Continued provision of WHO International Standards for total and free PSA: Content and commutability of replacement preparations

Interassay Variability and Clinical Implications of Five Different Prostate-specific Antigen Assays

Background and objective

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains a critical marker for prostate cancer (PCa) detection and monitoring. Recognising historical variability in PSA assays and the evolution of assay technology and calibration, this study aims to reassess interassay variability using the latest generation of five assays in a contemporary cohort of men undergoing prostate biopsy.

Methods

Five different commercially available PSA assays were tested in a blood sample of 76 men before undergoing a prostate biopsy. Total PSA (tPSA) and free-to-total PSA ratio (%fPSA) were compared across assays, using Roche (Basel, Switzerland) as the benchmark, and correlated with biopsy outcome to analyse the impact on PCa diagnosis. The statistical analysis included Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plots, with a p value threshold of <0.05 for significance.

Key findings and limitations

Among the 76 men, 28 (36.8%) were diagnosed with significant PCa (defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2). A high correlation was observed between tPSA and %fPSA values among the different PSA assays tested (r2 ≥ 0.9). The Passing-Bablok analysis showed that tPSA results varied substantially among the assays, with slopes ranging between 0.78 and 1.04. Compared with the tPSA of Roche, tPSA values were on average 20.7% lower by Beckman (Oststeinbeck, Germany), 15.2% lower by Abbott (Chicago, IL, USA), 6.1% lower by Diasorin (Saluggia, Italy), and 9.6% higher by Brahms (Hennigsdorf, Germany; p < 0.001 for all). The %fPSA values by Abbott and Brahms were higher at 15.7% and 10.6%, respectively (p < 0.001), while the Beckman and Diasorin values had minimal differences of -0.3% and 2.3%, respectively (p > 0.05). The variability across assays would have resulted in discrepancies in both the sensitivity and the specificity for tPSA and %fPSA by at least 14%, depending on the cut-offs applied.

Conclusions and clinical implications

Despite the use of the latest PSA assays, relevant variability of tPSA and %fPSA results can be observed among different assays. There is an urgent need for standardised calibration methods and greater awareness among practitioners concerning interassay variability. Clinicians should acknowledge that clinically relevant thresholds may depend on the specific PSA assay and that ideally the same assay is applied over time for better clinical decision-making.

Patient summary

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a critical marker for prostate cancer (PCa) detection and monitoring. However, significant variations were observed in the results of the latest PSA assays. Thus, standardised calibration methods and greater awareness among practitioners concerning interassay variability are needed.

Prostate-Specific Antigen as an Ultrasensitive Biomarker for Patients with Early Recurrent Prostate Cancer: How Low Shall We Go? A Systematic Review

Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) needs to be monitored with ultrasensitive PSA assays (uPSAs) for oncologists to be able to start salvage radiotherapy (SRT) while PSA is <0.5 µg/L for patients with prostate cancer (PCa) relapsing after a radical prostatectomy (RP). Our systematic review (SR) aimed to summarize uPSAs for patients with localized PCa. The SR was registered as InPLASY2023110084. We searched for studies on Google Scholar, PUBMED and reference lists of reviews and studies. We only included studies on uPSAs published in English and excluded studies of women, animals, sarcoidosis and reviews. Of the 115 included studies, 39 reported PSA assay methods and 76 reported clinical findings. Of 67,479 patients, 14,965 developed PSA recurrence (PSAR) and 2663 died. Extremely low PSA nadir and early developments of PSA separated PSAR-prone from non-PSAR-prone patients (cumulative p value 3.7 × 1012). RP patients with the lowest post-surgery PSA nadir and patients who had the lowest PSA at SRT had the fewest deaths. In conclusion, PSA for patients with localized PCa in the pre-PSAR phase of PCa is strongly associated with later PSAR and survival. A rising but still exceedingly low PSA at SRT predicts a good 5-year overall survival.

Antihormone treatment differentially regulates PSA secretion, PSMA expression and 68Ga-PSMA uptake in LNCaP cells

Background

In recent years, a variety of innovative therapeutics for castration-resistant prostate cancer have been developed, including novel anti-androgenic drugs, such as abiraterone or VPC-13566. Therapeutic monitoring of these pharmaceuticals is performed either by measuring PSA levels in serum or by imaging. PET using PSMA ligands labeled with Fluor-18 or Gallium-68 is the most sensitive and specific imaging modality for detection of metastases in advanced prostate cancer. To date, it remains unclear how PSMA expression is modulated by anti-hormonal treatment and how it correlates with PSA secretion.

Methods

We analyzed modulation of PSMA-mRNA and protein expression, ⁶⁸Ga–PSMA uptake and regulation of PSA secretion by abiraterone or VPC-13566 in LNCaP cells in vitro.

Results

We found that abiraterone and VPC-13566 upregulate PSMA protein and mRNA expression but block PSA secretion in LNCaP cells. Both anti-androgens also enhanced ⁶⁸Ga–PSMA uptake normalized by the number of cells, whereas abiraterone and VPC-13566 reduced ⁶⁸Ga–PSMA uptake in total LNCaP monolayers treated due to cell death.

Conclusion

Our data indicate that PSA secretion and PSMA expression are differentially regulated upon anti-androgen treatment. This finding might be important for the interpretation of ⁶⁸Ga–PSMA PET images in monitoring therapies with abiraterone and VPC-13566 in prostate cancer patients, but needs to be validated in vivo.

Verification of Harmonization of Serum Total and Free Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Measurements and Implications for Medical Decisions

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that the harmonization of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) assays remained limited even after the introduction of WHO International Standards. This information needs updating for current measuring systems (MS) and reevaluation according to established analytical performance specifications (APS) and the characteristics of antibodies used.

METHODS

Total (tPSA) and free (fPSA) PSA were measured in 135 and 137 native serum samples, respectively, by Abbott Alinity i, Beckman Access Dxl, Roche Cobas e801, and Siemens Atellica IM MSs. Passing-Bablok regression and difference plots were used to compare results from each MS to the all-method median values. Agreement among methods was evaluated against APS for bias derived from biological variation of the 2 measurands.

RESULTS

The median interassay CV for tPSA MSs (11.5%; 25-75th percentiles, 9.2-13.4) fulfilled the minimum APS goal for intermethod bias (15.9%), while the interassay CV for fPSA did not [20.4% (25-75th percentiles, 18.4-22.7) vs goal 17.6%]. Considering the all-method median value of each sample as reference, all tPSA MSs exhibited a mean percentage bias within the minimum goal. On the other hand, Alinity (+21.3%) and Access (-24.2%) were out of the minimum bias goal for fPSA, the disagreement explained only in minimal part by the heterogeneity of employed antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

The harmonization among tPSA MSs is acceptable only when minimum APS are applied and necessitates further improvement. The marked disagreement among fPSA MSs questions the use of fPSA as a second-level test for biopsy referral.

Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Managing the Gap between Clinical and Laboratory Practice

BACKGROUND

Current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for early detection of prostate cancer recommend for clinical decision-making a personalized prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based management to improve the risk-benefit ratio of the screening strategy. Some important critical issues regarding the PSA determination in the clinical framework are, however, still neglected in current guidelines and a major focus of recommendations on those aspects would be needed to improve their effectiveness.

CONTENT

Evidence sources in the available literature concerning the interchangeability of total PSA results measured with different commercial methods were critically appraised. We discuss how the heterogeneity of the measurand, the intermethod bias, and the design and selectivity of immunoassays may affect the diagnostic accuracy of selected PSA thresholds, and how knowledge of the analytical characteristics of assays in service, such as the recognized PSA circulating forms and the cross-reactivity with PSA homologs, is basic for improving both clinical decision-making in cancer screening and the reliability of the clinical interpretation of results at the individual level.

SUMMARY

Current CPGs ignore the poor interchangeability of PSA results obtained from different assays and the substantial role of laboratory issues in clinical performance of PSA testing. Involved stakeholders should contribute to fill the existing gap by: (a) preparing commutable reference materials for immunoassay calibration; (b) providing analytical characteristics that may explain the different performance of assays; (c) deriving outcome-based analytical performance specifications for PSA measurement; and (d) giving more focus on laboratory items when CPGs are prepared.