Interchangeability and Diagnostic Accuracy of Two Assays for Total and Free Prostate-Specific Antigen: Two not Always Related Items

A Novel Blood Proteomic Signature for Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common malignant tumour in men. Improved testing for diagnosis, risk prediction, and response to treatment would improve care. Here, we identified a proteomic signature of prostate cancer in peripheral blood using data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry combined with machine learning. A highly predictive signature was derived, which was associated with relevant pathways, including the coagulation, complement, and clotting cascades, as well as plasma lipoprotein particle remodeling. We further validated the identified biomarkers against a second cohort, identifying a panel of five key markers (GP5, SERPINA5, ECM1, IGHG1, and THBS1) which retained most of the diagnostic power of the overall dataset, achieving an AUC of 0.91. Taken together, this study provides a proteomic signature complementary to PSA for the diagnosis of patients with localised prostate cancer, with the further potential for assessing risk of future development of prostate cancer. Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD025484.

Discordant prostate specific antigen test results despite WHO assay standardization

Introduction:

Total PSA (tPSA) and free PSA (fPSA) are the most commonly used biomarkers for early detection of prostate cancer. Despite standardization efforts, many available PSA assays may still produce discordant results. In the present study, we compared four PSA assays calibrated to the WHO standards 96/670 and 96/668 for tPSA and fPSA, respectively.

Methods:

Within the scope of the Prostate Cancer Early Detection Study Based on a ‘‘Baseline’’ PSA Value in Young Men (PROBASE), we tested tPSA and fPSA in serum samples from 50 patients in the four different PROBASE sites using four WHO-calibrated assays from Roche (Elecsys, Cobas), Beckman-Coulter (Access-II) and Siemens (ADVIA Centaur). The comparison was performed using the Passing–Bablok regression method.

Results:

Compared to Access, the median tPSA levels for Centaur, Elecsys, and Cobas were +3%, +11%–20%, and +17%–23%, respectively, while for median fPSA levels the differences for Centaur, Elecsys, and Cobas were +49%, +29%–31%, and +22%, respectively.

Discussion:

Despite all investigated assays being WHO-calibrated, the Elecsys and Cobas tPSA assays produced considerably higher results than the Access and Centaur assays. Differences in fPSA-recovery between all investigated assays were even more pronounced. When applying the tPSA cutoff of 3.1 μg/L recommended for WHO-calibrated assays, the use of higher calibrated assays may lead to unnecessary prostate biopsies. Conversely, if the historical threshold of 4 μg/L is applied when using WHO-calibrated assays, it could lead to falsely omitted prostate biopsies.

Toward metrological traceability in the determination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA): calibrating Beckman Coulter Hybritech Access PSA assays to WHO standards compared with the traditional Hybritech standards

BACKGROUND

The metrological traceability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) assay calibration to WHO standards is desirable to potentially improve the comparability between PSA assays. A method comparison was performed between the traditionally standardized Beckman Coulter Hybritech Access PSA and free PSA (fPSA) assays and a new alternate calibration of assays aligned to the WHO standards 96/670 and 96/668, respectively.

METHODS

Sera from 641 men with and without prostate cancer, various control materials and mixtures of different proportions of the WHO standards were measured with both assay calibrations.

RESULTS

Excellent comparability between the corresponding assay calibrations was observed, with correlation coefficients of at least 0.996. The Passing-Bablok slopes were 0.747 for total PSA (tPSA), 0.776 for fPSA and 1.02 for the percentage ratio of fPSA to tPSA (%fPSA), while the corresponding percentages of the new WHO-aligned assay results related to the traditional assays were 76.2%, 77% and 102.2%. Receiver operating characteristics revealed no differences between the two PSA assay calibrations.

CONCLUSIONS

The WHO calibration yields results approximately 25% lower for tPSA and fPSA values when compared with the conventional Hybritech calibration. Using the WHO-aligned PSA assay, a tPSA cut-off of 3 microg/L should be considered in clinical practice, while %fPSA cut-offs could be retained.

An artificial neural network for five different assay systems of prostate-specific antigen in prostate cancer diagnostics

OBJECTIVE

To compare separate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) assay-specific artificial neural networks (ANN) for discrimination between patients with prostate cancer (PCa) and no evidence of malignancy (NEM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In 780 patients (455 with PCa, 325 with NEM) we measured total PSA (tPSA) and free PSA (fPSA) with five different assays: from Abbott (AxSYM), Beckman Coulter (Access), DPC (Immulite 2000), and Roche (Elecsys 2010) and with tPSA and complexed PSA (cPSA) assays from Bayer (ADVIA Centaur). ANN models were developed with five input factors: tPSA, percentage free/total PSA (%fPSA), age, prostate volume and digital rectal examination status for each assay separately to examine two tPSA ranges of 0-10 and 10-27 ng/mL.

RESULTS

Compared with the median tPSA concentrations (range from 4.9 [Bayer] to 6.11 ng/mL [DPC]) and especially the median %fPSA values (range from 11.2 [DPC] to 17.4%[Abbott], for tPSA 0-10 ng/mL), the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) for all calculated ANN models did not significantly differ from each other. The AUC were: 0.894 (Abbott), 0.89 (Bayer), 0.895 (Beckman), 0.882 (DPC) and 0.892 (Roche). At 95% sensitivity the specificities were without significant differences, whereas the individual absolute ANN outputs differed markedly.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite only slight differences, PSA assay-specific ANN models should be used to optimize the ANN outcome to reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies. We further developed the ANN named 'ProstataClass' to provide clinicians with an easy to use tool in making their decision about follow-up testing.