Abstract
Background
Screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) alone leads to un-necessary biopsying and overdiagnosis. PSA density is easily accessible, but early evidence on its use for biopsy decisions was conflicting and use of PSA density is not commonly recommended in guidelines.
Methods
We analyzed biopsy outcomes in 5291 men in the population-based STHLM3 study with PSA ≥ 3 ng/ml and ultrasound-guided prostate volume measurements by using percentages and regression models. PSA density was calculated as total PSA (ng/ml) divided by prostate volume (ml). Main endpoint was clinically significant cancer (csPCa) defined as Gleason Score ≥ 7.
Results
The median PSA-density was 0.10 ng/ml2 (IQR 0.075–0.14). PSA-density was associated with the risk of finding csPCa both with and without adjusting for the additional clinical information age, family history, previous biopsies, total PSA and free/total PSA (OR 1.06; 95% CI:1.05–1.07 and OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.06–1.08). Discrimination for csPCa was better when PSA density was added to a model with additional clinical information (AUC 0.75 vs. 0.73, P < 0.05). The proportion of men with Gleason Score 6 (ISUP 1) was similar across stratas of PSA-density. Omitting prostate biopsy for men with PSA-density ≤0.07 ng/ml2 would save 19.7% of biopsy procedures, while missing 6.9% of csPCa. PSA-density cutoffs of 0.10 ng/ml2 and 0.15 ng/ml2 resulted in detection of 77% (729/947) and 49% (461/947) of Gleason Score ≥7 tumors.
Conclusions
PSA-density might inform biopsy decisions, and spare some men from the morbidity associated with a prostate biopsy and diagnosis of low-grade prostate cancer.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 4 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $64.75 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TLJ, Zappa M, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2014;384:2027–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0
Stattin P, Carlsson S, Holmström B, Vickers A, Hugosson J, Lilja H, et al. Prostate cancer mortality in areas with high and low prostate cancer incidence. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106:dju007–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju007
Vickers AJ, Lilja H. Prostate cancer: estimating the benefits of PSA screening. Nat Rev Urol. 2009;6:301–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2009.95
Loeb S, van den Heuvel S, Zhu X, Bangma CH, Schröder FH, Roobol MJ. Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1110–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.12.058
Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2011;186:1830–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.06.057
Benson MC, Whang IS, Pantuck A, Ring K, Kaplan SA, Olsson CA, et al. Prostate specific antigen density: a means of distinguishing benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer. J Urol. 1992;147:815–6.
Lujan M, Paez A, Llanes L, Miravalles E, Berenguer A. Prostate specific antigen density. Is there a role this Parameter when screen prostate cancer? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2001;4:146–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500509
Gustafsson O, Mansour E, Norming U, Carlsson A, Tornblom M, Nyman CR. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density and age-adjusted PSA reference values in screening for prostate cancer--a study of a randomly selected population of 2,400 men. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1998;32:373–7.
Jue JS, Barboza MP, Prakash NS, Venkatramani V, Sinha VR, Pavan N, et al. Re-examining Prostate-specific Antigen (PSA) density: defining the optimal psa range and patients for using psa density to predict prostate cancer using extended template biopsy. Urology. 2017;105:123–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.04.015
Roobol MJ, van Vugt HA, Loeb S, Zhu X, Bul M, Bangma CH, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol. 2012;61:577–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.012
Grönberg H, Adolfsson J, Aly M, Nordström T, Wiklund P, Brandberg Y, et al. Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50-69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1667–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00361-7
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003
Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, Bahnson RR, Barocas DA, Catalona WJ, et al. Prostate cancer early detection, version 1.2014. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014;12:1211–9.
Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, Konishi T, Hirai M, Kobayashi Y, et al. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients. BJU Int. 2017;119:225–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13465
Catalona WJ, Southwick PC, Slawin KM, Partin AW, Brawer MK, Flanigan RC, et al. Comparison of percent free PSA, PSA density, and age-specific PSA cutoffs for prostate cancer detection and staging. Urology. 2000;56:255–60.
Brawer MK, ARAMBURU E, CHEN GL, PRESTON SD, Ellis WJ. The inability of prostate-specific antigen index to enhance the predictive value of prostate-specific antigen in the diagnosis of prostatic-carcinoma. J Urol. 1993;150:369–73.
Benson MC, McMahon DJ, Cooner WH, Olsson CA. An algorithm for prostate cancer detection in a patient population using prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen density. World J Urol. 1993;11:206–13.
Stephan C, Stroebel G, Heinau M, Lenz A, Roemer A, Lein M, et al. The ratio of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to prostate volume (PSA density) as a parameter to improve the detection of prostate carcinoma in PSA values in the range of <4 ng/mL. Cancer. 2005;104:993–1003. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21267
Foley RW, Maweni RM, Gorman L, Murphy K, Lundon DJ, Durkan G, et al. European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators significantly outperform the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int. 2016;118:706–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13437
Bryant RJ, Sjoberg DD, Vickers AJ, Robinson MC, Kumar R, Marsden L, et al. Predicting high-grade cancer at ten-core prostate biopsy using four kallikrein markers measured in blood in the ProtecT study. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv095–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv095
Grönberg H, Adolfsson J, Aly M, Nordström T, Wiklund P, Brandberg Y, et al Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50-69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1667–76.
Nordström T, Vickers A, Assel M, Lilja H, Grönberg H, Eklund M. Comparison between the four-kallikrein panel and prostate health index for predicting prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:139–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.010
Loeb S, Shin SS, Broyles DL, Wei JT, Sanda M, Klee G, et al. Prostate health index improves multivariable risk prediction of aggressive prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017;120:61–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13676
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389:815–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, Kesch C, Schlemmer H-P, Wieczorek K, et al. The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. J Urol. 2017;198:575–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.130
Murciano-Goroff YR, Wolfsberger LD, Parekh A, Fennessy FM, Tuncali K, Orio PF, et al. Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9:200. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-200
Acknowledgements
We thank all study participants, the STHLM3 core management group for taking care of all contact with participants, organizing the databases and performing analyses; KI Biobank at Karolinska Institutet for taking care of blood sampling and sample handling; Karolinska University Hospital Laboratory for organizing sample handling and analysis; the STHLM3 outpatient urologists taking care of patients and performing biopsies; and Unilabs AB for biopsy handling.
Funding
This study was supported by grants from the Strategic Research Programme on Cancer (StratCan), Karolinska Institutet; the Linné Centre for Breast and Prostate Cancer (CRISP, 70867901), Karolinska Institutet; the Swedish Research Council (K2010–70X-20430–04–3; 2015-03292); the Swedish Cancer Society (11–0287; 2015/649); Stiftelsen Johanna Hagstrand och Sigfrid Linners Minne; and FORTE 2015-00184. The funding source had no role in the study design; collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; writing of the report; or the decision to submit the article for publication. The researchers were all independent from the funding source.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
HG and ME have patents pending related to the Stockholm3 test. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nordström, T., Akre, O., Aly, M. et al. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21, 57–63 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-017-0024-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-017-0024-7
This article is cited by
-
PSA-density, DRE, and PI-RADS 5: potential surrogates for omitting biopsy?
World Journal of Urology (2024)
-
Manual prostate MRI segmentation by readers with different experience: a study of the learning progress
European Radiology (2024)
-
Advancements in biosensors for cancer detection: revolutionizing diagnostics
Medical Oncology (2024)
-
PI-RADS upgrading as the strongest predictor for the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with initial PI-RADS-3 lesions
World Journal of Urology (2024)
-
Update Prostatakarzinom
CME (2024)