Can one blood draw replace transrectal ultrasonography-estimated prostate volume to predict prostate cancer risk?

Authors

  • Sigrid V. Carlsson,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
    2. Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg
    • Correspondence: Sigrid Carlsson, Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 307 E. 63rd Street, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10065, USA.

      e-mail: carlssos@mskcc.org

    Search for more papers by this author
  • Mari T. Peltola,

    1. Department of Biotechnology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Daniel Sjoberg,

    1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Fritz H. Schröder,

    1. Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jonas Hugosson,

    1. Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kim Pettersson,

    1. Department of Biotechnology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Peter T. Scardino,

    1. Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Andrew J. Vickers,

    1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Hans Lilja,

    1. Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
    2. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
    3. Department of Laboratory Medicine in Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
    4. Department of Biotechnology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
    5. Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
    6. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Monique J. Roobol

    1. Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author

  • S.V.C. and M.T.P. contributed equally to the work

Abstract

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add?

  • Previous studies have shown that a statistical model based on a panel of kallikrein markers in blood (total, free and intact PSA and kallikrein-related peptidase 2) can predict prostate cancer on biopsy.
  • The current study explores the relationship between the above-mentioned panel and prostate volume, and whether this panel could be an alternative for clinical measures such as DRE and TRUS in predicting prostate cancer on biopsy.

Objective

  • To explore whether a panel of kallikrein markers in blood: total, free and intact prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and kallikrein-related peptidase 2, could be used as a non-invasive alternative for predicting prostate cancer on biopsy in a screening setting.

Subjects and Methods

  • The study cohort comprised previously unscreened men who underwent sextant biopsy owing to elevated PSA (≥3 ng/mL) in two different centres of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam (n = 2914) and Göteborg (n = 740).
  • A statistical model, based on kallikrein markers, was compared with one based on established clinical factors for the prediction of biopsy outcome.

Results

  • The clinical tests were found to be no better than blood markers, with an area under the curve in favour of the blood measurements of 0.766 vs. 0.763 in Rotterdam and 0.809 vs. 0.774 in Göteborg.
  • Adding digital rectal examination (DRE) or DRE plus transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) volume to the markers improved discrimination, although the increases were small. Results were similar for predicting high-grade cancer.
  • There was a strong correlation between the blood measurements and TRUS-estimated prostate volume (Spearman's correlation 0.60 in Rotterdam and 0.57 in Göteborg).

Conclusions

  • In previously unscreened men, each with indication for biopsy, a statistical model based on kallikrein levels was similar to a clinical model in predicting prostate cancer in a screening setting, outside the day-to-day clinical practice.
  • Whether a clinical approach can be replaced by laboratory analyses or used in combination with decision models (nomograms) is a clinical judgment that may vary from clinician to clinician depending on how they weigh the different advantages and disadvantages (harms, costs, time, invasiveness) of both approaches.

Ancillary