)-based molecular urine analysis for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 44: 8-15, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. ↵
    1. Groskopf J,
    2. Aubin SM,
    3. Deras IL,
    4. Blase A,
    5. Bodrug S,
    6. Clark C,
    7. Brentano S,
    8. Mathis J,
    9. Pham J,
    10. Meyer T,
    11. Cass M,
    12. Hodge P,
    13. Macairan ML,
    14. Marks LS,
    15. Rittenhouse H
    : APTIMA PCA3 molecular urine test: development of a method to aid in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Clin Chem 52: 1089-1095, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  89. ↵
    1. Haese A,
    2. de la TA,
    3. van PH,
    4. Marberger M,
    5. Stenzl A,
    6. Mulders PF,
    7. Huland H,
    8. Abbou CC,
    9. Remzi M,
    10. Tinzl M,
    11. Feyerabend S,
    12. Stillebroer AB,
    13. van Gils MP,
    14. Schalken JA
    : Clinical utility of the PCA3 urine assay in European men scheduled for repeat biopsy. Eur Urol 54: 1081-1088, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Nakanishi H,
    2. Groskopf J,
    3. Fritsche HA,
    4. Bhadkamkar V,
    5. Blase A,
    6. Kumar SV,
    7. Davis JW,
    8. Troncoso P,
    9. Rittenhouse H,
    10. Babaian RJ
    : PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate cancer tumor volume: implication in selecting candidates for active surveillance. J Urol 179: 1804-1809, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. ↵
    1. Whitman EJ,
    2. Groskopf J,
    3. Ali A,
    4. Chen Y,
    5. Blase A,
    6. Furusato B,
    7. Petrovics G,
    8. Ibrahim M,
    9. Elsamanoudi S,
    10. Cullen J,
    11. Sesterhenn IA,
    12. Brassell S,
    13. Rittenhouse H,
    14. Srivastava S,
    15. McLeod DG
    : PCA3 score before radical prostatectomy predicts extracapsular extension and tumor volume. J Urol 180: 1975-1978, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. ↵
    1. van Gils MP,
    2. Hessels D,
    3. Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA,
    4. Witjes JA,
    5. Jansen CF,
    6. Mulders PF,
    7. Rittenhouse HG,
    8. Schalken JA
    : Detailed analysis of histopathological parameters in radical prostatectomy specimens and PCA3 urine test results. Prostate 68: 1215-1222, 2008.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Varambally S,
    2. Laxman B,
    3. Mehra R,
    4. Cao Q,
    5. Dhanasekaran SM,
    6. Tomlins SA,
    7. Granger J,
    8. Vellaichamy A,
    9. Sreekumar A,
    10. Yu J,
    11. Gu W,
    12. Shen R,
    13. Ghosh D,
    14. Wright LM,
    15. Kladney RD,
    16. Kuefer R,
    17. Rubin MA,
    18. Fimmel CJ,
    19. Chinnaiyan AM
    : Golgi protein GOLM1 is a tissue and urine biomarker of prostate cancer. Neoplasia 10: 1285-1294, 2008.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  94. ↵
    1. Sreekumar A,
    2. Poisson LM,
    3. Rajendiran TM,
    4. Khan AP,
    5. Cao Q,
    6. Yu J,
    7. Laxman B,
    8. Mehra R,
    9. Lonigro RJ,
    10. Li Y,
    11. Nyati MK,
    12. Ahsan A,
    13. Kalyana-Sundaram S,
    14. Han B,
    15. Cao X,
    16. Byun J,
    17. Omenn GS,
    18. Ghosh D,
    19. Pennathur S,
    20. Alexander DC,
    21. Berger A,
    22. Shuster JR,
    23. Wei JT,
    24. Varambally S,
    25. Beecher C,
    26. Chinnaiyan AM
    : Metabolomic profiles delineate potential role for sarcosine in prostate cancer progression. Nature 457: 910-914, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Jung K
    : Re: The metabolites citrate, myo-inositol, and spermine are potential age-independent markers of prostate cancer in human expressed prostatic secretions. European Urology 54: 1198-1199, 2008.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  96. ↵
    1. Chun FK,
    2. Karakiewicz PI,
    3. Briganti A,
    4. Walz J,
    5. Kattan MW,
    6. Huland H,
    7. Graefen M
    : A critical appraisal of logistic regression-based nomograms, artificial neural networks, classification and regression-tree models, look-up tables and risk-group stratification models for prostate cancer. BJU Int 99: 794-800, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. ↵
    1. Hernandez DJ,
    2. Han M,
    3. Humphreys EB,
    4. Mangold LA,
    5. Taneja SS,
    6. Childs SJ,
    7. Bartsch G,
    8. Partin AW
    : Predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy: comparison of a novel logistic regression-based model, the prostate cancer risk calculator, and prostate-specific antigen level alone. BJU Int online available: 2008.
  98. ↵
    1. Shariat SF,
    2. Capitanio U,
    3. Jeldres C,
    4. Karakiewicz PI
    : Can nomograms be superior to other prediction tools? BJU Int online available: 2008.
  99. ↵
    1. Chun FK,
    2. Graefen M,
    3. Briganti A,
    4. Gallina A,
    5. Hopp J,
    6. Kattan MW,
    7. Huland H,
    8. Karakiewicz PI
    : Initial biopsy outcome prediction--head-to-head comparison of a logistic regression-based nomogram versus artificial neural network. Eur Urol 51: 1236-1240, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. ↵
    1. Finne P,
    2. Finne R,
    3. Bangma C,
    4. Hugosson J,
    5. Hakama M,
    6. Auvinen A,
    7. Stenman UH
    : Algorithms based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, digital rectal examination and prostate volume reduce false-positive PSA results in prostate cancer screening. Int J Cancer 111: 310-315, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. ↵
    1. Kawakami S,
    2. Numao N,
    3. Okubo Y,
    4. Koga F,
    5. Yamamoto S,
    6. Saito K,
    7. Fujii Y,
    8. Yonese J,
    9. Masuda H,
    10. Kihara K,
    11. Fukui I
    : Development, validation, and head-to-head comparison of logistic regression-based nomograms and artificial neural network models predicting prostate cancer on initial extended biopsy. Eur Urol 54: 601-611, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. ↵
    1. Djavan B,
    2. Remzi M,
    3. Zlotta A,
    4. Seitz C,
    5. Snow P,
    6. Marberger M
    : Novel artificial neural network for early detection of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 20: 921-929, 2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  103. ↵
    1. Finne P,
    2. Finne R,
    3. Auvinen A,
    4. Juusela H,
    5. Aro J,
    6. Maattanen L,
    7. Hakama M,
    8. Rannikko S,
    9. Tammela TL,
    10. Stenman U
    : Predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy in screen-positive men by a multilayer perceptron network. Urology 56: 418-422, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. Kalra P,
    2. Togami J,
    3. Bansal BSG,
    4. Partin AW,
    5. Brawer MK,
    6. Babaian RJ,
    7. Ross LS,
    8. Niederberger CS
    : A neurocomputational model for prostate carcinoma detection. Cancer 98: 1849-1854, 2003.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  105. ↵
    1. Dreiseitl S,
    2. Ohno-Machado L
    : Logistic regression and artificial neural network classification models: a methodology review. J Biomed Inform 35: 352-359, 2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. ↵
    1. Sargent DJ
    : Comparison of artificial neural networks with other statistical approaches. Cancer 91: 1636-1642, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Meyer HA,
    3. Cammann H,
    4. Lein M,
    5. Loening SA,
    6. Jung K
    : Re: Chun FKH, Graefen M, Briganti A, Gallina A, HoppJ, Kattan MW, Huland H and Karakiewicz PI. Initial biopsy outcome prediction - head-to-head comparison of a logistic regression-based nomogram versus artificial neural network. Eur Urol 51: 1236-1243, 2007. Eur Urol 51: 1446-1447, 2007.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  108. ↵
    1. Snow PB,
    2. Smith DS,
    3. Catalona WJ
    : Artificial neural networks in the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer: a pilot study. J Urol 152: 1923-1926, 1994.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  109. ↵
    1. Babaian RJ,
    2. Fritsche H,
    3. Ayala A,
    4. Bhadkamkar V,
    5. Johnston DA,
    6. Naccarato W,
    7. Zhang Z
    : Performance of a neural network in detecting prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen reflex range of 2.5 to 4.0 ng/mL. Urology 56: 1000-1006, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Jung K,
    3. Cammann H,
    4. Vogel B,
    5. Brux B,
    6. Kristiansen G,
    7. Rudolph B,
    8. Hauptmann S,
    9. Lein M,
    10. Schnorr D,
    11. Sinha P,
    12. Loening SA
    : An artificial neural network considerably improves the diagnostic power of percent free prostate-specific antigen in prostate cancer diagnosis: Results of a 5-year investigation. Int J Cancer 99: 466-473, 2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Cammann H,
    3. Meyer HA,
    4. Lein M,
    5. Jung K
    : PSA and new biomarkers within multivariate models to improve early detection of prostate cancer. Cancer Lett 249: 18-29, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. ↵
    1. Schroder F,
    2. Kattan MW
    : The comparability of models for predicting the risk of a positive prostate biopsy with prostate-specific antigen alone: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol 54: 274-290, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Cammann H,
    3. Meyer HA,
    4. Muller C,
    5. Deger S,
    6. Lein M,
    7. Jung K
    : An artificial neural network for five different assay systems of prostate-specific antigen in prostate cancer diagnostics. BJU Int 102: 799-805, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Xu C,
    3. Cammann H,
    4. Graefen M,
    5. Haese A,
    6. Huland H,
    7. Semjonow A,
    8. Diamandis EP,
    9. Remzi M,
    10. Djavan B,
    11. Wildhagen MF,
    12. Blijenberg BG,
    13. Finne P,
    14. Stenman UH,
    15. Jung K,
    16. Meyer HA
    : Assay-specific artificial neural networks for five different PSA assays and populations with PSA 2-10 ng/ml in 4,480 men. World J Urol 25: 95-103, 2007.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  115. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Xu C,
    3. Finne P,
    4. Cammann H,
    5. Meyer HA,
    6. Lein M,
    7. Jung K,
    8. Stenman UH
    : Comparison of two different artificial neural networks for prostate biopsy indication in two different patient populations. Urology 70: 596-601, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  116. ↵
    1. Keller T,
    2. Butz H,
    3. Lein M,
    4. Kwiatkowski M,
    5. Semjonow A,
    6. Luboldt HJ,
    7. Hammerer P,
    8. Stephan C,
    9. Jung K
    : Discordance analysis characteristics as a new method to compare the diagnostic accuracy of tests: example of complexed versus total prostate-specific antigen. Clin Chem 51: 532-539, 2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  117. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Meyer HA,
    3. Kwiatkowski M,
    4. Recker F,
    5. Cammann H,
    6. Loening SA,
    7. Jung K,
    8. Lein M
    : A (-5, -7) ProPSA-based artificial neural network to detect prostate cancer. Eur Urol 50: 1014-1020, 2006.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  118. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Kahrs AM,
    3. Cammann H,
    4. Lein M,
    5. Schrader M,
    6. Deger S,
    7. Miller K,
    8. Jung K
    : A (-2)proPSA-based artificial neural network significantly improves differentiation between prostate cancer and benign prostatic diseases. Prostate 69: 198-207, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. ↵
    1. Vickers AJ,
    2. Cronin AM,
    3. Aus G,
    4. Pihl CG,
    5. Becker C,
    6. Pettersson K,
    7. Scardino PT,
    8. Hugosson J,
    9. Lilja H
    : A panel of kallikrein markers can reduce unnecessary biopsy for prostate cancer: data from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening in Goteborg, Sweden. BMC Med 6: 19, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Jung K,
    3. Soosaipillai A,
    4. Yousef GM,
    5. Cammann H,
    6. Meyer H,
    7. Xu C,
    8. Diamandis EP
    : Clinical utility of human glandular kallikrein 2 within a neural network for prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 96: 521-527, 2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. ↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Meyer HA,
    3. Cammann H,
    4. Nakamura T,
    5. Diamandis EP,
    6. Jung K
    : Improved prostate cancer detection with a human kallikrein 11 and percentage free PSA-based artificial neural network. Biol Chem 387: 801-805, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. ↵
    1. Emami N,
    2. Diamandis EP
    : Utility of kallikrein-related peptidases (KLKs) as cancer biomarkers. Clin Chem 54: 1600-1607, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  123. ↵
    1. Parekh DJ,
    2. Ankerst DP,
    3. Troyer D,
    4. Srivastava S,
    5. Thompson IM
    : Biomarkers for prostate cancer detection. J Urol 178: 2252-2259, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  124. ↵
    1. Scorilas A,
    2. Plebani M,
    3. Mazza S,
    4. Basso D,
    5. Soosaipillai AR,
    6. Katsaros N,
    7. Pagano F,
    8. Diamandis EP
    : Serum human glandular kallikrein (hK2) and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) improve the discrimination between prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia in combination with total and % free PSA. Prostate 54: 220-229, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  125. ↵
    1. Zhigang Z,
    2. Jieming L,
    3. Su L,
    4. Wenlu S
    : Serum insulin-like growth factor I/free prostate specific antigen (IGF-I/fPSA) ratio enhances prostate cancer detection in men with total PSA 4.0-10.0 ng/ml. J Surg Oncol 96: 54-61, 2007.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  126. ↵
    1. Aubin SM,
    2. Miick S,
    3. Williamsen S,
    4. Hodge P,
    5. Meinke J,
    6. Blase A,
    7. Hessels D,
    8. Schalken J,
    9. Rittenhouse H,
    10. Groskopf J
    : Improved prediction of prostate biopsy outcome using PCA3, TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion and serum PSA. J Urol Suppl 179: 725, 2008.
    OpenUrl
  127. ↵
    1. Hessels D,
    2. Smit FP,
    3. Verhaegh GW,
    4. Witjes JA,
    5. Cornel EB,
    6. Schalken JA
    : Detection of TMPRSS2-ERG fusion transcripts and prostate cancer antigen 3 in urinary sediments may improve diagnosis of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 13: 5103-5108, 2007.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research
Vol. 29, Issue 7
July 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
New Markers and Multivariate Models for Prostate Cancer Detection
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
4 + 10 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
New Markers and Multivariate Models for Prostate Cancer Detection
CARSTEN STEPHAN, HARRY RITTENHOUSE, HENNING CAMMANN, MICHAEL LEIN, MARK SCHRADER, SERDAR DEGER, KURT MILLER, KLAUS JUNG
Anticancer Research Jul 2009, 29 (7) 2589-2600;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
New Markers and Multivariate Models for Prostate Cancer Detection
CARSTEN STEPHAN, HARRY RITTENHOUSE, HENNING CAMMANN, MICHAEL LEIN, MARK SCHRADER, SERDAR DEGER, KURT MILLER, KLAUS JUNG
Anticancer Research Jul 2009, 29 (7) 2589-2600;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Serum Markers
    • Urine Markers
    • Multivariate Models with Available New Markers
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

  • Multicenter Evaluation of [-2]Proprostate-Specific Antigen and the Prostate Health Index for Detecting Prostate Cancer
  • Between-Method Differences in Prostate-Specific Antigen Assays Affect Prostate Cancer Risk Prediction by Nomograms
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Awareness, Utilization, and Barriers to Fluorescence Ureteral Navigation in Japan: A Nationwide Survey Study
  • Clinical Parameters and Radiomics of Vestibular Schwannomas in NF2-related Schwannomatosis
  • Prognostic Impact of Claudin18.2 and TROP2 Expression in Advanced Gastric Cancer Treated With Nivolumab
Show more Clinical Studies
Anticancer Research

© 2026 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire