Objectives: We investigated the diagnostic efficacy of the prostate health index (PHI) and PHI density (PHID) to avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies in 3 urological practices. Methods: In 122 patients, total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA (f-PSA), the quotient from total PSA and f-PSA (f-PSA%), and [–2]pro-PSA were measured in the serum; PHI, PHID, and PSA density (PSAD) were calculated prior to prostate biopsy. Tissue sampling via transrectal biopsy was indicated in case of suspicious PSA (progression and/or elevation of PSA) and/or suspicious digital rectal examination. PSAD, PHI, and PHID were not used for biopsy indication. The diagnostic efficacy was determined with receiver-operating characteristic (ROC)and decision curve analyses. Results: Based on prostate biopsies, 38% (n = 46) of the cases had no prostate carcinoma (PCa), 21% (n = 26) no clinically significant (insignificant) PCa, and 41% (n = 50) had clinically significant PCa. ROC analyses of the PSA parameters showed higher diagnostic efficacy for PHI and PHID (AUC 0.722 and 0.739) than for f-PSA%, PSA, and PSAD (AUC 0.612, 0.595, and 0.698, respectively) regarding carcinoma diagnosis. With a combined use of PHI and PHID (cutoff >40 and >0.9, respectively), only 1 clinically significant PCa would have been missed (sensitivity 98%); in 24 (20%) patients, biopsy could have been avoided. Conclusion: The integration of PHI and PHID could improve the diagnostic efficacy of risk calculators to avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies. However, as a prerequisite, validation of cutoff values in prospective studies is urgently required.

1.
Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung
. Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms; Kurzversion 5.0 –April
2018
; AWMF-Register-Nummer 043/022OL; https://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/Leitlinien/Prostata_5_0/LL_Prostata_Kurzversion_5.0.pdf
2.
Bokhorst
LP
,
Zhu
X
,
Bul
M
,
Bangma
CH
,
Schröder
FH
,
Roobol
MJ
.
Positive predictive value of prostate biopsy indicated by prostate-specific-antigen-based prostate cancer screening: trends over time in a European randomized trial
.
BJU Int
.
2012
Dec
;
110
(
11
):
1654
60
.
[PubMed]
1464-4096
4.
Loeb
S
,
Catalona
WJ
.
The Prostate Health Index: a new test for the detection of prostate cancer
.
Ther Adv Urol
.
2014
Apr
;
6
(
2
):
74
7
.
[PubMed]
1756-2872
5.
Boegemann
M
,
Stephan
C
,
Cammann
H
,
Vincendeau
S
,
Houlgatte
A
,
Jung
K
, et al
The percentage of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform [-2]proPSA and the Prostate Health Index improve the diagnostic accuracy for clinically relevant prostate cancer at initial and repeat biopsy compared with total PSA and percentage free PSA in men aged ≤65 years
.
BJU Int
.
2016
Jan
;
117
(
1
):
72
9
.
[PubMed]
1464-4096
6.
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
(
2
):
135
45
.
[PubMed]
0042-1138
7.
Meng X-L, Rubin DB. Performing likelihood ratio tests with multiply-imputed data sets. Biometrika. 1992 March;79(1):103–11.
8.
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
Jan
;
59
(
1
):
280
8
.
[PubMed]
0009-9147
9.
Vickers
AJ
,
Elkin
EB
.
Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models
.
Med Decis Making
.
2006
Nov-Dec
;
26
(
6
):
565
74
.
[PubMed]
0272-989X
10.
Premarket Approval Application
FD
. (PMA) Number: P090026 (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf9/P090026b.pdf)
11.
Chiu
PK
,
Ng
CF
,
Semjonow
A
,
Zhu
Y
,
Vincendeau
S
,
Houlgatte
A
, et al
A Multicentre Evaluation of the Role of the Prostate Health Index (PHI) in Regions with Differing Prevalence of Prostate Cancer: Adjustment of PHI Reference Ranges is Needed for European and Asian Settings
.
Eur Urol
.
2019
Apr
;
75
(
4
):
558
61
.
[PubMed]
0302-2838
12.
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
.
Urology
.
2017
Dec
;
110
:
148
53
.
[PubMed]
0090-4295
13.
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
Dec
;
120
(
6
):
793
8
.
[PubMed]
1464-4096
14.
Lopes Vendrami
C
,
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
.
Urology
.
2019
Jul
;
129
:
153
9
.
[PubMed]
0090-4295
15.
Druskin
SC
,
Tosoian
JJ
,
Young
A
,
Collica
S
,
Srivastava
A
,
Ghabili
K
, et al
Combining Prostate Health Index density, magnetic resonance imaging and prior negative biopsy status to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer
.
BJU Int
.
2018
Apr
;
121
(
4
):
619
26
.
[PubMed]
1464-4096
16.
Osses
DF
,
Roobol
MJ
,
Schoots
IG
. Prediction Medicine: Biomarkers, Risk Calculators and Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Risk Sratification Tools in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. Int J Mol Sci.
2019
Apr 2;20(7.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.