Next Article in Journal
Clinical and Biological Factors With Prognostic Value in Acute Pancreatitis
Previous Article in Journal
Innovative Therapeutic Approach to Chemical Burns Produced by Vesicants; An Experimental Study
 
 
Journal of Mind and Medical Sciences is published by MDPI from Volume 12 Issue 1 (2025). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Valparaiso University (ValpoScholar).
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Score (Pi-Rads) and Glutathione S-Transferase P1 Methylation Status (Gst-P1) in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer Patients With Borderline PSA Values

by
Marius Stan
1,2,
Vladimir Botnarciuc
2,
Andra I. Suceveanu
3,
Andreea C. Costea
4,*,
Adrian P. Suceveanu
3,
Laura Mazilu
3,
Ciprian Iorga
1,2,
Tony Hangan
3,
Corneliu Tudor
5,
Dragos Epistatu
6,
Sergiu Chirila
3,
Viorel Gherghina
3 and
Felix Voinea
1,3
1
Department of Urology, Emergency Clinical Hospital of Constanta, Constanta, Romania
2
Doctoral School, Ovidius University of Constanta, Constanta, Romania
3
Faculty of Medicine, Ovidius University of Constanta, Constanta, Romania
4
Diaverum Clinic, Constanta 900612, Romania
5
Fourth Department of Surgery, Emergency University Hospital Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
6
Department of Radiology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mind Med. Sci. 2022, 9(2), 304-309; https://doi.org/10.22543/2392-7674.1354
Submission received: 22 June 2022 / Revised: 1 July 2022 / Accepted: 10 August 2022 / Published: 15 October 2022

Abstract

:
Objectives. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential use of Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS) in combination with Glutathione S-transferase P1 (GST-P1) expression for an improved diagnosis of prostate cancer, in patients with inconclusive values of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Materials and Methods. The study was conducted on 80 patients for whom PSA values were evaluated and were found to be inconclusive (4–10 ng/ml). These patients underwent imagistic evaluation (PI-RADS), followed by transurethral prostate biopsy, with the evaluation of GST-P1 expression and histopathological examination (for diagnosis confirmation). Results. By combining the results of PI-RADS and GST-P1 the capacity of the tests to correctly identify healthy subjects, with an area under curve of 0.832 (95% CI 0.732–0.907), with a sensitivity of 73.25% and a specificity of 77.78%. Conclusions. PI-RADS lesions and GST-P1 methylation testing when PSA levels are in a “grey zone”, provide a better specificity and sensitivity by comparison through single testing. Testing patients with inconclusive PSA levels allows for a more accurate diagnosis and less over-diagnosis by non-invasive procedures, such as repeated biopsies.

Introduction

Neoplastic diseases play an important role in the mortality, combined representing the second biggest cause of death worldwide [1]. In addition to being a major cause of death, neoplastic diseases also have a major impact on quality of life. This is affected by the evolution of the disease, the treatment regimens that are required [2,3], or the difficulties related to the nutritional needs of cancer patients and the prevention of cachexia [4,5,6]. According to the data of World Health Organization, the most frequent cancers in male patients are prostate, colorectal and lung cancers and the incidence of these disease in on an increasing trend [7,8]. While one of the causes is aging of population, screening programs, based on less invasive tests can lead to early diagnosis and increased chance for survival [8,9]. Prostate cancer, despite having one of the highest incidences of cancers in male population [10,11,12], also has a high five years survival rate when diagnosed in early stages [13]. Social disparities, with difficult access to medical services for patients within rural areas [14] or possible disabilities [15] influences the time to diagnosis and the evolution of the disease [16,17], especially in developing regions, an aspect that was also observed and analyzed in other pathologies [18,19]. Moreover, recently, several studies raised awareness upon neglecting cancer patients during the Covid-19 pandemic [20,21].
Current medical development introduced new diagnosis procedures, mainly through the usage of imaging methods, such as Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS) [22] or, as in the case of other cancers [23], the development of tests that target genetic biomarkers [24,25,26]. There are multiple studies that evaluate the role of combining the PI-RADS with other diagnosis methods in order to increase the accuracy of prostate cancer diagnosis [27,28,29].
The results of all these efforts to clarify the status of the patient dramatically increases the survival rate through better and timely diagnosis [30] associated with modern systemic therapies, such as immunotherapies [31].
In this study we evaluate the potential use of PI-RADS in combination with Glutathione S-transferase P1 (GST-P1) expression in the diagnosis of prostate cancer patients with inconclusive (borderline) values of prostate specific antigen (PSA).

Materials and Methods

The study was an observational one, conducted on 80 consecutive patients (between January 2018 and January 2020) that presented either for control examination or due to lower urinary tract symptoms at the Urology clinic of County Hospital of Constanta. All those patients met the inclusion criteria of having an inconclusive PSA value between 4 and 10 ng/ml; PSA was evaluated by using the ECLIA method.
All patients included in the study underwent PI-RADS evaluation and prostate biopsy with histopathological examination and GST-P1 methylation testing. The histopathological examination was considered as being the golden standard for prostate cancer diagnosis. Possible results were prostate cancer or benign prostate hyperplasia.
We ran a binomial logistic regression procedure using the two variables (PI-RADS and GST-P1) as independent variables and the histopathological test as dichotomous dependent variable. The area under curve (AUC) was calculated and used to determine the performance of the variables in diagnosing prostate cancer, the best one being considered the one with the largest AUC.
Statistical analyses were conducted by using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26, a p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
The study received ethical committee approval no 446/30.03.2018 of the Ethical Committee for clinical studies approval of the Emergency County Hospital Constanta. Procedures at all stages of the study were carried out in compliance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent forms were received from all participants before the enrolment in the study group.

Results

Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The average age of the patients was 68 years, with an average value of PSA level of 7.1 ng/ml. More than half of the patients presented GST-P1 methylation (42 of 80) and for PI-RADS score, no patient had a score of 5, one patient had a score of 1 and most of the patient (50%) presented with an intermediate score [3]. Around two thirds of the patients were histopathologically diagnosed with prostate cancer.
The sensitivity and specificity of PI-RADS, for diagnosing prostate cancer in patients with borderline values of PSA, when the cut-off value was considered to be 4, were 96.3% (95% CI 81.0% - 99.9%) respectively 32.08% (95% CI 19.9% - 46.3%). Detailed values are in Table 2 for different cut-off points.
We further ran a binomial regression using as predictors the PI-RADS score and GST-P1 methylation. The logistic regression model was statistically significant χ2(2) =27.82, p<0.001. The model explained 40.7% (Nagelkerke R square) of the variance in prostate cancer diagnosis and correctly classified 78.8% of the cases. Sensitivity was 79.25%, specificity was 77.78%, positive predictive value 87.5% and negative predictive value was 65.62%. Of the two predictor variables both were statistically significant (Table 3). Men for whom the GST-P1 was methylated had 7.92 higher odds of having prostate cancer. Increasing value of the PI-RADS score was associated with an increased likelihood of having prostate cancer, each grade having 3.01 times higher odds for prostate cancer compared to the previous score.
When combined, the predictive value of the combination of PI-RADS and GST-P1 (AUC 0.832, 95% CI 0.732 – 0.907) was superior in a statistically significant way to each of the two evaluations alone. For GST-P1 the AUC was 0.756, (95% CI 0.644 – 0.869, p= 0.015), and for PI-RADS the AUC was 0.727 (95% CI 0.616 – 0.820, p=0.014).

Discussion

A growing number of novel biomarkers are currently under investigation. Such markers include urinary biomarkers, serology-based markers or pathological tissue assessments of molecular and genetic markers [32]. Several cytokines were investigated for the possible correlation with prostate cancer, such as IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α. The incriminated mechanism is thought to be the high fat diet that simulate a pro-inflammatory state [33]. IL-6 type cytokines belong to the long-chain 4α-helix hematopoietic cytokine family, and plays multiple biological roles in inflammation, hemostasis and immune response [34]. Serum levels of IL-6 correlate with prostate tumor burden and patient morbidity. The prostate tissue itself appears to be a source of IL-6 and its receptor [35]. Other studies found that cytokines such as IL-1 and IL-3, may have a role in angiogenesis [36].
In this study, the first to assess the combined role of PI-RADS and GST-P1 in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, we observed that, for patients with borderline PSA values, both GST-P1 and PI-RADS had good diagnostic performance for detecting prostate cancer, and by using the combined results, the capacity of the test to discriminate prostate cancer patients increases.
A major role in the survival of cancer patients is the capacity of the medical system to diagnose them as early as possible. For prostate cancer, prostatic specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE) are widely and well-known methods used for the diagnosis of prostate cancer [37], easy to perform and generally cheap. Using the DRE as a predictor of prostate cancer is useful, in symptomatic patients [38], and abnormal test being an indicator of cancer risk, raising the concern and determining the referral of the patients to secondary level medical care for diagnosis purposes.
At the same time, PSA can have a significant number of irrelevant results, with low sensitivity [39] when 4ng/ml limit is used, and a significant number of tests within the borderline values. These cases require further investigation for clarification of the diagnosis [40,41], thus current research suggests PSA testing should be carefully evaluated and discussed with the patients [42] in order to maximize the benefits and limit the harm this procedure can have.
In the current study, we observed that PI-RADS values of at least 4 ensured a very high specificity for prostate cancer diagnosis, of 96.3%. Such a results offers very good perspectives in using it for ruling out healthy patients with borderline PSA values. These results are similar to the ones reported in the literature when PI-RADS was used in diagnosing prostate cancer [43,44].
When combined with GST-P1 testing, the precision of the imagistic method of diagnosing prostate cancer increased in a statistically significant way (p=0,014).
The results within this study suggest that by combining different methods of evaluating the patients, the success rate of a correct and timely diagnosis improves significantly.

Conclusions

PI-RADS lesions and GST-P1 methylation testing when PSA levels are in a “grey-zone”, provide a better specificity and sensitivity by comparison to single testing. Testing patients with inconclusive PSA-levels, allows a more accurate diagnosing and less over diagnosing by non-invasive procedures, such as repeated biopsies. These results further sustain the potential of improved diagnostics by interleaved imaging studies and prostate biomarkers.

Highlights

Early diagnosis in prostate cancer is extremely important for achieving a high 5 years survival rate.
The use of GST-P1 and PI-RADS tests in patients with inconclusive PSA-levels, allows less over-diagnosing by non-invasive procedures, such as repeated biopsies.

Conflict of Interest disclosure

There are no known conflicts of interest in the publication of this article. The manuscript was read and approved by all authors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Any aspect of the work covered in this manuscript has been conducted with the ethical approval of all relevant bodies and that such approvals are acknowledged within the manuscript.

References

  1. Lee, A.J.; Wnorowski, A.; Ye, N.; Xu, L.; Naslund, M.; Wood, B.J.; Merino, M.J.; Turkbey, B.; Choyke, P.L.; Pinto, P.A.; Siddiqui, M.M. Validation of an MRI-based prostate cancer prebiopsy Gleason score predictive nomogram. Curr Urol. 2022, 16, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mazilu, L.; Stanculeanu, D.L.; Gheorghe, A.D.; Voinea, F.; Suceveanu, A.P.; Pituru, S.; et al. Incidence of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in cancer patients in clinical practice. Farmacia. 2019, 67, 472–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Murillo-Zamora, E.; Mendoza-Cano, O.; Ríos-Silva, M.; Sánchez-Piña, R.A.; Higareda-Almaraz, M.A.; Higareda-Almaraz, E.; Lugo-Radillo, A. Disability-Adjusted Life Years for Cancer in 2010⁻2014: A Regional Approach in Mexico. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018, 15, 864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ciuhu, A.N.; Pantea-Stoian, A.M.; Nitipir, C.; et al. Assessment of cachexia in cancer patients with advanced disease. In Book Series, International Conference on Interdisciplinary Management of Diabetes Mellitus and its Complications; 2017; pp. 139–139. [Google Scholar]
  5. Savlovschi, C.; Serban, D.; Andreescu, C.; Dascalu, A.; Pantu, H. Economic analysis of medical management applied for left colostomy. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2013, 108, 666–669. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Nitipir, C.; Diaconu, C.C.; Orlov, C.; Pantea-Stoian, A.; Hainarosie, R.; et al. The Necessity of Nutritional Intervention in the Oncological Patient. What is the Evidence? In Proceedings of the 35th Balkan Medical Week, Athens, Greece, 25–27 September 2018; pp. 133–137. [Google Scholar]
  7. Netto, G.J.; Amin, M.B.; Compérat, E.M.; Gill, A.J.; Hartmann, A.; Moch, H.; Menon, S.; Raspollini, M.R.; Rubin, M.A.; Srigley, J.R.; Hoon Tan, P.; Tickoo, S.K.; Tsuzuki, T.; Turajlic, S.; Cree, I.; Berney, D.M. Prostate Adenocarcinoma Grade Group 1: Rationale for Retaining a Cancer Label in the 2022 World Health Organization Classification. Eur Urol 2022, S0302-2838(22)02644-6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Savlovschi, C.; Serban, D.; Trotea, T.; Borcan, R.; Dumitrescu, D. Post-surgery morbidity and mortality in colorectal cancer in elderly subjects. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2013, 108, 177–179. [Google Scholar]
  9. Şavlovschi, C.; Comandaşu, M.; Şerban, D. Specifics of diagnosis and treatment in synchronous colorectal cancers (SCC). Chirurgia (Bucur). 2013, 108, 43–45. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chirilă, S.; Rugină, S.; Broască, V. Neoplastic Diseases Incidence in Constanta County During 2007 – 2012. ARS Medica Tomitana. 2015, 20, 211–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Boyle, P.; Maisonneuve, P.; Napalkov, P. Incidence of prostate cancer will double by the year 2030: the argument for. Eur Urol. 1996, 29, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Fuchs, H.E.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022, 72, 7–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rasouli, M.A.; Moradi, G.; Zareie, B.; Sofimajidpour, H.; Tozandehjani, S.; Zafari, H.; Gholami, F.; Shahsavari, S.; Hassani, P.; Mohammadian, M. Overall survival and prognostic factors prostate cancer in Kurdistan Province-Iran: a population-based study (2011-2018). BMC Cancer. 2021, 21, 1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Stolzenbach, L.F.; Deuker, M.; Collà-Ruvolo, C.; Nocera, L.; Tian, Z.; Maurer, T.; Tilki, D.; Briganti, A.; Saad, F.; Mirone, V.; Chun, F.K.H.; Graefen, M.; Karakiewicz, P.I. Differences between rural and urban prostate cancer patients. World J Urol. 2021, 39, 2507–2514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Shin, D.W.; Park, J.; Yeob, K.E.; Yoon, S.J.; Jang, S.N.; Kim, S.Y.; Park, J.H.; Park, J.H.; Kawachi, I. Disparities in prostate cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survival among men with disabilities: Retrospective cohort study in South Korea. Disabil Health J. 2021, 14, 101125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Song, Q.L.; Qian, Y.; Min, X.; Wang, X.; et al. Urban-Rural Differences in Clinical Characteristics of Prostate Cancer at Initial Diagnosis: A Single-Center Observational Study in Anhui Province, China. Front Oncol. 2021, 11, 704645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Bhatia, S.; Landier, W.; Paskett, E.D.; Peters, K.B.; Merrill, J.K.; Phillips, J.; Osarogiagbon, R.U. Rural-Urban Disparities in Cancer Outcomes: Opportunities for Future Research. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022, 114, 940–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stefanopol, I.A.; Baroiu, L.; Chirila, S.; Miulescu, M.; Anghel, L.; Nechita, L.; Dinu, C.A.; Stefanescu, V.; Bobeica, C.; Nechifor, A.; Tatu, A.L. The Influence of Living in Rural Areas on the Evolution and Management of Pediatric Ovarian Cystic Lesions: A Retrospective Study on a Cohort from South Eastern Romania. Int J Gen Med. 2022, 15, 5273–5284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Foley, G.R.; Blizzard, C.L.; Stokes, B.; Skala, M.; Redwig, F.; Dickinson, J.L.; FitzGerald, L.M. Urban-rural prostate cancer disparities in a regional state of Australia. Sci Rep. 2022, 12, 3022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Serban, D.; Socea, B.; Badiu, C.D.; Tudor, C.; Balasescu, S.A.; Dumitrescu, D.; Trotea, A.M.; Spataru, R.I.; Vancea, G.; Dascalu, A.M.; Tanasescu, C. Acute surgical abdomen during the COVID-19 pandemic: Clinical and therapeutic challenges. Exp Ther Med. 2021, 21, 519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sud, A.; Torr, B.; Jones, M.E.; Broggio, J.; Scott, S.; Loveday, C.; Garrett, A.; Gronthoud, F.; Nicol, D.L.; Jhanji, S.; Boyce, S.A.; Williams, M.; Riboli, E.; Muller, D.C.; Kipps, E.; Larkin, J.; Navani, N.; Swanton, C.; Lyratzopoulos, G.; McFerran, E.; Lawler, M.; Houlston, R.; Turnbull, C. Effect of delays in the 2-week-wait cancer referral pathway during the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survival in the UK: a modelling study. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 1035–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Schwen, Z.R.; Mamawala, M.; Tosoian, J.J.; Druskin, S.C.; Ross, A.E.; Sokoll, L.J.; Epstein, J.I.; Carter, H.B.; Gorin, M.A.; Pavlovich, C.P. Prostate Health Index and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to predict prostate cancer grade reclassification in active surveillance. BJU Int. 2020, 126, 373–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Suceveanu, A.I.; Micu, I.S.; Baltatescu, G.I.; Petcu, L.C.; Dobrin, N.; Brinzan, C.; Nitipir, C.; Mazilu, L.; Botea, F.; Herlea, V.; Voinea, F.; Suceveanu, A.P. Overexpression of Survivin-1, TAG-72 and HERC5 in patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma in the Black Sea coast geographical area. Exp Ther Med. 2021, 21, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Santric, V.; Djokic, M.; Suvakov, S.; Pljesa-Ercegovac, M.; Nikitovic, M.; Radic, T.; Acimovic, M.; Stankovic, V.; Bumbasirevic, U.; Milojevic, B.; Babic, U.; Dzamic, Z.; Simic, T.; Dragicevic, D.; Savic-Radojevic, A. GSTP1 rs1138272 Polymorphism Affects Prostate Cancer Risk. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020, 56, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. García-Cruz, E.; Otero, J.R.; Ineva, P.A.; Pérez, L.M.M.; Elías, L.P.; Asensio, A.A. Robot-assisted aquablation for resection of benign prostatic hyperplasia: A series of cases. J Clin Invest Surg. 2020, 5, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhou, X.; Jiao, D.; Dou, M.; Chen, J.; Li, Z.; Li, Y.; Liu, J.; Han, X. Association of glutathione-S-transferase p1 gene promoter methylation and the incidence of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2019, 145, 1939–1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Polanec, S.H.; Bickel, H.; Wengert, G.J.; Arnoldner, M.; Clauser, P.; Susani, M.; Shariat, S.F.; Pinker, K.; Helbich, T.H.; Baltzer, P.A.T. Can the addition of clinical information improve the accuracy of PI-RADS version 2 for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in positive MRI? Clin Radiol. 2020, 75, 157.e1–157.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tafuri, A.; Iwata, A.; Shakir, A.; Iwata, T.; Gupta, C.; et al. Systematic Biopsy of the Prostate can Be Omitted in Men with PI-RADS™ 5 and Prostate Specific Antigen Density Greater than 15. J Urol. 2021, 206, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kornberg, Z.; Cowan, J.E.; Westphalen, A.C.; Cooperberg, M.R.; Chan, J.M.; Zhao, S.; Shinohara, K.; Carroll, P.R. Genomic Prostate Score, PI-RADS™ version 2 and Progression in Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2019, 201, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Seraphin, T.P.; Joko-Fru, W.Y.; Manraj, S.S.; Chokunonga, E.; Somdyala, N.I.M.; et al. Prostate cancer survival in sub-Saharan Africa by age, stage at diagnosis, and human development index: a population-based registry study. Cancer Causes Control. 2021, 32, 1001–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Voinea, F.; Mazilu, L.; Micu, I.S.; Suceveanu, A.P.; Iliescu, M.; Dumitru, A.; Constantin, V.D.; Paunica, I.; Suceveanu, A.I. Modern approaches for antiandrogen-resistant prostate cancer therapy. J Mind Med Sci. 2021, 8, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. McGrath, S.; Christidis, D.; Perera, M.; Hong, S.K.; Manning, T.; Vela, I.; Lawrentschuk, N. Prostate cancer biomarkers: Are we hitting the mark? Prostate Int. 2016, 4, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xu, H.; Hu, M.B.; Bai, P.D.; Zhu, W.H.; Liu, S.H.; Hou, J.Y.; Xiong, Z.Q.; Ding, Q.; Jiang, H.W. Proinflammatory cytokines in prostate cancer development and progression promoted by high-fat diet. Biomed Res Int. 2015, 2015, 249741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Brănescu, C.; Serban, D.; Dascălu, A.M.; Oprescu, S.M.; Savlovschi, C. Interleukin 6 and lipopolysaccharide binding protein - markers of inflammation in acute appendicitis. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2013, 108, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Smith, P.C.; Hobisch, A.; Lin, D.L.; Culig, Z.; Keller, E.T. Interleukin-6 and prostate cancer progression. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2001, 12, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Serban, D.; Papanas, N.; Dascalu, A.M.; Stana, D.; Nicolae, V.A.; Vancea, G.; Badiu, C.D.; Tanasescu, D.; Tudor, C.; Balasescu, S.A.; Pantea-Stoian, A. Diabetic Retinopathy in Patients With Diabetic Foot Ulcer: A Systematic Review. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2021, 20, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Munteanu, V.C.; Munteanu, R.A.; Gulei, D.; Schitcu, V.H.; Petrut, B.; Berindan Neagoe, I.; Achimas Cadariu, P.; Coman, I. PSA Based Biomarkers, Imagistic Techniques and Combined Tests for a Better Diagnostic of Localized Prostate Cancer. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020, 10, 806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jones, D.; Friend, C.; Dreher, A.; Allgar, V.; Macleod, U. The diagnostic test accuracy of rectal examination for prostate cancer diagnosis in symptomatic patients: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract. 2018, 19, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ankerst, D.P.; Thompson, I.M. Sensitivity and specificity of prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer detection with high rates of biopsy verification. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2006, 78, 125–129. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ross, T.; Ahmed, K.; Raison, N.; Challacombe, B.; Dasgupta, P. Clarifying the PSA grey zone: The management of patients with a borderline PSA. Int J Clin Pract. 2016, 70, 950–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ceausu, Z.; Socea, B.; Dimitriu, M.C.T.; Predescu, D.; Constantin, V.D.; Bacalbaşa, N.; Cîrstoveanu, C.; Costache, M.; Ceausu, M. Dormant cardiac stem cells: A promising tool in cardiac regeneration. Exp Ther Med. 2020, 20, 3452–3457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ilic, D.; Djulbegovic, M.; Jung, J.H.; Hwang, E.C.; Zhou, Q.; Cleves, A.; Agoritsas, T.; Dahm, P. Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018, 362, k3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Park, K.J.; Choi, S.H.; Kim, M.H.; et al. Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2021, 54, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kubihal, V.; Kundra, V.; Lanka, V.; Sharma, S.; Das, P.; Nayyar, R.; Das, C.J. Prospective evaluation of PI-RADS v2 and quantitative MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection in Indian men - East meets West. Arab J Urol. 2022, 20, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Comparison of ROC for Combined PI-RADS2 + GST-P1 versus alone.
Figure 1. Comparison of ROC for Combined PI-RADS2 + GST-P1 versus alone.
Jmms 09 00034 g001
Table 1. General characteristics of the patients included in the study group.
Table 1. General characteristics of the patients included in the study group.
CharacteristicsValues
Patients (n=80)
Age (mean±sd, years)68.0±9.16
PSA (mean±sd, ng/ml)7.1±1.82
GST-P1 Methylation
        Negative (n, %)38 (47.5%)
        Positive (n, %)42 (52.5%)
PI-RAIDS 2
        1 - Very Low (n, %)1 (1.3%)
        2 - Low (n, %)21 (26.3%)
        3 - Intermediate (n, %)40 (50%)
        4 - High (n, %)18 (22.5%)
        5 - Very High (n, %)0 (0%)
Prostate Cancer
        Positive (n, %)53 (66.3%)
        Negative (n, %)27 (33.8%)
Footnote. PSA: prostate-specific antigen, GST-P1: Glutathione-S-transferase gene P1, PI-RADS: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scoring system v.2.
Table 2. Diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS in the study group.
Table 2. Diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS in the study group.
CriterionSensitivity95% CISpecificity95% CI
≥1100.0093.3 - 100.00.000.0 - 12.8
>1100.0093.3 - 100.03.700.09 - 19.0
>283.0270.2 - 91.948.1528.7 - 68.1
>332.0819.9 - 46.396.3081.0 - 99.9
>40.000.0 - 6.7100.0087.2 - 100.0
Table 3. Logistic regression predicting likelihood of prostate cancer based on GST-P1 methylation and PI-RADS score.
Table 3. Logistic regression predicting likelihood of prostate cancer based on GST-P1 methylation and PI-RADS score.
BS.E.WalddfpOdds Ratio95% C.I. for Odds Ratio
LowerUpper
GST-P1
Methylation (1)
2.07.6111.661.0017.922.4125.95
PI-RADS
Stabilization
1.13.436.841.0093.011.337.23
Constant-3.431.257.461.006.032

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Stan, M.; Botnarciuc, V.; Suceveanu, A.I.; Costea, A.C.; Suceveanu, A.P.; Mazilu, L.; Iorga, C.; Hangan, T.; Tudor, C.; Epistatu, D.; et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Score (Pi-Rads) and Glutathione S-Transferase P1 Methylation Status (Gst-P1) in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer Patients With Borderline PSA Values. J. Mind Med. Sci. 2022, 9, 304-309. https://doi.org/10.22543/2392-7674.1354

AMA Style

Stan M, Botnarciuc V, Suceveanu AI, Costea AC, Suceveanu AP, Mazilu L, Iorga C, Hangan T, Tudor C, Epistatu D, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Score (Pi-Rads) and Glutathione S-Transferase P1 Methylation Status (Gst-P1) in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer Patients With Borderline PSA Values. Journal of Mind and Medical Sciences. 2022; 9(2):304-309. https://doi.org/10.22543/2392-7674.1354

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stan, Marius, Vladimir Botnarciuc, Andra I. Suceveanu, Andreea C. Costea, Adrian P. Suceveanu, Laura Mazilu, Ciprian Iorga, Tony Hangan, Corneliu Tudor, Dragos Epistatu, and et al. 2022. "Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Score (Pi-Rads) and Glutathione S-Transferase P1 Methylation Status (Gst-P1) in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer Patients With Borderline PSA Values" Journal of Mind and Medical Sciences 9, no. 2: 304-309. https://doi.org/10.22543/2392-7674.1354

APA Style

Stan, M., Botnarciuc, V., Suceveanu, A. I., Costea, A. C., Suceveanu, A. P., Mazilu, L., Iorga, C., Hangan, T., Tudor, C., Epistatu, D., Chirila, S., Gherghina, V., & Voinea, F. (2022). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Score (Pi-Rads) and Glutathione S-Transferase P1 Methylation Status (Gst-P1) in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer Patients With Borderline PSA Values. Journal of Mind and Medical Sciences, 9(2), 304-309. https://doi.org/10.22543/2392-7674.1354

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop