pca3 score and prostate cancer diagnosis at repeated saturation biopsy. which cut-off: 20 or 35?

Clicks: 329
ID: 134561
2012
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #23 of 133 articles by views in psychotherapy and psychosomatics

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 133 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare PCA3 score cut-off of 35 vs 20 in PCa diagnosis in patients undergoing repeated saturation prostate biopsy (SPBx). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2010 to May 2011, 118 patients (median 62.5 years) with primary negative extended biopsy underwent a transperineal SPBx (median 30 cores) for persistent suspicion of PCa. The indications for repeated biopsy were: persistently high or increasing PSA values; PSA > 10 ng/mL, PSA values between 4.1-10 or 2.6-4 ng/mL with free/total PSA ≤ 25% and ≤ 20%, respectively; moreover, before performing SPBx urinary PCA3 score was evaluated. RESULTS: All patients had negative DRE and median PSA was 8.5 ng/mL (range: 3.7-24 ng/mL). A T1c PCa was found in 32 patients (27.1%): PCA3 score was 59 (median; range: 7-201) in the presence of PCa and 35 (median; range: 3-253) in the absence of cancer (p < 0.05). In the presence of ASAP and HGPIN median PCA3 score was 109 (range: 42-253) and 40 (range: 30-140), respectively. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of PCA3 score cut-off of 20 vs 35 in PCa diagnosis were 44.9 vs 50%, 90.6 vs 71.9%, 27.9 vs 41.8%, 31.9 vs 31.5% and 88.9 vs 80%, respectively. ROC analysis demonstrated an AUC for PCA3 ≥ 20 vs ≥ 35 of 0.678 and 0.634, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that PCA3 is more useful as an exclusion tool; moreover, setting a PCA3 cut-off at 20 vs 35, would have avoided 22.9 vs 38.1% of biopsies while missing 9.4% and 28% diagnosis of PCa.
Reference Key
pepe2012internationalpca3 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Pietro Pepe;Filippo Fraggetta;Antonio Galia;Giorgio Skonieczny;Francesco Aragona
Journal psychotherapy and psychosomatics
Year 2012
DOI
10.1590/S1677-55382012000400008
URL
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382012000400008
Keywords
prostate cancer diagnosis urology

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.