Diagnostic accuracy of serum prostate specific antigen and prostate imaging reporting and data system score with gold standard histopathology
a prospective study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59736/IJP.23.04.1000Keywords:
Diagnostic Accuracy, Prostate Cancer, Prostate Specific Antigen, Multiparametric MRIAbstract
Background: Prostate cancer is a considerable health problem. Although serum PSA is a commonly used biomarker, its limitations dictate the need to have more specific diagnostic methods. Multi-parametric MRI, which is interpreted by the use of the PIRADS, has proved to be an attractive modality. Our objective is to compare and contrast the diagnostic validity of PSA and PIRADS scoring for identification of prostate cancer.
Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was carried out on 300 male individuals who were at the risk of having prostate cancer clinically. Each study subject was subjected to PSA testing and multi-parametric MRI. Patients having a high PSA (≥4 ng/mL) and/or a PIRADS score of 3 or higher underwent transrectal ultrasound-directed biopsy using the histopathology as the gold standard. The parameters of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy) were computed.
Results: The incidence of prostate cancer was 38.7%. Serum PSA had better diagnostic sensitivity of 91.4, specificity of 82.1 and overall accuracy of 85.7 percent respectively. It had a very high negative predictive value (NPV) of 93.8. Conversely, PIRADS scoring (≥3) depicted a moderate sensitivity of 67.2 and specificity of 82.1 and the accuracy was 76.3. Analysis of stratification showed a high level of performance of PSA in all age groups and ethnicities, whereas PIRADS showed mixed sensitivity, especially lower in some ethnic groups.
Conclusion: The results of our study support that due to its exceptional negative predictive value, serum PSA was found to be a sensitive and reliable preliminary test that can exclude the presence of prostate cancer. PIRADS MRI, and scoring system though specific, fail to detect clinically significant cancers. MRI may be used to provide specific biopsy guidance to PSA-positive patients.
References
Rawla P. Epidemiology of prostate cancer. World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63.
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA. 2021;71(3):209-49.
Amjad S, Saleem M, Ashraf A, Iqbal MN. Prevalence of Cancer Types in Patients attending Mayo Hospital Lahore, Pakistan. Int J Mol Microbiol. 2020;3(2):25-34.
Ali F, Hussain S, Memon SA, Iqbal SS. Recently top trending cancers in a tertiary cancer hospital in Pakistan. Dr Sulaiman Al Habib Med J. 2023;5(2):42-9.
Pham X-H, Hahm E, Huynh K-H, Son BS, Kim H-M, Jun B-H. Sensitive colorimetric detection of prostate specific antigen using a peroxidase-mimicking anti-PSA antibody coated Au nanoparticle. BioChip J. 2020; 14:158-68.
Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, Konishi T, Hirai M, Kobayashi Y, et al.Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system(PI‐RADS)scoreandprostate‐specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients. BJU Int. 2017;119(2):225-33.
Streicher J, Meyerson BL, Karivedu V, Sidana A. A review of optimal prostate biopsy: indications and techniques. Ther Adv Urol. 2019; 11:1756287219870074.
Baruah SK, Das N, Baruah SJ, Rajeev T, Bagchi PK, Sharma D, et al. Combining prostate-specific antigen parameters with prostate imaging reporting and data system score version 2.0 to improve its diagnostic accuracy. World J Oncol. 2019;10(6):218.
Purysko AS, Rosenkrantz AB, Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Macura KJ. PI-RADS version 2: a pictorial update. Radiographics. 2016;36(5):1354-72.
Steiger P, Thoeny HC. Prostate MRI based on PI-RADS version 2: how we review and report. Cancer Imaging. 2016;16(1):9.
Ahmed HU, Bosaily AE-S, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS):apaired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815-22.
Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic performance of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):177-88.
Falagario UG, Jambor I, Lantz A, Ettala O, Stabile A, Taimen P, et al. Combined use of prostate-specific antigen density and magnetic resonance imaging for prostate biopsy decision planning: a retrospective multi-institutional study using the prostate magnetic resonance imaging outcome database (PROMOD). Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(6):971-9.
De Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(2):343-51.
Michaeli T, Michaeli D. Prostate cancer follow-up costs in Germany from 2000 to 2015. J Cancer Surviv. 2022;16(1):86-94.
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76(3):340-51.
Adhyam M, Gupta AK. A Review on the Clinical Utility of PSA in Cancer Prostate. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2012 Jun;3(2):120–9.
Ahmed HU, Bosaily AE-S, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS):apaired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815–22.
Peltier A, Aoun F, Lemort M, Kwizera F, Paesmans M, Van Velthoven R. MRI-Targeted Biopsies versus Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsies for the Diagnosis of Localized Prostate Cancer in Biopsy Naïve Men. BioMed Res Int. 2015; 2015:571708.
Obino M. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI in diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer [Unpublished master's dissertation]. Aga Khan University, East Africa; 2019.
Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS. Radiologist, Be Aware: Ten Pitfalls That Confound the Interpretation of Multiparametric Prostate MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Dec 26;202(1):109–20.
Moldovan PC, Broeck TV den, Sylvester R, Marconi L, Bellmunt J, Bergh RCN van den, et al. What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017 Aug 1;72(2):250–66.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Arifa Raza, Sohail Ahmed Khan, Nida Rafiq, Muhammad Raza
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Readers may “Share-copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format” and “Adapt-remix, transform, and build upon the material”. The readers must give appropriate credit to the source of the material and indicate if changes were made to the material. Readers may not use the material for commercial purpose. The readers may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
