Table Info

Table 1.

Baseline patient characteristics

Variable	Total cohort (N = 302)^*	Active surveillance (N = 112)	First biopsy (N = 154)
Age (years), median (IQR)	66.91 (62.25–71.54)	66.52 (62.36–70.89)	66.98 (62.13–71.80)
PSA (ng/mL), median (IQR)	6.35 (4.80–8.75)	6.73 (4.78–9.39)	5.91 (4.74–7.76)
PSA density (ng/mL²), median (IQR)	0.124 (0.085–0.184)	0.124 (0.78–0.20)	0.127 (0.089–0.177)
PHI, median (IQR)	50.5 (37.90–68.20)	49.1 (38.3–65.8)	53 (39.68–68.7)
> 27	276 (91.7%)	102 (91.1%)	143 (92.9%)
> 36	233 (77.4%)	88 (78.6%)	120 (77.9%)
PHID, median (IQR)	1.05 (0.59–1.64)	1.05 (0.55–1.60)	1.15 (0.70–1.72)
PI-RADS, N (%)
1	31 (10.3%)	14 (12.5%)	11 (7.1%)
2	50 (16.6%)	18 (16.1%)	22 (14.3%)
3	31 (10.3%)	9 (8.0%)	18 (11.7%)
4	134 (44.5%)	48 (42.9%)	74 (48.1%)
5	55 (18.3%)	22 (19.6%)	29 (18.8%)
Prostate cancer detection rate, N (%)	228 (75.5%)	93 (83.1%)	120 (77.9%)
GGG1	92 (30.5%)	45 (40.2%)	41 (26.6%)
≥ GGG2	136 (45.0%)	48 (42.9%)	79 (51.3%)

^* 36 patients received a previous negative biopsy. IQR: interquartile range

Declarations

Acknowledgments

This article is based on our previous research, which was presented at the American Urological Association 2021 and published in Urology as a Conference Abstract (J Urol. 2021;206:468. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002023).

Author contributions

BHP: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft. SDL: Conceptualization, Fomal analysis, Investigation, Writing—review & editing. LW: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing—original draft. GK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation. SS: Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. OO: Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. MG: Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. SNR: Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. MSL: Supervision, Validation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. PCS: Supervision, Validation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Yale University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board (Ref. No. 0805003787).

Consent to particpate

The consent to participate in this study has been exempted from ethical approval by the Yale University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board (Ref. No. 0805003787) and it is in compliance with relevant institutional policy and regional legal requirements.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

Funding

Not applicable.

Copyright

References

Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, Hudson MA, Scardino PT, Flanigan RC, et al. Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol. 1994;151:1283–90. [DOI] [PubMed]

Gretzer MB, Partin AW. PSA levels and the probability of prostate cancer on biopsy. Eur Urol Suppl. 2002;1:21–7. [DOI]

Tadayon F, Arezegar HR, Khorrami MH, Hashemi Juzdani R, Shahdoost AA, Mellat M. Evaluation of prostatic cancer prevalence in patients with prostatic-specific antigen between 4 and 10 and normal digital rectal examination. Adv Biomed Res. 2016;5:112. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:876–92. [DOI] [PubMed]

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Itatani R, Namimoto T, Atsuji S, Katahira K, Morishita S, Kitani K, et al. Negative predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial MRI studies. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:1740–5. [DOI] [PubMed]

Bokhorst LP, Alberts AR, Rannikko A, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, et al.; PRIAS study group. Compliance Rates with the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) Protocol and Disease Reclassification in Noncompliers. Eur Urol. 2015;68:814–21. [DOI] [PubMed]

Loeb S, Walter D, Curnyn C, Gold HT, Lepor H, Makarov DV. How Active is Active Surveillance? Intensity of Followup during Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in the United States. J Urol. 2016;196:721–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Lepor A, Catalona WJ, Loeb S. The Prostate Health Index: Its Utility in Prostate Cancer Detection. Urol Clin North Am. 2016;43:1–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

10.

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. [DOI] [PubMed]

11.

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;121:619–26. [DOI] [PubMed]

12.

Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;4:CD012663. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

13.

Rico L, Contreras P, Vitagliano G, Rios Pita H, Ameri C, Blas L. Value of prostate-specific antigen density in negative or equivocal lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Turk J Urol. 2020;46:367–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

14.

Rico L, Blas L, Vitagliano G, Contreras P, Rios Pita H, Ameri C. PI-RADS 3 lesions: Does the association of the lesion volume with the prostate-specific antigen density matter in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer? Urol Oncol. 2021;39:431.e9–13. [DOI] [PubMed]

15.

Berger AP, Gozzi C, Steiner H, Frauscher F, Varkarakis J, Rogatsch H, et al. Complication rate of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a comparison among 3 protocols with 6, 10 and 15 cores. J Urol. 2004;171:1478–81. [DOI] [PubMed]

16.

Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Rais-Bahrami S, Oto A, Bednarova S, Nix JW, et al. A Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Prediction Model for Prostate Biopsy Risk Stratification. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:678–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

17.

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. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

18.

Fan YH, Pan PH, Cheng WM, Wang HK, Shen SH, Liu HT, et al. The Prostate Health Index aids multi-parametric MRI in diagnosing significant prostate cancer. Sci Rep. 2021;11:1286. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

19.

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. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]