108139
论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
- 3.4 Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)
- 3.2 Clin Epidemiol
- 2.6 Cancer Manag Res
- 2.9 Infect Drug Resist
- 3.7 Clin Interv Aging
- 5.1 Drug Des Dev Ther
- 3.1 Int J Chronic Obstr
- 6.6 Int J Nanomed
- 2.6 Int J Women's Health
- 2.9 Neuropsych Dis Treat
- 2.8 OncoTargets Ther
- 2.0 Patient Prefer Adher
- 2.2 Ther Clin Risk Manag
- 2.5 J Pain Res
- 3.0 Diabet Metab Synd Ob
- 3.2 Psychol Res Behav Ma
- 3.4 Nat Sci Sleep
- 1.8 Pharmgenomics Pers Med
- 2.0 Risk Manag Healthc Policy
- 4.1 J Inflamm Res
- 2.0 Int J Gen Med
- 3.4 J Hepatocell Carcinoma
- 3.0 J Asthma Allergy
- 2.2 Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol
- 2.4 J Multidiscip Healthc
已发表论文
FPSAD 和 PI-RADS v2.1 对总前列腺特异抗原水平为 4 - 10 ng/mL 患者临床显著前列腺癌的诊断价值
Authors Guo W , Tan P, He Y, Yi X
Received 26 May 2025
Accepted for publication 22 September 2025
Published 29 September 2025 Volume 2025:17 Pages 2199—2206
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S542803
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Lu-Zhe Sun
Wei Guo, Ping Tan, Yan He, Xinyu Yi
Department of Urology, Xiangtan Central Hospital, Xiangtan, Hunan, People’s Republic of China
Correspondence: Xinyu Yi, Email 1225020697@qq.com
Objective: To evaluate the incremental diagnostic value of combining free prostate-specific antigen density (FPSAD) with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa,defined as Gleason score≥ 3+4) in the diagnostic gray zone (tPSA 4– 10 ng/mL).
Methods: : This retrospective study analyzed 137 patients (75 with csPCa and 62 with non-clinically significant prostate cancer (ncsPCa) who underwent transperineal prostate biopsy at Xiangtan Central Hospital between January 2022 and January 2024. PI-RADS v2.1 scores were assigned based on magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and prostate volume (PV) and FPSAD were calculated. Statistical analyses included chi-square/Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables and independent t-tests for continuous variables. Logistic regression identified independent predictors of csPCa, and a nomogram model was developed. Model performance was evaluated using calibration curves and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
Results: Significant differences were observed in FPSAD, PI-RADS v2.1 scores, and free PSA (fPSA) between the csPCa and ncsPCa groups (P < 0.01). FPSAD (OR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.22– 2.22, P < 0.01) and PI-RADS v2.1 scores (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.57– 3.70, P < 0.01) were independent predictors of csPCa. The combined FPSAD and PI-RADS v2.1 model demonstrated superior diagnostic performance (AUC =0.829) compared to FPSAD alone (AUC = 0.69) or PI-RADS v2.1 alone (AUC = 0.773) (P < 0.01), with 91% sensitivity and 32% fewer unnecessary biopsies than PI-RADS≥ 3 criteria. In PI-RADS 3 subgroup (n=41), FPSAD correctly reclassified 13/18 (72.2%) indeterminate cases.
Conclusion: For Asian men with tPSA 4– 10 ng/mL, the FPSAD+PI-RADS algorithm (cutoffs: > 0.017 and ≥ 4) provides 15– 20% higher accuracy than either marker alone, while reducing biopsies by 25%. This approach is particularly valuable for PI-RADS 3 cases, where it resolved > 65% of diagnostic uncertainties in our cohort.
Keywords: FPSAD, PI-RADS V2.1, csPCa, ncsPCa, diagnostic value, tPSA
Department of Urology, Xiangtan Central Hospital, Xiangtan, Hunan, People’s Republic of China
Correspondence: Xinyu Yi, Email 1225020697@qq.com
Objective: To evaluate the incremental diagnostic value of combining free prostate-specific antigen density (FPSAD) with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa,defined as Gleason score≥ 3+4) in the diagnostic gray zone (tPSA 4– 10 ng/mL).
Methods: : This retrospective study analyzed 137 patients (75 with csPCa and 62 with non-clinically significant prostate cancer (ncsPCa) who underwent transperineal prostate biopsy at Xiangtan Central Hospital between January 2022 and January 2024. PI-RADS v2.1 scores were assigned based on magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and prostate volume (PV) and FPSAD were calculated. Statistical analyses included chi-square/Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables and independent t-tests for continuous variables. Logistic regression identified independent predictors of csPCa, and a nomogram model was developed. Model performance was evaluated using calibration curves and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
Results: Significant differences were observed in FPSAD, PI-RADS v2.1 scores, and free PSA (fPSA) between the csPCa and ncsPCa groups (P < 0.01). FPSAD (OR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.22– 2.22, P < 0.01) and PI-RADS v2.1 scores (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.57– 3.70, P < 0.01) were independent predictors of csPCa. The combined FPSAD and PI-RADS v2.1 model demonstrated superior diagnostic performance (AUC =0.829) compared to FPSAD alone (AUC = 0.69) or PI-RADS v2.1 alone (AUC = 0.773) (P < 0.01), with 91% sensitivity and 32% fewer unnecessary biopsies than PI-RADS≥ 3 criteria. In PI-RADS 3 subgroup (n=41), FPSAD correctly reclassified 13/18 (72.2%) indeterminate cases.
Conclusion: For Asian men with tPSA 4– 10 ng/mL, the FPSAD+PI-RADS algorithm (cutoffs: > 0.017 and ≥ 4) provides 15– 20% higher accuracy than either marker alone, while reducing biopsies by 25%. This approach is particularly valuable for PI-RADS 3 cases, where it resolved > 65% of diagnostic uncertainties in our cohort.
Keywords: FPSAD, PI-RADS V2.1, csPCa, ncsPCa, diagnostic value, tPSA