Abstract:Background There is a strong clinical need to fill the gap of identifying clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men with prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) gray zone values. Promising, but not definitive results have been obtained using PSA derivatives such as prostate health index (PHI) and PHI density (PHID) and the percentage (‐2)proPSA/free PSA (%p2PSA/fPSA). Thus, this study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of PHI, PHID, %proPSA/fPSA, and (‐2)proPSA/freePSA density (‐2pPSA/fPSAD) for csPCa in the patients with PSA within 2–10 ng/mL. Methods Serum samples and clinicopathological features were prospectively collected from 142 patients who underwent robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy between September 2021 and December 2023. According to the inclusion criteria, the patients with total PSA within 2 and 10 ng/mL and negative or suspicious digital rectal examination were enrolled. We used two different classifications for csPCa: 1) patients with Gleason score (GS) ≥ 7(4 + 3) and 2) patients with GS ≥ 7(3 + 4). The receiver operating characteristic curves and the area under the curve (AUC) values were used to assess the diagnostic performance. Results Of the 142 men included, 116 (82%) patients were diagnosed with csPCa as GS ≥ 3 + 4 and 107 (75%) defined as csPCa as GS ≥ 7(4 + 3), respectively. We found that p2PSA/fPSA, p2PSA/fPSAD, PHI, and PHID were significantly higher in csPCa classified as GS ≥ 7(3 + 4) as well as GS ≥ 7(4 + 3), with p‐values 0.027, 0.054, 0.0016, and 0.0027, respectively. AUCs of the analyzed variables were higher when used to predict csPCa as GS ≥ 6 compared to csPCa as GS ≥7(4 + 3), with an AUC equal, respectively, to 0.679 (95% CI: 0.571–0.786), 0.685 (95% CI: 0.571–0.799), 0.737 (95% CI: 0.639–0.836), and 0.736 (95% CI: 0.630–0.841) in the first subgroup and with an AUC equal, respectively, to 0.653 (95% CI: 0.552–0.754), 0.665 (95% CI: 0.560–0.770), 0.668 (95% CI: 0.568–0.769), and 0.670 (95% CI: 0.567–0.773) in the second, respectively. Both PHID and p2PSA/fPSAD allowed improvement in the diagnostic accuracy with respect to PHI and p2PSA/fPSA ratio, however the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.409, 0.180 for csPCa as G ≥ Gleason grade (GG) 2 and 0.558 and 0.087 for csPCa as G ≥ GG3, respectively). We found that PHI, PHID, p2PSA/fPSA ratio, and p2PSA/fPSAD showed higher sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value when used to predict csPCa as GG ≥ 2, whereas negative predictive value of all four parameters was higher when used to predict GG ≥ 3. Conclusions In men with a PSA level between 2 and 10 ng/mL, PHI and PHID, p2PSA/fPSA, and p2PSA/fPSAD showed good diagnostic performance for postoperative csPCa. However, PHID and p2PSA/fPSAD had a small advantage over PHI which needs to be further investigated for the reduction of unnecessary surgical interventions. This finding suggests that it could be a promising biomarker for making the treatment‐decision strategy.

Serum levels of prostate specific antigen, free PSA, [−2]proPSA, fPSA/tPSA ratio, Prostate Health Index, and glycosylation patterns of free PSA in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia pharmacotherapy

The Progress of Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer

Synthesis and Modeling of Novel Α-Aminoalkylphosphonate Ester Derivatives As Potent Inhibitors of Prostate-Specific Antigen; A Comparison Study

Preanalytical stability of molecular forms of prostate‐specific antigen in serum samples (PSA, free PSA, [−2]proPSA) and their impact on fPSA/tPSA ratio and PHI

[Measurement and Analysis of Different Serum PSA in Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia].

Metabolic profile in patients with prostate cancer

Phytotherapy Might Have a Role in Reducing Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies: Results from an Exploratory, Randomized Controlled Trial of Two Different Phytotherapeutic Agents

Serum (‐2)proPSA/freePSAratio, (‐2)proPSA/freePSA density, prostate health index, and prostate health index density as clues to reveal postoperative clinically significant prostate cancer in men with prostate‐specific antigen 2–10 ng/mL

Performance of Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Isoform [-2]Propsa (p2psa) and the Prostate Health Index (PHI) in a Chinese Hospital-Based Biopsy Population

Clinical Performance of Serum Proprostate-Specific Antigen Isoform[-2] Propsa in Prostate Cancer

The efficacy of different biomarkers and endpoints to refine referrals for suspected prostate cancer: the TARGET study (Tiered integrAted tests for eaRly diaGnosis of clinically significant ProstatE Tumours)

[Clinical Value of Serum Isoform [-2] Proprostate-Specific Antigen and Its Derivatives in Predicting Aggressive Prostate Cancer].

Glycoprofiling of proteins as prostate cancer biomarkers: A multinational population study

Serum amyloid A, phospholipase A₂-IIA and C-reactive protein as inflammatory biomarkers for prostate diseases

Serum levels of secreted group IIA phospholipase A(2) in benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer: a biomarker for inflammation or neoplasia?

Glycosaminoglycan Analysis of FFPE Tissues from Prostate Cancer and Benign Prostate Hyperplasia Patients Reveals Altered Regulatory Functions and Independent Markers for Survival

Prostate Health Index and Prostate Health Index Density as Diagnostic Tools for Improved Prostate Cancer Detection

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

Circulating Levels of Blood Biomarkers and Risk of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Results from Two Large Cohorts in Europe and East Asia

The Value of Prostate-Specific Antigen-Related Indexes and Imaging Screening in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer

Alterations in expressed prostate secretion-urine PSA N-glycosylation discriminate prostate cancer from benign prostate hyperplasia.