Clinical significance of the LacdiNAc‐glycosylated prostate‐specific antigen assay for prostate cancer detection
Open Access
- 30 May 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Cancer Science
- Vol. 110 (8) , 2573-2589
Abstract
To reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies (Pbx), better discrimination is needed. To identify clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) we determined the performance of LacdiNAc‐glycosylated prostate‐specific antigen (LDN‐PSA) and LDN‐PSA normalized by prostate volume (LDN‐PSAD). We retrospectively measured LDN‐PSA, total PSA (tPSA), and free PSA/tPSA (F/T PSA) values in 718 men who underwent a Pbx in 3 academic urology clinics in Japan and Canada (Pbx cohort) and in 174 PC patients who subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy in Australia (preop‐PSA cohort). The assays were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) and decision curve analyses to discriminate CSPC. In the Pbx cohort, LDN‐PSAD (AUC 0.860) provided significantly better clinical performance for discriminating CSPC compared with LDN‐PSA (AUC 0.827, P = 0.0024), PSAD (AUC 0.809, P < 0.0001), tPSA (AUC 0.712, P < 0.0001), and F/T PSA (AUC 0.661, P < 0.0001). The decision curve analysis showed that using a risk threshold of 20% and adding LDN‐PSA and LDN‐PSAD to the base model (age, digital rectal examination status, tPSA, and F/T PSA) permitted avoidance of even more biopsies without missing CSPC (9.89% and 18.11%, respectively vs 2.23% [base model]). In the preop‐PSA cohort, LDN‐PSA values positively correlated with tumor volume and tPSA and were significantly higher in pT3, pathological Gleason score ≥ 7. Limitations include limited sample size, retrospective nature, and no family history information prior to biopsy. LacdiNAc‐glycosylated PSA is significantly better than the conventional PSA test in identifying patients with CSPC. This study was approved by the ethics committee of each institution (“The Study about Carbohydrate Structure Change in Urological Disease”; approval no. 2014‐195).Keywords
Funding Information
- Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (16hm0102030h0002)
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (15H02563, 15K15579)
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Follow-up of Prostatectomy versus Observation for Early Prostate CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 2017
- Prostate-specific antigen-based screening: controversy and guidelinesBMC Medicine, 2015
- Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-upThe Lancet, 2014
- When is Prostate Cancer Really Cancer?Urologic Clinics of North America, 2014
- Radical Prostatectomy or Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 2014
- Pathological, Oncologic and Functional Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy Following Active SurveillanceJournal of Urology, 2013
- Prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatmentCurrent Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity, 2013
- Pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men with low‐risk prostate cancer meeting the Prostate Cancer International: Active Surveillance criteriaBJU International, 2013
- Radical Prostatectomy versus Observation for Localized Prostate CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- Active surveillance versus radical treatment for favorable-risk localized prostate cancerCurrent Treatment Options in Oncology, 2006