Prostate cancer (PCa) represents the second most common solid cancer in men worldwide. In the last decades, the prostate health index (PHI) emerged as a reliable biomarker for detecting PCa and differentiating between non-aggressive and aggressive forms. However, before introducing it in clinical practice, more evidence is required. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for assessing the diagnostic performance of PHI for PCa and for detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa).
Relevant publications were identified by a systematic literature search on PubMed and Web of Science from inception to January 11, 2022.
Sixty studies, including 14,255 individuals, met the inclusion criteria for our meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PHI for PCa detection was 0.791 (95%CI 0.739–0.834) and 0.625 (95%CI 0.560–0.686), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PHI for csPCa detection was 0.874 (95%CI 0.803–0.923) and 0.569 (95%CI 0.458–0.674), respectively. Additionally, the diagnostic odds ratio was 6.302 and 9.206, respectively, for PCa and csPCa detection, suggesting moderate to good effectiveness of PHI as a diagnostic test.
PHI has a high accuracy for detecting PCa and discriminating between aggressive and non-aggressive PCa. Thus, it could be useful as a biomarker in predicting patients harbouring more aggressive cancer and guiding biopsy decisions.
Prostate cancer (PCa) represents the most common solid tumour in men over 60 years and the second leading cause of cancer death in men, after lung cancer .
PCa is a very heterogeneous disease characterised by a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, ranging from clinically insignificant forms to lethal castration-resistant ones. It has been estimated that more than 50% of patients has a low risk of progression . In these patients, active surveillance instead of a radical surgery procedure is recommended. Noteworthy, the over-diagnosis and over-treatment of indolent tumours is major trouble associated with PCa. Thus, the early identification and the appropriate management of the patients is fundamental. In this scenario, laboratory medicine has a key role. Worldwide, the PCa screening is based on the use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA). It is a serine protease, which physiologically dissolves seminal clots. The circulating PSA consists of 80–95% complexed forms and the small remaining proportion of free form. The test for measuring total PSA (tPSA) levels, including both complexed and free PSA (fPSA), was developed and approved by the Food and Drug Administration for PCa over 30 years ago . However, the PSA-based screening has several drawbacks. First, PSA is organ-specific and not cancer-specific. Although it has high sensitivity, it has poor specificity and low positive predictive value (PPV), resulting in unnecessary biopsies. Additionally, PSA cannot accurately identify aggressive PCa , leading to over-diagnosing and over-treatment in patients with low-risk disease that may not require active clinical intervention. Indeed, up to 42% of PCa detected based on PSA are clinically insignificant. Consequently, the identification of patients with clinically significant PCa (csPCa), which requires treatment, is one of the main concerns in daily practice. Finally, PSA levels are influenced by several factors, such as benign prostatic hyperplasia, infection, age, and drug [5, 6]. Thus, there is active research for identifying reliable biomarkers to guide Clinicians in the detection of PCa and its aggressive forms to appropriately treat the patient.
In the last decades, a role for the different forms of PSA has emerged. In the early 1990s, literature evidence showed that increased levels of fPSA are commonly associated with benign conditions [7, 8]. Noteworthy, fPSA consists of three different forms: benign PSA, intact inactive PSA, and proPSA. Among these, proPSA is the form associated with PCa. proPSA has several molecular isoforms, including [−2], [−4], and [−5, −7] . The [−2] proPSA (p2PSA) is the most stable in serum. In 2010, the Beckman Coulter introduced an automated immunoassay for its detection and developed an index, namely the prostate health index (PHI), which is calculated by a mathematical combination of the values of tPSA, fPSA, and p2PSA, according to the following formula: (proPSA/fPSA)×√tPSA. In 2012, the FDA approved PHI for PCa detection in men with the following characteristics: (i) older than 50 years; (ii) PSA between 4 and 10 µg/L; (iii) or a non-suspicious digital rectal examination (DRE) . Additionally, some Authors showed that PHI outperforms tPSA and fPSA in the detection of csPCa [11, 12].
Although several Authors showed that PHI has good analytical performance for detecting PCa, the European Association of Urology stated that there is too limited evidence to implement these tests into routine screening programs . Also, the American Urological Association has declared that more evidence is required to confirm the reliability of PHI to decrease the number of unnecessary biopsies while keeping the capacity to detect csPCa .
The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of PHI for detecting PCa and identifying csPCa.
Materials and methods
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines 2020 . All studies investigating the diagnostic efficacy of PHI for PCa detection were searched for inclusion.
Literature search strategy
Two reviewers systematically and independently (LA and MV) performed a comprehensive electronic search of PubMed and Web of Science. The following Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms “Prostate Health Index”, “PHI”, “cancer prostate” and “tumor prostate” were used to search articles. No publication date restriction was applied, and the date of our search was until January 11, 2022.
The inclusion criteria were: (i) retrospective and prospective study design; (ii) English language; (iii) sufficient data provided to calculate the outcome; (iv) PCa diagnosis confirmed on biopsy.
Exclusion criteria were: (i) evaluation of only the prognostic role of PHI; (ii) lack of evaluation of PHI accuracy; (iii) letters, case reports, animal studies, reviews, and meta-analysis (vi) other languages than English; (v) full-text not found.
Two authors (LA and MV) independently collected data referring to studies and patient characteristics. The extracted information from each study included the first author’s name and year of publication, study design, inclusion criteria, study population, nr of positive biopsy, nr of csPCa, the calibration system used (WHO vs. Hybritech), PHI cut-off value, outcome data [sensitivity, specificity, true positive (TP), false negative (FP), true negative (TN), false positive (FP)].
Meta-analytical summaries of PHI performance were calculated following the bivariate binomial approach by fitting a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) , , . Summary pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated by R Language v. 4.0.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and RStudio IDE v.1.3.1093 (RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA) with the lme4, mada and meta packages . Pooled results were confirmed by importing data into the interactive application MetaDTA (Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis v. 2.01) hosted on the shinyapps server and available at https://crsu.shinyapps.io/dta_ma/ [20, 21]. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model parameters estimated by MetaDTA (lambda or accuracy parameter, theta or cut-point parameter, beta or shape parameter, the variance of the accuracy parameter and the variance of threshold parameter) were imported into the software Review Manager (RevMan) v. 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) to obtain the HSROC plots . Heterogeneity across the studies was evaluated by plotting sensitivities and specificities, together with their 95%CI, by Forest and Crosshair plots  and by inconsistency index (I2), calculated as 100%*(Q − df)/Q, where Q is Cochran’s heterogeneity statistic and df the degrees of freedom. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot and Deeks’s formal test.
The process of study selection is schematically presented in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1). After the removal of duplicates, a total of 371 articles were obtained. After screening the title and abstracts, 273 studies were excluded because they were literature review, case reports, letters, or meta-analysis; they did not measure PHI; they did not evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of PHI for PCa detection. The full text of 92 studies was further evaluated. Finally, a total of 60 studies were included, 42 for PCa and 18 for csPCa analysis.
Study characteristics and quality assessment
The main characteristics of all the studies included in the meta-analysis are reported in Table 1.
|Authors [ref]||Study design||Country||Inclusion criteria||Study population||Positive biopsy||csPCa||Calibrators|
|Chiu et al. 2021 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Taiwan||PSA 2–10 μg/L, and/or a suspicious DRE||412||134||94||Hybrithech|
|Ferro et al. 2021 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Italy||PSA 2–10 μg/L, and/or a suspicious DRE||196||142||90||WHO|
|Garrido et al. 2021 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Portugal||PSA between 2 and 10 μg/L and no previous history of PCa, irrespective of the DRE findings||237||118||100||Hybritech|
|Stejskal et al. 2021 ||Multicentric prospective observational||Czech republic||Men planned for a prostate biopsy for elevated total PSA levels with negative DRE at four different hospitals||395||296||–||NA|
|Kim et al. 2020 ||Multicentric prospective observational||UK||Increased PSA and mpMRI||545||395||256||NA|
|Nassir et al. 2020 ||Monocentric retrospective observational||Saudi Arabia||tPSA of 4–10 μg/L, who were initially underwent prostate biopsy||194||71||–||NA|
|Othman et al. 2020 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Malaysia||Consecutive men undergoing TRUS prostate biopsy for suspected PCa with tPSA level of ≤20 μg/L||84||25||8||Hybritech|
|Barisiene et al. 2020 ||Multicentric prospective observational||Lithuania||Males older than 50 years old with tPSA range from 2 to 10 μg/L and normal DRE referred for prostate biopsies||210||112||81||Hybritech|
|Ito et al. 2020 ||Multicentric prospective observational||Japan||(1) serum PSA higher than the age stratified cut-offs of 3 ng/mL at ages 50–64 years, 3.5 μg/L at 65–69 years and 4 ng/mL at 70 years old or older, and 10 ng/mL or less; (2) an initial prostate systematic biopsy within 3 months after informed consent; (3) the number of biopsy cores restricted to 12 to 20 with acceptance of an additional target biopsy of a hypoechoic region by transrectal ultrasound or a suspicious region by MRI; (4) men between ages 50 and 79 years; (5) TRUS findings of abnormality, and total and transition zone prostate volume within 6 months before prostate biopsy; and (6) optional MRI before prostate biopsy||363||179||–||NA|
|Kopecký et al. 2020 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Poland||Patients suspected of having PCa||55||31||–||NA|
|Stojadinovic et al. 2020 ||Monocentric retrospective observational||Serbia||Men with PSA ≤10.0 μg/L who underwent transrectal, ultrasound guided prostate biopsy and PHI testing||200||88||35||NA|
|Hsieh et al. 2020 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Asian||Patients who were more than 40 years and underwent prostate biopsy for suspicious PCa due to elevated serum PSA level (PSA >4 μg/L) and/or abnormal findings on DRE||102||39||24||NA|
|Lopes et al. 2019 ||Monocentric retrospective observational||NA||Patients with PHI test and 3 T MR exam with at least one suspicious MR identified lesion with a PI-RADS score of ≥3 prior to biopsy.||233||82||–||NA|
|Jagalarmudi et al. 2019 ||Monocentric prospective observational||NA||Suspicion of PCa owing to a serum PSA level between 2 and 10 μg/L||140||49||–||WHO|
|Cheng et al. 2019 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Taiwan||Patients underwent TRUSP biopsy for suspected prostate cancer, including patients with abnormal tPSA >4 μg/L <10 μg/L, or patients with abnormal DRE findings, whose tPSA <10 ng/mL||121||33||21||Hybritech|
|Sriplakich et al. 2018 ||Monocentric prospective observational||All patients with a serum PSA of 4 and 10 ng/mL and nonsuspicious DRE of prostate cancer||101||16||–||NA|
|Hsieh et al. 2018 ||Monocentric prospective observational||China||Patients aged 50–75 years and a serum total PSA level 4.0 and 10.0 μg/L, with or without an abnormal DRE||154||36||26||NA|
|Dolejsova et al. 2018 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Czech republic||Patients with the biopsy and following radical prostatectomy||320||320||225||NA|
|Park et al. 2018 ||Multicentric prospective observational||Korea||Consecutive men aged 60–75 years with tPSA ≥3.5 μg/L who underwent their first prostate biopsy for suspected PCa||246||125||–||NA|
|Al Saidi et al. 2017 ||Multicentric prospective observational||Oman||All men scheduled for prostate biopsy in their workup management during the study period||136||28||17||Hybritech|
|Na et al. 2017 ||Multicentric prospective observational||China||(1) tPSA level >10.0 μg/L;(2) tPSA level >4.0 μg/L with confirmation after 2–3 months; (3) %fPSA<0.16 when patients had a total PSA level >4.0 μg/L; and (4) suspicious lesions detected by DRE or ultrasound at any level of tPSA||1,538||618||–||NA|
|Vukovic et al. 2017 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Serbia||Patients with age over 50 years, no previous history of PC, normal DRE findings, serum PSA in interval between 2 and 10 μg/L, and minimally 12 biopsy cores taken from patient||129||65||–||NA|
|Furuya et al. 2017 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Japan||tPSA values of 2.0–10.0 μg/L and the performance of MRI before the biopsy||50||33||–||NA|
|Friedl et al. 2017 ||Monocentric retrospective observational||Austria||Suspicious prostate MRI||112||62||31||NA|
|Tan et al. 2017 (A) ||Monocentric prospective observational||Japan||Patients with at least one PI-RADS 3 or higher lesion on mpMRI and who underwent both targeted and systematic prostatic biopsies in the same session||115||51||40||NA|
|Tan et al. 2017 (B) ||Multicentric prospective observational||Malaysia||Patients 50–75 years of age with normal DRE in a total PSA range of 4–10 μg/L||157||30||19||NA|
|Chiu et al. 2016 ||Monocentric prospective observational||China||Patients with PSA 4–10 μg/L and non-suspicious DRE, with or without lower urinary tract symptoms, who consented before prostate biopsy.||569||62||16||Hybritech|
|Morote et al. 2016 ||Monocentric retrospective observational||Spain||Men younger than 75 and tPSA between 3 and 10 μg/L, scheduled to their first TRUS guided biopsy||183||68||45||NA|
|Lazzeri et al. 2016 ||Multicentric retrospective observational||Italy, France, Spain, Germany, UK||Patients >45 years of age with or without a positive DRE, with or without a previous negative biopsy with a tPSA 4–10 μg/L||262||136||106||NA|
|Yu et al. 2016 ||Multicentric prospective observational||China||(1) tPSA >4.0 μg/L; (2) %fPSA ratio <0.16; (3) PSAD >0.15; or (4) presence of prostate nodules detected by DRE or ultrasound||261||67||30||NA|
|Fuchsova et al. 2015 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Czech republic||Patients suspected of having PCa, with total PSA ranging from 0 to 20 μg/L, and underwent TRUS biopsies.||263||113||–||NA|
|Mearini et al. 2015 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Italy||NA||43||43||14||NA|
|Loeb et al. 2015 ||Multicentric prospective observational||USA||Men 50 years old or older with PSA 2–10 μg/L and benign findings on DRE||658||324||160||NA|
|Seisen et al. 2015 ||Monocentric prospective observational||France||Consecutive patients undergoing a first prostate biopsy for suspected PCa, based on at PSA ranging from 4 to 20 μg/L and/or an abnormal DRE||138||62||39||Hybritech|
|Fossati et al. 2015 ||Multicentric retrospective observational||Italy, France, Spain, Germany, UK||Patients undergoing prostate biopsy for suspected PCa according to indications from their referring physicians, enrolled in the PROMEtheuS project who were aged<60 years||238||67||–||NA|
|Mearini et al. 2014 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Italy||Patients with a tPSA between 2.0 and 10 μg/L||275||86||–||NA|
|Filella et al. 2014 ||Monocentric prospective and retrospective observational||Spain||Patients selected for biopsy because of an elevated serum PSA level and/or abnormal DRE, as well as patients diagnosed of prostate cancer and referred to our hospital for treatment||354||175||70||NA|
|Porpiglia et al. 2014 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Italy||Persistently increased PSA and/or positive DRE||170||52||24||Hybritech|
|Ng et al. 2014 ||Monocentric retrospective observational||China||Patients who are suspected of having PCa, because of either an elevated level of serum PSA or an abnormal DRE||320||21||–||WHO|
|Lazzeri et al. 2014 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Italy, France, Spain, Germany, UK||Patients >45 yr of age with or without a positive DRE in a total PSA range of 2–10 μg/L||646||264||–||NA|
|Scattoni et al. 2013 ||Multicentric prospective observational||Italy||PSA between 2 and 15 μg/L, and/or positive DRE, who performed PBx||211||70||–||Hybritech|
|Ferro et al. 2013 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Italy||Men aged over 50 years, no prior prostate surgery and biopsy, no bacterial acute or chronic prostatitis, no use of 5-a reductase inhibitors, PSA values included between 2 and 10 μg/L, availability of serum samples and corresponding clinical data and completion of at least a 16 core template biopsy after enrolment||300||108||–||WHO|
|Lazzeri et al. 2013 ||Multicentric retrospective observational||Italy, France, Spain, Germany, UK||Sub-analysis of PRO-PSA multicentric European study (PROMEtheuS). The overall study population included patients undergoing prostate biopsy for suspected PCa according to indications from their referring physicians. Inclusion was limited to patients enrolled in thePROMEtheuS project who had a first-degree relative(father, brother, son) with PCa||158||71||47||NA|
|Stephan et al. 2013 (A) ||Multicentric prospective and retrospective observational||France, Germany||tPSA results between 1.6 and 8.0 μg/L||1,362||668||228||WHO|
|Stephan et al. 2013 (B) ||Multicentric prospective observational||Germany||Men scheduled for prostate biopsy owing to suspicious DRE, suspicious TRUS, or increased PSA concentration or PSA velocity||246||110||43||WHO|
|Perdonà et al. 2013 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Italy||Men undergoing first biopsy||160||47||19||–|
|Ferro et al. 2012 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Italy||Men aged over 50 years, no prior prostate surgery and biopsy, no bacterial acute or chronic prostatitis, no use of 5-α reductase inhibitors in the previous six months, PSA values included between 2 and 20 μg/L, negative DRE||151||48||36||–|
|Guazzoni et al. 2011 ||Monocentric prospective observational||Italy||Men with tPSA 2.0–10 μg/L and negative DRE who were scheduled for prostate biopsy||268||107||52||–|
|Liang et al. 2011 ||Monocentric retrospective observational||USA||PSA exceeding 2.5 μg/L, abnormal DRE or a family history of PCa||474||227||69||–|
csPCA, clinically significant prostate cancer; DRE, digital rectal exam; PSA, prostate specific antigen; tPSA, total PSA; mpMRI, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; TRUS, transrectal ultrasound; PHI, prostate health index; PI-RADS, prostate imaging reporting and data system; TRUSP, transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy; PSAD, PSA density; PBx, prostate biopsy; NA, not available information
|First author and year of publication [ref]||PHI cut-off||Se||Sp||n||PCa||TP||FN||TN||FP|
|Guazzoni et al. 2011 ||48.5||0.429||0.9||268||107||46||61||145||16|
|Liang et al. 2011 ||39.09||0.38||0.8||474||227||86||141||198||49|
|Ferro et al. 2012 ||38.7||0.85||0.61||151||48||41||7||63||40|
|Ferro et al. 2013 ||31.6||0.9||0.4||300||108||97||11||77||115|
|Lazzeri et al. 2013 ||40.3||0.648||0.713||158||71||46||25||62||25|
|Perdonà et al. 2013 ||43.77||0.66||0.72||160||47||31||16||81||32|
|Scattoni et al. 2013 ||28.3||0.9||0.31||116||40||36||4||24||52|
|Stephan et al. 2013 (A) ||NA||0.9||0.354||1,362||668||601||67||246||448|
|Stephan et al. 2013 (B) ||27.5||0.9||0.213||246||110||99||11||29||107|
|Filella et al. 2014 ||46.89||0.663||0.715||354||175||116||59||128||51|
|Lazzeri et al. 2014 ||41.5||0.629||0.623||646||264||166||98||238||144|
|Mearini et al. 2014 ||37.1||0.919||0.386||275||86||79||7||73||116|
|Ng et al. 2014 ||26.54||0.9||0.4976||230||21||19||2||104||105|
|Porpiglia et al. 2014 ||48.9||0.409||0.78||170||52||21||31||92||26|
|Fossati et al. 2015 ||41.2||0.642||0.632||238||67||43||24||108||63|
|Fuchsova et al. 2015 ||40||0.84||0.63||263||113||95||18||95||55|
|Loeb et al. 2015 ||31.3||0.8||0.461||658||324||259||65||154||180|
|Seisen et al. 2015 ||40||0.435||0.671||138||62||27||35||51||25|
|Chiu et al. 2016 ||35||0.613||0.822||569||62||38||24||417||90|
|Lazzeri et al. 2016 ||63.9||0.728||0.731||262||136||99||37||92||34|
|Morote et al. 2016 ||28.98||0.9||0.278||183||68||61||7||32||83|
|Yu et al. 2016 ||38.59||0.91||0.567||261||67||61||6||110||84|
|Al Saidi et al. 2017 ||41.9||0.821||0.806||136||28||23||5||87||21|
|Tan et al. 2017 ||26.75||0.9||0.5827||157||30||27||3||74||53|
|Friedl et al. 2017 ||40||0.92||0.33||112||62||57||5||17||33|
|Furuya et al. 2017 ||38.7||0.636||0.765||50||33||21||12||13||4|
|Na et al. 2017 ||32||0.945||05,228||1,538||618||584||34||481||439|
|Vukovic et al. 2017 ||41.67||0.641||0.625||129||65||42||23||40||24|
|Hsieh et al. 2018 ||29.6||0.778||0.678||154||36||28||8||80||38|
|Park et al. 2018 ||22.9||0.9||0.683||246||125||113||12||83||38|
|Sriplakich et al. 2018 ||34.14||0.75||0.753||101||16||12||4||64||21|
|Cheng et al. 2019 ||21.62||0.9||0.273||121||33||30||3||24||64|
|Jagalarmudi et al. 2019 ||21.33||0.9||0.24||140||49||44||5||22||69|
|Lopes et al. 2019 ||45.9||0.73||0.77||121||33||24||9||68||20|
|Barisiene et al. 2020 ||44.49||0.563||0.837||210||112||63||49||82||16|
|Ito el a. 2020 ||NA||0.9||0.358||363||179||161||18||66||118|
|Kopecky et al. 2020 ||36.4||0.774||0.667||55||31||24||7||16||8|
|Othman et al. 2020 ||30.2||0.76||0.641||84||25||19||6||38||21|
|Nassir et al. 2020 ||33.14||0.831||0.797||194||71||59||12||98||25|
|Ferro et al. 2021 ||42.7||0.908||0.963||196||142||129||13||52||2|
|Garrido et al. 2021 ||37.96||0.7034||0.7899||237||118||83||35||94||25|
|Stejskal et al. 2021 ||40.775||0.657||0.763||395||296||194||102||76||23|
Se, sensitivity; Sp, specificity; n, number; PCa, prostate cancer; TP, true positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative; FP, false positive; NA, not available information.
|First author and year of publication [ref]||PHI cut-off||Se||Sp||n||csPCa||TP||FN||TN||FP|
|Loeb et al. 2015 ||33.8||0.8||0.455||639||160||128||32||218||261|
|Mearini et al. 2015 ||67.6||0.8667||0.857||43||14||12||2||25||4|
|Seisen et al. 2015 ||40||0.667||0.737||138||39||26||13||73||26|
|Chiu et al. 2016 ||35||0.813||0.754||569||16||13||3||417||136|
|Morote et al. 2016 ||17.83||0.95||0.244||183||45||43||2||34||104|
|Tan et al. 2017 ||26.75||0.9||0.551||157||19||17||2||76||62|
|Tan et al. 2017 ||27||1||0.44||115||40||40||0||33||42|
|Furuya et al. 2017 ||30.7||0.857||0.345||50||21||18||3||10||19|
|Na et al. 2017 ||32||0.9754||0.479||1,538||488||476||12||503||547|
|Dolejsova et al. 2018 ||34.36||0.9511||0.2105||320||225||214||11||20||75|
|Barisiene et al. 2020 ||44.47||0.691||0.814||210||81||56||25||105||24|
|Hsieh et al. 2020 ||30||0.917||0.436||102||24||22||2||34||44|
|Stojadinovic et al. 2020 ||30.7||0.971||0.376||200||35||34||1||62||103|
|Chiu et al. 2021 ||31||0.9||0.453||412||94||85||9||144||174|
|Ferro et al. 2021 ||61.68||0.533||0.885||196||90||48||42||94||12|
|Garrido et al. 2021 ||37.96||0.78||0.781||237||100||78||22||107||30|
|Kim et al. 2021 ||33.4||0.9||0.4||140||48||43||5||37||55|
|Stejskal et al. 2021 ||49.47||0.595||0.73||395||364||217||147||23||8|
Se, sensitivity; Sp, specificity; N, number; csPCa, clinically significant prostate cancer; TP, true positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative; FP, false positive; NA, not available information.
For PCa studies (n=42), the sample size included was between 50 and 1,538, with cut-off, sensitivity and specificity ranging, respectively, from 21.3 to 63.9, from 0.380 to 0.945 and from 0.213 to 0.963 (Table 2). For csPCa studies (n=18), the sample size included was between 43 and 1,538, with cut-off, sensitivity and specificity ranging, respectively, from 17.8 to 67.6, from 0.533 to 1.000 and from 0.211 to 0.885 (Table 3). The forest plots and the crosshair plots for sensitivity and specificity across the studies for PCa and csPCa, are reported in Figures 2 –6. The plots suggest high variability for both sensitivity and specificity. No publication bias was detected by inspection of the funnel plot and formal Deeks’s test (p=0.659 and p=0.065, respectively for PCa and csPCa studies).
Diagnostic accuracy of PHI for detecting PCa and csPCa
Due to the high heterogeneity observed in the sensitivity and specificity data [respectively, I2 93.6% (95%CI 92.1%–94.7%) and 95.3% (95%CI 94.4%–96.1%) for PCa studies; 92.3% (95%CI 89.3%–94.5%) and 95.4% (95%CI 94.0%–96.6%) for csPCa], a random-effects model was applied. Meta-analytical summaries of PHI performances were obtained following a bivariate binomial method by fitting a GLMM.
For PCa studies, penalized or unpenalized goodness-of-fit measures were AIC=688.1, BIC=700.2, LogLikelihood=−339.0 and deviance=678.1. The variance-covariance matrix of parameter estimates showed, respectively, variance of the logit(sensitivity)=0.0213, variance of the log(specificity)=0.0190 and covariance=−0.0129. Pooled results were as follows: sensitivity 0.791 (95%CI 0.739–0.834), specificity 0.625 (95%CI 0.560–0.686), positive likelihood ratio 2.110 (95%CI 1.838–2.424), negative likelihood ratio 0.335 (95%CI 0.280–0.401) and DOR 6.302 (95%CI 4.976–7.980).
For csPCa studies, penalized or unpenalized goodness-of-fit measures were AIC=281.6, BIC=289.5, LogLikelihood=−135.8 and deviance=271.6. The variance-covariance matrix of parameter estimates showed, respectively, variance of the logit(sensitivity)=0.0752, variance of the log(specificity)=0.0517 and covariance=−0.0460. Pooled results were as follows: sensitivity 0.874 (95%CI 0.803–0.923), specificity 0.569 (95%CI 0.458–0.674), positive likelihood ratio 2.030 (95%CI 1.647–2.502), negative likelihood ratio 0.220 (95%CI 0.155–0.314) and DOR 9.206 (95%CI 6.384–13.276).
The HSROC plots in Figures 7 and 8 report the points representing the sensitivity-specificity pairs of the single PCa and csPCA studies, the summary operating point (summary values for sensitivity and specificity) and the summary ROC curve, together with the 95% confidence region around the summary operating point and the 95% prediction region.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the accuracy of PHI as a biomarker of PCa and csPCa by analysing results from 60 studies, including a total of 14,255 individuals. The main findings of our meta-analysis can be summarised as follows: (i) the pooled sensitivity and specificity of PHI for PCa detection were 0.791 (95%CI 0.739–0.834) and 0.625 (95%CI 0.560–0.686), respectively; (ii) the pooled sensitivity and specificity of PHI for csPCa detection were 0.874 (95%CI 0.803–0.923) and 0.569 (95%CI 0.458–0.674), respectively; (iii) DOR was 6.302 and 9.206, respectively for PCa and csPCa detection, suggesting moderate to good effectiveness of PHI as a diagnostic test. Overall, our findings suggest that PHI has a high accuracy for detecting PCa and discriminating between aggressive and non-aggressive PCa. Thus, it could be useful as a biomarker in predicting patients harbouring more aggressive cancer and guiding biopsy decisions.
The early detection of PCa and the discrimination between benign and malignant forms is fundamental for the appropriate intervention. The gold standard for PCa diagnosis remains the biopsy. However, the laboratory has a key role in early identifying patients at high risk of PCa, eligible for biopsy. The most widely used screening biomarker worldwide is PSA. In the past, a one-size-fits-all approach based on PSA was used for early identifying PCa and consequently determining the need for prostate biopsy in all men. However, PSA is characterised by a low specificity for PCa and it is not associated with the aggressiveness of cancer. In the last decades, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate has emerged as the gold standard for predicting positive biopsy . The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score released by an international collaboration of the American College of Radiology (ACR) and European Society of Uroradiology (ESUR) in 2015 is a structured reporting schema that helps to determine the risk of csPCa on prostate mpMRI. The PI-RADS score ranges from 1 to 5 and it should be interpreted as follows: 1–2=low risk of PCa; 3=intermediate risk of PCa; and 4–5=high risk of PCa. PI-RADS 3 represents a “gray zone”, with only 15% of patients having PCa. Additionally, PPV has been reported to be 0.49 for csPCa, and a few patients with a negative mpMRI have high-grade PCa . Thus, mrMRI presents some limitations in selecting patients to undergo biopsy , , . It should also be considered that mpMRI is an expensive tool and requires an experienced radiologist.
The drawbacks of PSA and mpMRI could be overcome by the most recent developed index PHI.
The latter should be used in clinical practice as a complementary test to PSA and mpMRI. Indeed, PHI should be evaluated when PSA has a value within the “gray zone”, between 2 and 10 µg/L, allowing to spare unnecessary biopsies and to select patients for active surveillance. Similarly, it could be used when a PI-RADS 3 is obtained. Some Authors also tested if PHI could be used as an alternative test to mpMRI, but less evidence is available to date [25, 27, 61].
Interestingly, our data show that PHI could reliably detect patients with more aggressive PCa. The association between PHI and PCa aggressiveness is supported by literature evidence. Several Authors reported a significant correlation between PHI levels and histological features of tumor malignancy, such as grade, stage, and volume, evaluated after radical prostatectomy [78, 79]. Additionally, some Authors showed that PHI could predict the biochemical recurrence (BCR) of the PCa [80, 81]. The performance of PHI for predicting csPCa has been evaluated alone or in combination with other tools. Hsieh et al. showed that the combination of mpMRI and PHI has a better predictive power for csPCa than PHI and mpMRI alone and would have avoided up to 50% of biopsies while missing only one csPCa patient . Kim et al. proposed a strategy based on the use of PHI as a triage test for identifying patients eligible for mpMRI and/or biopsy . Such a strategy could be effective, efficient, and cheap, allowing the selection of only high-risk patients for more laborious and expensive investigations. Foj et al. recently developed a nomogram also incorporating PHI to address the individual probability of aggressive PCa in patients at biopsy . Similarly, Loeb et al. developed a nomogram including PHI , showing that adding PHI to currently available risk prediction tools significantly improved the prediction of aggressive prostate cancer.
Some observations should be made because some issues hamper the introduction of PHI in clinical practice. First, there is no consensus on the optimal decisional cut-off for both detecting PCa and csPCa, with a high variability of proposed PHI values, ranging from 21.33 to 63.9 for PCa and from 26.7 to 67.6 for csPCa. This could be related to the high heterogeneity among studies in terms of sample size, inclusion criteria adopted, and the use of different calibrations (Table 1). Specifically, the Beckman Coulter gives the possibility to calibrate the PSA according to the Hybritech method or the WHO standard. However, there is a discrepancy of 16–20% between the PHI values obtained using the two calibrations, with WHO calibration turning out lower PHI values than Hybritech ones . Thus, different cut-offs should be adopted according to the calibration method chosen. Additionally, some Authors established the best cut-off PHI according to the Youden Index, others according to the best sensitivity and others according to the best specificity. When selecting a test cut-off, which maximises sensitivity or specificity or a trade-off between them, several elements should be taken into consideration, among them the prevalence of the disease in the population or in a particular subgroup, combination with the result of other biomarkers or procedures (i.e. DRE, PSA), risk of unnecessary further procedures (i.e. biopsy) and potential post-procedure complications, missed diagnoses and economic impact. Although some cost-consequence analysis studies have been performed to assess the impact of different PHI cut-offs, it is not entirely clear if these results are applicable to different populations, at what stage of the diagnostic process or with other biomarkers PHI should be used, or if missed diagnoses are true missed or instead delayed diagnoses . It is reasonable to argue that different cut-offs could be applied to different subgroups of patients based on disease prevalence or a specific diagnostic strategy (rule-in vs. rule-out, single vs. multiple biomarkers, population vs. high-risk patients). Many other studies are needed to evaluate and define specific PHI cut-offs.
Finally, prostate volume (PV) could influence the heterogeneity of PHI results among studies. Interestingly, Filella et al. showed that the diagnostic performance of PHI changes according to PV, with the highest accuracy in patients with small prostate volume . Moreover, several Authors described an association between PV and PCa as well as tPSA. Accordingly, the PHI density (PHID), calculated as PHI/PV, has been introduced. Mearini et al. first assessed the value of PHID in PCa detection showing a good diagnostic accuracy but comparable to those of PHI . Tosoian et al. found that PHID outperformed PHI for detecting csPCa . Conversely, Friedl et al. reported a higher AUC of PHI than PHID . Stephan et al., in a prospective large cohort study showed that PHID had better accuracy than PHI for detecting PCa but not csPCa . Overall, the contrasting literature evidence achieved to date cannot to draw conclusions whether PV could improve the predictive ability of PHI. Thus, more studies are required to evaluate the usefulness of PHID for PCa and csPCa detection.
A cost-effectiveness strategy based on the best combination of PSA, PHI and mpMRI for detecting patients at high risk of PCa eligible for biopsy and with more aggressive forms should be developed, validated, and integrated into the guidelines. For this purpose, large-multicentre randomized-controlled studies are mandatory.
In conclusion, our data show that PHI is a reliable biomarker of PCa and csPCa. Nowadays, Clinicians have valuable tools for triaging patients at risk of PCa. Thus, the clinical paradigm should be shifted toward a more personalized approach to prostate biopsy decisions based on a multiparameter approach integrating biomarkers, including PSA and PHI, and clinical findings from mpMRI.
Research funding: None declared.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Informed consent: Not applicable.
Ethical approval: Not applicable.
1. EU Science Hub. Cancer incidence and mortality in EU-27 countries; 2020. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/2020-cancer-incidence-and-mortality-eu-27-countries.Search in Google Scholar
2. Klotz, L. Low-risk prostate cancer can and should often be managed with active surveillance and selective delayed intervention. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2008;5:2–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0993.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Haas, GP, Delongchamps, N, Brawley, OW, Wang, CY, de la Roza, G. The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies. Can J Urol 2008;15:3866–71.Search in Google Scholar
4. McGrath, S, Christidis, D, Perera, M, Hong, SK, Manning, T, Vela, I, et al.. Prostate cancer biomarkers: are we hitting the mark? Prostate Int 2016;4:130–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2016.07.002.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
5. US Preventive Services Task Force, Grossman, DC, Curry, SJ, Owens, DK, Bibbins-Domingo, K, Caughey, AB, Davidson, KW, et al.. Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 2018;319:1901–13. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.3710.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Sharma, S, Zapatero-Rodríguez, J, O’Kennedy, R. Prostate cancer diagnostics: clinical challenges and the ongoing need for disruptive and effective diagnostic tools. Biotechnol Adv 2017;35:135–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2016.11.009.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Lilja, H, Christensson, A, Dahlén, U, Matikainen, MT, Nilsson, O, Pettersson, K, et al.. Prostate-specific antigen in serum occurs predominantly in complex with alpha 1-antichymotrypsin. Clin Chem 1991;37:1618–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/37.9.1618.Search in Google Scholar
8. Stenman, UH, Leinonen, J, Alfthan, H, Rannikko, S, Tuhkanen, K, 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 1991;51:222–6.Search in Google Scholar
9. Mikolajczyk, SD, Catalona, WJ, Evans, CL, Linton, HJ, Millar, LS, Marker, KM, et al.. Proenzyme forms of prostatespecifc antigen in serum improve the detection of prostate cancer. Clin Chem 2004;50:1017–25. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2003.026823.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Ferro, M, De Cobelli, O, Lucarelli, G, Porreca, A, Busetto, GM, Cantiello, F, et al.. Beyond PSA: the role of prostate health index (phi). Int J Mol Sci 2020;21:1184. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21041184.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
11. Lepor, A, Catalona, WJ, Loeb, S. The prostate health index: its utility in prostate cancer detection. Urol Clin North Am 2016;43:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2015.08.001.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
12. Stephan, C, Vincendeau, S, Houlgatte, A, Cammann, H, Jung, K, Semjonow, A. Multicenter evaluation of [−2] proprostate-specific antigen and the prostate health index for detecting prostate cancer. Clin Chem 2013;59:306–14. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2012.195784.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. American Urological Association. Prostate cancer: early detection guideline – American urological association; 2013. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer-early-detection-guideline.Search in Google Scholar
15. Page, MJ, McKenzie, JE, Bossuyt, PM, Boutron, I, Hoffmann, TC, Mulrow, CD, et al.. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2021;18:e1003583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
16. Hamza, TH, van Houwelingen, HC, Stijnen, T. The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.016.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Jackson, D, Law, M, Stijnen, T, Viechtbauer, W, White, IR. A comparison of seven random-effects models for meta-analyses that estimate the summary odds ratio. Stat Med 2018;37:1059–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7588.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
18. Chu, H, Cole, SR. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:1331–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.011.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Software for meta-analysis of DTA studies; 2012. Available from: https://methods.cochrane.org/sdt/software-meta-analysis-dta-studies [Accessed 5 Feb 2022].Search in Google Scholar
20. Patel, A, Cooper, NJ, Freeman, SC, Sutton, AJ. Graphical enhancements to summary receiver operating characteristic plots to facilitate the analysis and reporting of meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data. Res Synth Methods 2021;12:34–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1439.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Freeman, SC, Kerby, CR, Patel, A, Cooper, NJ, Quinn, T, Sutton, AJ. Development of an interactive web-based tool to conduct and interrogate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: MetaDTA. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;81:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0724-x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
22. Arends, LR, Hamza, TH, van Houwelingen, JC, Heijenbrok-Kal, MH, Hunink, MG, Stijnen, T. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of ROC curves. Med Decis Making 2008;28:621–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x08319957.Search in Google Scholar
24. Chiu, ST, Cheng, YT, Pu, YS, Lu, YC, Hong, JH, Chung, SD, et al.. Prostate health index density outperforms prostate health index in clinically significant prostate cancer detection. Front Oncol 2021;11:772182. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.772182.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
25. Ferro, M, Crocetto, F, Bruzzese, D, Imbriaco, M, Fusco, F, Longo, N, et al.. Prostate health index and multiparametric MRI: partners in crime fighting overdiagnosis and overtreatment in prostate cancer. Cancers 2021;13:4723. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13184723.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
26. Garrido, MM, Marta, JC, Bernardino, RM, Guerra, J, Fernandes, F, Pereira, MH, et al.. The percentage of [−2] pro-prostate-specific antigen and the prostate health index outperform prostate-specific antigen and the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and can be used as reflex tests. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2021. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2021-0079-OA.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
27. Stejskal, J, Adamcová, V, Záleský, M, Novák, V, Čapoun, O, Fiala, V, et al.. The predictive value of the prostate health index vs. multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in prostate biopsy. World J Urol 2021;39:1889–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03397-4.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
28. Kim, L, Boxall, N, George, A, Burling, K, Acher, P, Aning, J, et al.. Clinical utility and cost modelling of the phi test to triage referrals into image-based diagnostic services for suspected prostate cancer: the PRIM (Phi to RefIne Mri) study. BMC Med 2020;18:95. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01548-3.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
29. Nassir, AM, Kamel, HFM. Explication of the roles of prostate health index (PHI) and urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) as diagnostic and predictor tools for prostate cancer in equivocal PSA range of 4–10 ng/mL. Saudi J Biol Sci 2020;27:1975–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.04.004.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
30. Othman, H, Yamin, AHA, Isa, ND, Bahadzor, B, Zakaria, SZS. Diagnostic performance of prostate health index (PHI) in predicting prostate cancer on prostate biopsy. Malays J Pathol 2020;42:209–14.Search in Google Scholar
31. Barisiene, M, Bakavicius, A, Stanciute, D, Jurkeviciene, J, Zelvys, A, Ulys, A, et al.. Prostate health index and prostate health index density as diagnostic tools for improved prostate cancer detection. BioMed Res Int 2020;2020:9872146. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9872146.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
32. Ito, K, Yokomizo, A, Tokunaga, S, Arai, G, Sugimoto, M, Akakura, K, et al.. Diagnostic impacts of clinical laboratory based p2PSA indexes on any grade, gleason grade group 2 or greater, or 3 or greater prostate cancer and prostate specific antigen below 10 ng/mL. J Urol 2020;203:83–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000000495.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
33. Kopecký, J, Navláčilová, V, Janoutová, J, Janout, V. Epidemiological study on more accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer. Cent Eur J Publ Health 2020;28:65–9.10.21101/cejph.a5720Search in Google Scholar PubMed
34. Stojadinovic, M, Vukovic, I, Ivanovic, M, Stojadinovic, M, Milovanovic, D, Pantic, D, et al.. Optimal threshold of the prostate health index in predicting aggressive prostate cancer using predefined cost-benefit ratios and prevalence. Int Urol Nephrol 2020;52:893–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02367-z.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
35. Hsieh, PF, Li, WJ, Lin, WC, Chang, H, Chang, CH, Huang, CP, et al.. Combining prostate health index and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in an Asian population. World J Urol 2020;38:1207–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02889-2.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
36. Vendrami, CL, McCarthy, RJ, Chatterjee, A, Casalino, D, Schaeffer, EM, Catalona, WJ, et al.. The utility of prostate specific antigen density, prostate health index, and prostate health index density in predicting positive prostate biopsy outcome is dependent on the prostate biopsy methods. Urol 2019;129:153–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.03.018.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
37. Jagarlamudi, KK, Zupan, M, Kumer, K, Fabjan, T, Hlebič, G, Eriksson, S, et al.. The combination of AroCell TK 210 ELISA with prostate health index or prostate-specific antigen density can improve the ability to differentiate prostate cancer from noncancerous conditions. Prostate 2019;79:856–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23791.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
38. Cheng, YT, Chiang, CH, Pu, YS, Liu, SP, Lu, YC, Chang, YK, et al.. The application of p2PSA% and prostate health index in prostate cancer detection: a prospective cohort in a Tertiary Medical Center. J Formos Med 2019;118:260–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2018.05.001.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
39. Sriplakich, S, Lojanapiwat, B, Chongruksut, W, Phuriyaphan, S, Kitirattakarn, P, Jun-Ou, J, et al.. Prospective performance of the prostate health index in prostate cancer detection in the first prostate biopsy of men with a total prostatic specific antigen of 4–10 ng/mL and negative digital rectal examination. Prostate Int 2018;6:136–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2018.02.002.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
40. Hsieh, PF, Chang, CH, Yang, CR, Huang, CP, Chen, WC, Yeh, CC, et al.. Prostate health index (PHI) improves prostate cancer detection at initial biopsy in Taiwanese men with PSA 4–10 ng/mL. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2018;34:461–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2018.02.007.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
41. Dolejsova, O, Kucera, R, Fuchsova, R, Topolcan, O, Svobodova, H, Hes, O, et al.. The ability of prostate health index (PHI) to predict gleason score in patients with prostate cancer and discriminate patients between gleason score 6 and gleason score higher than 6-A study on 320 patients after radical prostatectomy. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2018;17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533033818787377.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
42. Park, H, Lee, SW, Song, G, Kang, TW, Jung, JH, Chung, HC, et al.. Diagnostic performance of %[−2]proPSA and prostate health index for prostate cancer: prospective, multi-institutional study. J Korean Med Sci 2018;33:e94. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e94.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
43. Al Saidi, SS, Al Riyami, NB, Al Marhoon, MS, Al Saraf, MS, Al Busaidi, SS, Bayoumi, R, et al.. Validity of prostate health index and percentage of [−2] pro-prostate-specific antigen as novel biomarkers in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: Omani tertiary hospitals experience. Oman Med J 2017;32:275–83. https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2017.55.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
44. Na, R, Ye, D, Qi, J, Liu, F, Helfand, BT, Brendler, CB, et al.. Prostate health index significantly reduced unnecessary prostate biopsies in patients with PSA 2–10 ng/mL and PSA >10 ng/mL: results from a Multicenter Study in China. Prostate 2017;77:1221–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23382.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
45. Vukovic, I, Djordjevic, D, Bojanic, N, Babic, U, Soldatovic, I. Predictive value of [−2]propsa (p2psa) and its derivatives for the prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0ng/mL PSA range. Int Braz J Urol 2017;43:48–56. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0256.Search in Google Scholar
46. Furuya, K, Kawahara, T, Narahara, M, Tokita, T, Fukui, S, Imano, M, et al.. Measurement of serum isoform [−2]proPSA derivatives shows superior accuracy to magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with a total prostate-specific antigen level of 2–10 ng/mL. Scand J Urol 2017;51:251–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2017.1298155.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
47. Friedl, A, Stangl, K, Bauer, W, Kivaranovic, D, Schneeweiss, J, Susani, M, et al.. Prostate-specific antigen parameters and prostate health index enhance prostate cancer prediction with the in-bore 3-T magnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal targeted prostate biopsy after negative 12-core biopsy. Urol 2017;110:148–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.08.019.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
48. Tan, TW, Png, KS, Lee, CH, Yuwono, A, Yeow, Y, Chong, KT, et al.. MRI fusion-targeted transrectal prostate biopsy and the role of prostate-specific antigen density and prostate health index for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in southeast Asian men. J Endourol 2017;31:1111–6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0485.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
49. Tan, LG, Tan, YK, Tai, BC, Tan, KM, Gauhar, V, Tiong, HY, et al.. Prospective validation of %p2PSA and the prostate health index, in prostate cancer detection in initial prostate biopsies of Asian men, with total PSA 4–10 ng mL−1. Asian J Androl 2017;19:286–90. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.168687.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
50. Chiu, PK, Teoh, JY, Lee, WM, Yee, CH, Chan, ES, Hou, SM, et al.. Extended use of prostate health index and percentage of [−2]pro-prostate-specific antigen in Chinese men with prostate specific antigen 10–20 ng/mL and normal digital rectal examination. Investig Clin Urol 2016;57:336–42. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2016.57.5.336.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
51. Morote, J, Celma, A, Planas, J, Placer, J, Ferrer, R, de Torres, I, et al.. Diagnostic accuracy of prostate health index to identify aggressive prostate cancer. An institutional validation study. Actas Urol Esp 2016;40:378–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuroe.2016.05.005.Search in Google Scholar
52. Lazzeri, M, Lughezzani, G, Haese, A, McNicholas, T, de la Taille, A, Buffi, NM, et al.. Clinical performance of prostate health index in men with tPSA>10ng/mL: results from a multicentric European study. Urol Oncol 2016;34:415.e13–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.04.003.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
53. Yu, GP, Na, R, Ye, DW, Qi, J, Liu, F, Chen, HT, et al.. Performance of the prostate health index in predicting prostate biopsy outcomes among men with a negative digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography. Asian J Androl 2016;18:633–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.172823.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
54. Fuchsova, R, Topolcan, O, Windrichova, J, Hora, M, Dolejsova, O, Pecen, L, et al.. PHI in the early detection of prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 2015;35:4855–7.Search in Google Scholar
55. Mearini, L, Nunzi, E, Ferri, C, Bellezza, G, Lolli, C, Porrozzi, C, et al.. Use of the prostate health index for the detection of aggressive prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2015;95:390–9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000379758.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
56. Loeb, S, Sanda, MG, Broyles, DL, Shin, SS, Bangma, CH, Wei, JT, et al.. The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 2015;193:1163–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.121.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
57. Seisen, T, Rouprêt, M, Brault, D, Léon, P, Cancel-Tassin, G, Compérat, E, et al.. Accuracy of the prostate health index versus the urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 score to predict overall and significant prostate cancer at initial biopsy. Prostate 2015;75:103–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.22898.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
58. Fossati, N, Buffi, NM, Haese, A, Stephan, C, Larcher, A, McNicholas, T, et al.. Preoperative prostate-specific antigen isoform p2PSA and its derivatives, %p2PSA and prostate health index, predict pathologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: results from a multicentric European prospective study. Eur Urol 2015;68:132–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.034.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
59. Mearini, L, Ferri, C, Lazzeri, M, Bini, V, Nunzi, E, Fiorini, D, et al.. Evaluation of prostate-specific antigen isoform p2PSA and its derivates, %p2PSA, prostate health index and prostate dimension-adjusted related index in the detection of prostate cancer at first biopsy: an exploratory, prospective study. Urol Int 2014;93:135–45. https://doi.org/10.1159/000356240.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
60. Filella, X, Foj, L, Augé, JM, Molina, R, Alcover, J. Clinical utility of %p2PSA and prostate health index in the detection of prostate cancer. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:1347–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2014-0027.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
61. Porpiglia, F, Russo, F, Manfredi, M, Mele, F, Fiori, C, Bollito, E, et al.. The roles of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, PCA3 and prostate health index-which is the best predictor of prostate cancer after a negative biopsy? J Urol 2014;192:60–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.01.030.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
62. Ng, CF, Chiu, PK, Lam, NY, Lam, HC, Lee, KW, Hou, SS. The prostate health index in predicting initial prostate biopsy outcomes in Asian men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 4–10 ng/mL. Int Urol Nephrol 2014;46:711–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0582-0.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
63. Lazzeri, M, Abrate, A, Lughezzani, G, Gadda, GM, Freschi, M, Mistretta, F, et al.. Relationship of chronic histologic prostatic inflammation in biopsy specimens with serum isoform [−2]proPSA (p2PSA), %p2PSA, and prostate health index in men with a total prostate-specific antigen of 4–10 ng/mL and normal digital rectal examination. Urol 2014;83:606–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.10.016.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
64. Scattoni, V, Lazzeri, M, Lughezzani, G, Luca, SD, Passera, R, Bollito, E, et al.. Head-to-head comparison of prostate health index and urinary PCA3 for predicting cancer at initial or repeat biopsy. J Urol 2013;190:496–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.3184.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
65. Ferro, M, Bruzzese, D, Perdonà, S, Marino, A, Mazzarella, C, Perruolo, G, et al.. Prostate health index (Phi) and prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) significantly improve prostate cancer detection at initial biopsy in a total PSA range of 2–10 ng/mL. PLoS One 2013;8:e67687. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067687.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
66. Lazzeri, M, Haese, A, Abrate, A, de la Taille, A, Redorta, JP, McNicholas, T, et al.. Clinical performance of serum prostate-specific antigen isoform [−2]proPSA (p2PSA) and its derivatives, %p2PSA and the prostate health index (PHI), in men with a family history of prostate cancer: results from a multicentre European study, the PROMEtheuS project. BJU Int 2013;112:313–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12217.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
67. Stephan, C, Vincendeau, S, Houlgatte, A, Cammann, H, Jung, K, Semjonow, A. Multicenter evaluation of [−2]proprostate-specific antigen and the prostate health index for detecting prostate cancer. Clin Chem 2013;59:306–14. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2012.195784.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
68. Stephan, C, Jung, K, Semjonow, A, Schulze-Forster, K, Cammann, H, Hu, X, et al.. Comparative assessment of urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 and TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion with the serum [−2]proprostate-specific antigen-based prostate health index for detection of prostate cancer. Clin Chem 2013;59:280–8. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2012.195560.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
69. Perdonà, S, Bruzzese, D, Ferro, M, Autorino, R, Marino, A, Mazzarella, C, et al.. Prostate health index (phi) and prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) significantly improve diagnostic accuracy in patients undergoing prostate biopsy. Prostate 2013;73:227–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.22561.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
70. Ferro, M, Bruzzese, D, Perdonà, S, Mazzarella, C, Marino, A, Sorrentino, A, et al.. Predicting prostate biopsy outcome: prostate health index (phi) and prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) are useful biomarkers. Clin Chim Acta 2012;413:1274–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2012.04.017.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
71. Guazzoni, G, Nava, L, Lazzeri, M, Scattoni, V, Lughezzani, G, Maccagnano, C, et al.. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA significantly improves the prediction of prostate cancer at initial extended prostate biopsies in patients with total PSA between 2.0 and 10 ng/mL: results of a prospective study in a clinical setting. Eur Urol 2011;60:214–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.052.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
72. Liang, Y, Ankerst, DP, Ketchum, NS, Ercole, B, Shah, G, Shaughnessy, JDJr, et al.. Prospective evaluation of operating characteristics of prostate cancer detection biomarkers. J Urol 2011;185:104–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.088.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
73. Mottet, N, van den Bergh, RCN, Briers, E, Van den Broeck, T, Cumberbatch, MG, Santis, MD, et al.. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2021;79:243–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
74. Grey, AD, Chana, MS, Popert, R, Wolfe, K, Liyanage, SH, Acher, PL. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scoring in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting. BJU Int 2015;115:728–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12862.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
75. Santoro, AA, Gianfrancesco, LD, Racioppi, M, Pinto, F, Palermo, G, Sacco, E, et al.. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: lights and shadows. Urologia 2021;88:280–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/03915603211019982.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
76. Rapisarda, S, Bada, M, Crocetto, F, Barone, B, Arcaniolo, D, Polara, A, et al.. The role of multiparametric resonance and biopsy in prostate cancer detection: comparison with definitive histological report after laparoscopic/robotic radical prostatectomy. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020;45:4178–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02798-8.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
77. Massanova, M, Robertson, S, Barone, B, Dutto, L, Caputo, VF, Bhatt, JR, et al.. The comparison of imaging and clinical methods to estimate prostate volume: a single-centre retrospective study. Urol Int 2021;105:804–10. https://doi.org/10.1159/000516681.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
78. Guazzoni, G, Lazzeri, M, Nava, L, Lughezzani, G, Larcher, A, Scattoni, V, et al.. Preoperative prostate-specific antigen isoform p2PSA and its derivatives, %p2PSA and prostate health index, predict pathologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2012;61:455–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.038.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
79. Tosoian, JJ, Druskin, SC, Andreas, D, Mullane, P, Chappidi, M, Joo, S, et al.. Prostate health index density improves detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. BJU Int 2017;120:793–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13762.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
80. Lughezzani, G, Lazzeri, M, Buffi, NM, Abrate, A, Mistretta, FA, Hurle, R, et al.. Preoperative prostate health index is an independent predictor of early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective single-center study. Urol Oncol 2015;33:337.e7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.05.007.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
81. Maxeiner, A, Kilic, E, Matalon, J, Friedersdorff, F, Miller, K, Jung, K, et al.. The prostate health index PHI predicts oncological outcome and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy – analysis in 437 patients. Oncotarget 2017;8:79279–88. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.17476.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
82. Foj, L, Filella, X. Development and internal validation of a novel PHI-nomogram to identify aggressive prostate cancer. Clin Chim Acta 2020;501:174–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2019.10.039.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
83. Stenner, E, Micheli, W, Bussani, A, Gotti, A, Biasioli, B. Comparison of Hybritech and WHO standardization applied to access hybritech total PSA assay on UniCel®. IJLaM 2008;4:43–6.Search in Google Scholar
84. Bouttell, J, Teoh, J, Chiu, PK, Chan, KS, Ng, CF, Heggie, R, et al.. Economic evaluation of the introduction of the prostate health index as a rule-out test to avoid unnecessary biopsies in men with prostate specific antigen levels of 4–10 in Hong Kong. PLoS One 2019;14:e0215279. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215279.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
85. Filella, X, Foj, L, Alcover, J, Augé, JM, Molina, R, Jiménez, W. The influence of prostate volume in prostate health index performance in patients with total PSA lower than 10 μg/L. Clin Chim Acta 2014;436:303–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2014.06.019.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
86. Mearini, L, Ferri, C, Lazzeri, M, Bini, V, Nunzi, E, Fiorini, D, et al.. Evaluation of prostate-specific antigen isoform p2PSA and its derivates, %p2PSA, prostate health index and prostate dimension-adjusted related index in the detection of prostate cancer at first biopsy: an exploratory, prospective study. Urol Int 2014;93:135–45. https://doi.org/10.1159/000356240.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
87. Friedl, A, Stangl, K, Bauer, W, Kivaranovic, D, Schneeweiss, J, Susani, M, et al.. Prostate-specific antigen parameters and prostate health index enhance prostate cancer prediction with the in-bore 3-T magnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal targeted prostate biopsy after negative 12-core biopsy. Urol 2017;110:148–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.08.019.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
88. Stephan, C, Jung, K, Lein, M, Rochow, H, Friedersdorff, F, Maxeiner, A. PHI density prospectively improves prostate cancer detection. World J Urol 2021;39:3273–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03585-2.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
© 2022 Luisa Agnello et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.