Search

Racial differences exist in the incidence of prostate cancer (PCa). Although many studies have looked at the performance of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA density (PSAD) in the detection of PCa, only a few have looked at it in relation to Indonesian men. The objective of this study is to find out better PSA and PSAD cutoff point in the detection of PCa in Indonesian men. Methods: A total of 404 consecutive Indonesian men underwent prostate biopsy for suspicion of PCa from 2008 to 2011. The biopsy criteria include one or more of the following: serum PSA more than 10 ng/mL, PSAD more than 0.15 if PSA 4–10 ng/mL, hypoechoic lesion during transrectal sonography and/or abnormal digital rectal examination. Results: Forty five out of 404 (11.1%) had positive biopsies. The mean age, prostate volume, PSA and PSAD were respectively 64.06 years, 43.03 mL, 45.59 ng/mL and 1.15. Of the 404, 131 cases (32.4%) were confirmed to be urinary retention. Positive urine culture found in 182 cases (45%). The cutoff point to detect PCa as estimated by the receiver operating characteristics was 6.95 ng/mL for PSA (sensitivity 97.8%, specificity 19.6%) and 0.7072 for PSAD (sensitivity 62.2%, specificity 78.7%). Positive predictive value for this PSA and PSAD cutoff point were 11.6% and 27.5% respectively (P=0.004 and P=0.000). There was a significant correlation between hypoechoic lesion and positive biopsy results (P=0.000). Urinary retention elevates PSA cutoff point to 14.55 (sensitivity 90.9%, specificity 50%), while positive urine culture alters almost no PSA cutoff elevation. Conclusions: PSA and PSAD cutoff point for Indonesian men in this series is relatively different from international consensus. Furthermore, these data show that PSA and PSAD cutoff point must be adjusted to racial variation to discriminate between malignant and benign disease. Urinary retention is a significant factor for PSA cutoff increase.

Purpose: Prostate volume and PSA density (PSAd) are important in the risk stratification of suspected prostate cancer (Pca). PI-RADS v2.1 allows for determining volume via segmentation or ellipsoid calculation. The purpose of our study was to compare ellipsoid and segmentation volume calculation methods and evaluate if PSAd diagnostic performance is altered., Methods: We retrospectively assessed 397 patients (mean age/standard deviation: 63.7/7.4 years) who underwent MRI and prostate biopsy or prostatectomy, with Pca classified by Gleason ≥3 + 4 and ≥4 + 4 disease. Prostate total volumes were determined with ellipsoid calculations (TVe) and with semi-automated segmentation (TVs), along with inter-rater reliability with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). PSAd was calculated for TVe and TVs and ROC curves were created to compare performance for Gleason ≥3 + 4 and ≥4 + 4 disease., Results: TVe was significantly higher than TVs (p < 0.0001), with mean TVe = 55.4 mL and TVs = 51.0 mL. ROC area under the curve for PSAd derived with TVe (0.63, 95%CI:0.59-0.68) and TVs (0.64, 95%CI:0.59-0.68) showed no significant difference for Gleason ≥3 + 4 disease (p = 0.45), but PSAd derived with TVs (0.63, 95%CI: 0.58-0.68) significantly outperformed TVe (0.61, 95%CI: 0.57-0.67) for Gleason ≥4 + 4 disease (p = 0.02). Both methods demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability with TVe with ICC of 0.93(95%CI: 0.92-0.94) and TVs with ICC of 0.98(95%CI: 0.98-0.99)., Conclusion: Traditional ellipsoid measurements tend to overestimate total prostate volume compared to segmentation, but both methods demonstrate similar diagnostic performance of derived PSA density for PI-RADS clinically significant disease. For higher grade disease, PSAd derived from segmentation volumes demonstrates statistically significant superior performance. Both methods are viable, but segmentation volume is potentially better., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)