Next Article in Journal
Co-Expression of Niemann-Pick Type C1-Like1 (NPC1L1) with ACE2 Receptor Synergistically Enhances SARS-CoV-2 Entry and Fusion
Previous Article in Journal
The Effects of Local Treatment of PTH(1-34) and Whitlockite and Hydroxyapatite Graft to the Calvarial Defect in a Rat Osteoporosis Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Therapeutic Potential of Bipolar Androgen Therapy for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: In Vitro and In Vivo Studies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biomedicines
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/biomedicines12040822
biomedicines-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

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

by
Finn Edler von Eyben
1,*,
Kalevi Kairemo
2 and
Daniel S. Kapp
3
1
Center of Tobacco Control Research, DK-5230 Odense, Denmark
2
Department of Molecular Radiotherapy & Nuclear Medicine, Docrates Cancer Center, FI-00185 Helsinki, Finland
3
Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biomedicines 2024, 12(4), 822; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12040822
Submission received: 15 September 2023 / Revised: 25 December 2023 / Accepted: 5 March 2024 / Published: 8 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Strategy for Treating Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (Volume II))
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
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.

1. Introduction

It is debated how best to treat high-risk patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) [1,2,3]. After the initial treatment given with curative intention, up to half the patients recur. The first phase of recurrence is a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse (PSAR). Radiation oncologists use radiation therapy to treat patients with PSAR after a radical prostatectomy (RP) [4,5,6].
PSA is the main biomarker for PCa. The serum total PSA (PSA in our systematic review (SR)) is widely used in the screening, staging and monitoring of treatment. The D’Amico classification of localized PCa has three risk groups based on PSA, PCa pathology and the extent of PCa [7]. Guidelines recommend oncologists start SRT at rising PSA < 0.5 ng/mL (<500 ng/L) [8]. Until 2021, the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommended a PSA threshold > 0.2 ng/mL (>200 ng/L) to diagnose PSAR. But, recently, EAU guidelines abandoned the threshold. A short PSA doubling time (PSADT) points to patients who develop metastases for patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa (nmCRPC) and failure to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) [9].
If PSA is measured with a conventional PSA assay, patients with localized PCa cured with radical prostatectomy (RP) are reported to have an unmeasurable PSA nadir. But ultrasensitive PSA assays (uPSAs) can measure PSA nadir for these patients [10]. These assays quantify extremely low PSA values. PSA is not specific for PCa. Cured PCa patients have measurable, but extremely low, PSA nadir because their urethra, breast and other tissues produce a little PSA [11,12,13,14]. Women also have detectable, but extremely low, PSA, despite not having a prostate [15,16,17,18].
Many RP patients with PSA nadir < 10 ng/L do not later develop rising PSA and remain free of recurrence, while RP patients with a higher PSA nadir and later a continuous rise in PSA tend to develop a diagnosed recurrent PCa. Oncologists debate whether patients with PSAR benefit from SRT being started at extremely low but rising PSA (exceedingly early SRT). Our SR aims to evaluate whether PCa-recurrent patients treated with SRT at a rising PSA of 30–50 ng/L may live longer than those starting SRT at a much higher rising PSA.

2. Methods

2.1. Search for Studies and Analyses of the Studies

Our investigation was a SR following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [19]. Our SR was registered as INPLASY023110084, DOI 10.377662023.11.0084. We searched on Google Scholar, PubMed and reference lists of original research studies and reviews for original research studies on total PSA measured with uPSAs. A PubMed search in May 2023 used the search words ((prostate cancer or biochemical recurrence) and (prostate-specific antigen or PSA) and (ultrasensitive or superselective or hyperselective)). The database search gave 316 hits (Figure 1 and Table 1 and Table 2). The review includes 115 studies and 67,479 patients [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134].
Our SR included studies of initial-phase PCa patients that measured PSA with uPSAs irrespective of the PSA levels. Of duplicate studies, we selected those with the largest number of patients or those published most recently. Our SR excluded a study in the Japanese language, reviews, abstracts; case reports, apart from an illustrative single case report, animal studies, studies of male patients with benign prostate hyperplasia, prostatitis or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), female patients with breast and ovarian cancer and laboratory studies of rates of free PSA to total PSA, complex PSA, proPSA, other kallikreins, and urinary PSA.
An author (FEvE) summarized the findings of the studies. Often, the studies reported the total number of patients and the percentage in the group with a specific outcome. Therefore, the author calculated the number of patients with the outcome as (the total number) times (the percentage). The result was summarized to the nearest whole number of patients. The author validated the studies in three rounds. With discordance between the rounds, our SR used the findings of the final round. The SR used Forest plots to visually display the results of the individual studies. The SR also calculated a summary p value for an association between characteristics based on the p values of the individual studies.
Most studies did not specify the generations of uPSAs used in the studies. Our SR grouped the clinical studies according to the clinical phase, either the pre-PSAR phase or nmCRPC. Our SR summarized the pre-PSA-phase studies for the association between PSA kinetics and PSAR and for the association between PSA at start of SRT and secondary PSAR.
The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine recommends reporting findings by the International System of Units (SI) [135]. Many countries and medical journals, like Biomedicines, adhere to the SI. Most studies reported the PSA values as µg/mL. Our SR followed the SI and reported PSA as µg/L and ng/L according to the SI.

2.2. uPSA

Specialists in laboratory medicine successively developed five generations of uPSAs. First-generation uPSAs had a low limit of detection (LLD) of 100 ng/L, and the third-generation uPSAs had a LLD of 1–10 ng/L. First-generation uPSAs had a low limit of quantitation (LoQ) of 500 to 1000 ng/L, and third-generation uPSAs had a LoQ of ≤ 10 ng/L. A fourth-generation and a fifth-generation uPSA had a LoQ of < 1 ng/L.

2.3. Definitions

For RP, PSAR was defined as patients who initially may have had a postoperative PSA decline to values of < 10 ng/L and later had rising PSA values without PCa lesions being identified with ultrasound, CT and bone scans. For RT patients, PSAR was defined with a Phoenix criterion for the rising PSA [136]. Our SR defined remaining PCa after the initial treatment not identified through conventional imaging as residual PCa. uPSAs were defined as assays that could quantify PSA < 10 ng/L. For PCa patients in stable remission during a long follow-up, the LoQ was defined as the lowest PSA concentration where the measured PSA varied ≤ 20% in repeat measurements.
A pre-PSAR phase of PCa was defined as the time from the initial treatment to the time where the patients fulfilled the earlier EAU criterion for PSAR, i.e., 0.2 ng/mL (200 ng/L). After the treatment, the PSA half-life was defined as the time to a 50% PSA decline. PSA nadir after the initial treatment was defined as the lowest PSA in series of PSA measurements. The PSA doubling time (PSADT) was defined as the time for PSA to double its value. After RP, PSAR-prone patients were defined as those who after the post-operative PSA nadir (often < 50 ng/L) had a continuous rise in PSA. After RP, non-PSAR-prone patients were defined as those who after the post-operative PSA nadir did not have a continuous rise in PSA.
The performance of a PSA assay was defined by the diagnostic specificity, diagnostic accuracy, predictive value of a positive test and predictive value of a negative test. Bias was defined as the deviation between the measured PSA and the real PSA in the samples based on the WHO’s PSA reference standards. Precision was defined as the analytic and biologic variation in PSA measurements.
For RP patients, exceedingly early SRT was defined as SRT of recurrent patients with rising PSA < 50 ng/L. Early SRT was defined as SRT of recurrent patients with rising PSA of 200–500 ng/L at the start of treatment [137]. Late SRT was defined as SRT of recurrent patients with PSA > 500 ng/L. Recurrent patients who were given SRT at a rising PSA of 50–199 ng/L were defined as the intermediate group of patients.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Our SR evaluated the diagnostic performance of uPSAs in two-by-two tables of PSAR-prone and non-PSAR-prone patients against patients with PSA above or below a PSA threshold. We calculated Forest plots of binomial data according to a STATA program developed by Nyaga et al. [138]. We analyzed whether PSA nadir after the initial treatment was associated with recurrence and overall survival (OS). We calculated an overall p value for the impact on an outcome using the p values reported in relevant studies, using the method developed by Tobias [139]. Linear regression analyses evaluated whether two clinical characteristics were significantly associated. Our SR considered a p value < 0.05 as statistically significant. We carried out the statistical analyses using STATA version 16.0 with updates (Stata Corp., Station, TX, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Selected Studies

Our SR included 115 studies (Supplementary Table S1). A total of 36 studies reported uPSA assays and 79 reported clinical findings. The studies were published between 1992 and spring of 2023. The studies included 67,479 patients with a median 300 patients (IQR 148–754 patients) in the individual studies. Four studies reported >2000 patients. For PSAR patients median age at diagnosis of PCa was 64 years and for patients with high-risk castration-resistant nonmetastatic PCa (nmCRPC), the median age was 74 years. Follow-up varied from 2.5 to 13 years. In the studies after the initial treatment, 14,965 patients developed PSAR and 2663 died.

3.2. uPSAs

The 36 studies of uPSAs were summarized in Table 1. Specialists developed five generations of uPSA assays. Five uPSA assays had registered trade-marks. Mione et al. reported a third-generation uPSA assay [126]. Wilson et al. reported a fifth-generation uPSA assay [90], and so did Ren et al. (Mesoscale) [41] and Sokoll et al. (AccuPSA) [70]. Hahn et al. reported a colorimetric switchable linker-based assay, where the LLD (100 ng/L) was more sensitive than the LLD of a conventional ELISA assay (23 µg/L) [46]. Heydari-Bafrooei et al. reported an electrochemical assay [57]; Kavosi et al. reported an electrochemical immunosensors assay [70]; and Lepor et al. reported another PSA assay [85]. Mani et al. reported a gold nanoparticle and multienzyme-particle amplification assay [96], and Morris et al. reported a Bayer immune 1 PSA assay [118].
Soletormos et al. studied the variation in PSA measured with conventional PSA assays [140]. The assays had a high imprecision.
Our SR summarized efforts to standardize PSA assays. uPSA assays differed in diagnostic performance. A study compared four uPSA assays [141] and a second study compared six uPSA assays [142]. Standardized assay methods reduced the variability in PSA measurements. In 1999, the WHO created a WHO reference preparation 96/670. Later, it was renewed in a WHO preparation 17/100 [143]. Further studies showed uPSA assays had a good accuracy and precision towards the WHO preparation [144,145,146,147,148].

3.3. Pre-PSAR Phase

The 76 clinical studies of PCa-recurrent patients are summarized in Table 2. In the studies, a fifth of the patients had PSAR after the initial treatment with a curative intention (Figure 2), but the studies varied in PSAR frequency. In the studies, 14,965 patients had PSAR, and 2663 patients died. A multicenter study of 1216 patients showed that PSA varied considerably, as shown in Figure 3.
A multicenter study of 1216 patients with PSAR showed that PSA at restaging varied considerably as shown in Figure 3. Most patients had a restaging PSA of >0.5 µg/L (>500 ng/L), with patients < 50 years having a lower restaging PSA than older patients. The restaging PSA correlated with age at diagnosis, but an increasing age was only modestly associated with a rise in PSA.
For a patient who underwent RP, as an example, PSA changed after RP to a first and a second PSAR (Figure 4) [149,150]. After the first PSA nadir, PSA rose slowly (Figure 4A), until a restaging [18F]FACBC PET/CT showed the patient had a lesion in a pararectal lymph node. It was treated with SRT. Later, the patient had a second PSAR (Figure 4B). At the second PSAR, the tumor burden was higher than it had been at the first PSAR. The larger tumor burden prolonged the PSA half-life and increased the second PSA nadir. However, following RP, the time to the first PSA nadir (TTN) was 8 months, and so was the TTN to the second PSA nadir (Figure 5).
Before the second PSA nadir, the measured PSA included both residual PSA derived from the irradiated PCa lesion, new PSA from growing PCa lesions not included in the field of the radiation therapy and PSA from other organs, as explained in Figure 4C.
After RP, the PSA nadir is important. Kang et al. reported that more patients with a PSA ≥ 0.3 µg/L (≥300 ng/L) three months after RP developed PSAR than patients with a PSA < 0.3 µg/L (<300 ng/L) [53]. Chung et al. reported that non-PSAR-prone patients had a lower PSA nadir than PSAR-prone patients [34]. Grivas et al. reported that after RP, PSA nadir ≥ 0.2 µg/L (>200 ng/L) significantly predicted PSAR [45]. Lepor et al. reported PSAR-prone and non-PSAR-prone patients differed markedly in PSA nadir [85], as shown in Figure 4. Skove et al. reported that the PSA nadir after RP had an impact on development to PSAR [60]. More patients with a detectable PSA developed PSAR than patients with an “undetectable” PSA, and the ten-year PSAR-free survival was 70% vs. 30%, respectively. Lepor et al. reported that PSAR-prone and non-PSAR-prone patients differed in PSA nadir [85]. Sokol et al. reported that RP patients with a PSA nadir after RP < 0.01 µg/L (<10 ng/L) lived longer than the patients with a PSA nadir > 0.01 µg/L (>10 ng/L) [67]. Kinoshita et al. reported that PSA nadirs were significant for outcome [101].
PSA at initiation of SRT is important for the survival of the patients. Lee et al. reported that patients with a PSA ≤ 0.5 µg/L (≤500 ng/L) at the start of SRT lived longer free of new metastases than patients with a PSA > 0.5 µg/L (>500 ng/L) [22]. Tilki et al. reported that more patients with a PSA > 0.25 µg/L (>250 ng/L) at the start of SRT died during the follow-up than patients with a PSA ≤ 0.25 µg/L (≤250 ng/L) [25].
Bottke et al. reported of patients with PSAR where more patients with a PSA > 0.2 µg/L (>200 ng/L) at the start of SRT later progressed than patients with a PSA < 0.2 µg/L (<200 ng/L) [43]. Further, SRT reduced PSA to “unmeasurable” PSA values for 91% of the patients with PSA at SRT < 0.2 µg/L (<200 ng/L). Multivariate analyses showed that nadir PSA after SRT was more highly significant for the prognosis than PSA at SRT. Stish et al. reported that PSAR patients with a PSA < 0.5 µg/L (<500 ng/L) at the start of SRT lived longer without a second relapse than patients with a higher PSA at SRT [68].
In the study by Kinoshita et al. only the PSA nadir had a p value < 0.0001 for the prediction of outcome [101]. In comparison, the preoperative PSA, clinical stage, and Gleason score had higher but still significant p values: 0.001 to 0.04.
Von Eyben et al. reported that PSAR patients with a pretest PSA < 0.5 µg/L (<500 ng/L) lived longer than patients with a pretest PSA > 0.5 µg/L (>500 ng/L) [32]. Dess et al. analyzed the RTOG 9501 prospective randomized trial (RCT) that evaluated RT of the prostate bed with or without ADT [39]. Patients with PSA ≤ 1.5 µg/L (≤1500 ng/L) at RT lived much longer than those with PSA > 1.5 µg/L (>1500 ng/L) at RT.
Figure 6 shows the PSA nadir after RP for the patients who later developed or did not develop PSAR. Figure 7 shows that patients with or without later PSAR differed in the development of PSA.

3.4. High-Risk Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

The PROSPER RCT investigated adding enzalutamide to ADT for patients with high-risk nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). In an analysis of the RCT, Hussain et al. reported that a reduction of PSA with a PSA nadir < 0.2 µg/L (<200 ng/L) gave a better survival free of new metastases than a less extensive reduction of PSA [21]. Both patients of intermediate and poor risk had a marked impact on the OS. As reported by Saad et al. the SPARTAN RCT investigated the effect of adding apalutamide to ADT [30] (Figure 8).
The three risk groups of patients with PSAR and nmCRPC differed markedly in the five-year OS, as shown in Figure 9.

4. Discussion

Our SR reported two phases of recurrent PCa based on restaging PSA after the initial treatment and illustrated that even exceptionally low PSA values related to the outcome. PSAR is an earlier phase of recurrent PCa than nmCRPC. Of the patients in the intermediate and high-risk groups, PSAR patients lived longer than the high-risk nmCRPC patients.
The D’Amico classification has two PSA thresholds (10 and 20 ng/mL (10,000 and 20,000 ng/L)) to separate patients into three risk groups [7]. The PSA thresholds were higher than our PSA threshold (30–50 ng/L). Also, the Prostate Cancer Trial Working Group version 3 (PGWG3) had a higher PSA threshold [151]. PCWG3 advise oncologists not to diagnose PSAR before a rising PSA reaches a PSA threshold of 0.2 ng/mL (200 ng/L). Further the threshold in the EAU guidelines recommended before 2021 for the diagnosis of PSAR was higher than our PSA threshold.
For RP patients, it may take up to eight weeks before PSA reduced to a post-operative PSA nadir. In the pre-PSAR phase of PCa, we called a high-risk group of patients for PSAR-prone patients. If these patients were followed-up without an active treatment, they later fulfilled the previous EAU criterion for PSAR, mainly a rising PSA up to 200–500 ng/L. An extremely low but divergent PSA could separate PSAR-prone and non-PSA-prone patient as early as three months after RP, and the difference between the two groups of patients became increasingly larger and more significant as the follow-up after RP became longer.
Many RP patients with PSA nadir < 10 ng/L have a minimal risk of recurrence [123]. Measured with uPSAs, PSA detected the recurrence of PCa earlier than if PSAR was diagnosed according to the previous EAU criterion. If SRT was started at extremely low but rising PSA values, the PCa-recurrent patients had a lead time of up to one year compared with early SRT, started at a rising PSA of 200–500 ng/L.
PSAR-prone patients had a progressive rise in PSA after the postoperative PSA nadir following RP. Patients with PSAR treated with SRT while PSA was <280 ng/L lived longer than those treated with SRT at a higher PSA [25,87]. A meta-analysis of patients treated with SRT showed the risk of a second recurrence increased 2.5% per 100 ng/L PSA rise at SRT [152]. Unfortunately, most recent PSAR patients had rising PSA of >500 ng/L at the time the salvage treatment was started, as shown in Figure 3.
A study reported that a restaging PSMA PET/CT of patients with PSAR according to the Phoenix criterion after initial RT often detected metastatic PCa. The authors indicated that for patients treated with RT in the early phase of PSAR, the Phoenix criterion needed to be updated to adequately diagnose PSAR relative to the Phoenix criterion.
PSA detected recurrent PCa earlier than restaging imaging. The multicenter study of recurrent PCa patients and other studies indicated that at PSA of 20–50 ng/L, only 20% of the patients would have had a positive PSMA PET/CT [32,33,153]. Surveys among German oncologists reported that PSAR patients with low PSA had a similar 20% frequency of positive PSMA PET/CT [154,155]. A German study of PSAR patients with a restaging PSA < 0.2 ng/mL (<200 ng/L) reported a 25% frequency in positive PSMA PET/CT [156].
Only a few patients had positive findings with multiparametric MRI when the patients were restaged at rising PSA < 300 ng/L [157].
Our SR used the criterion for PSAR EAU employed before 2021. We recommend that recurrent PCa patients are treated with SRT while a rising PSA is extremely low. Also, Diamandis et al. argued that recurrent PCa patients had an advantage if SRT was started at extremely low but rising PSA values [158].
Oncologists debate the timing of RT for patients with high-risk PCa initially treated with RP [155,159]. An argument favoring adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) is that ART leads to fewer PCa deaths than SRT [160]. A con for ART is that ART implies an unnecessary treatment for a third of the high-risk patients. An argument favoring SRT is the certainty that all RP and PSAR patients need SRT, and a con for SRT is the delay in treatment relative to ART. A German survey 2021 of restaging PSMA PET/CT reported that a tenth of the specialists did not use a PSA threshold to diagnose PSAR, a third used a PSA threshold of >0.2 ng/mL (>200 ng/L) and two thirds of the specialists used a PSA threshold of >0.5 µg/mL (>500 ng/L) [155]. Nevertheless, SRT given at extremely low PSA values combined the advantages of ART and SRT and avoided the cons.
A recent individual patient meta-analysis of three RCTs of ART and SRT showed that the treatments differed little in the five-year survival free of PSAR [5,6,161]. But, the authors of the RCTs were concerned with the participants developing recurrence less often than expected. The patients had a frequency of recurrence that was half of that in our studies. Recent studies of PSAR showed that more than half of the patients had restaging PSA above the PSA threshold of 0.5 µg/mL (500 ng/L) used in the RCTs. The consensus was that the RCTs supported SRT.
Previously, von Eyben, 2020, proposed a prospective RCT comparing patients monitored for PSA with an uPSA or monitored with a conventional PSA assay [162]. But recurrent EAU guidelines support early SRT [7]. Therefore, today, the trial is obsolete.
The 2023 National Cancer Consensus Network (NCCN) guidelines for PCa include a subgroup of patients with PSAR where PSA is measurable due to PSA from normal tissue. But, non-PSAR-prone patients have measurable PSA nadir. The non-PSAR-prone patients have an exceptionally low risk of recurrence.
A new retrospective trial is initiated to re-evaluate whether patients with PSAR after initial RP have an excellent OS if radiation oncologists start SRT while the rising PSA is <200 ng/L.
Our SR had strengths and limitations. As strengths, our SR was comprehensive and up-to-date. Our SR supported the assumption that a change for PSAR patients from early SRT to exceedingly early SRT may improve the outcome for PCa-recurrent patients, as well as any innovation of systemic treatments. As limitations, our SR did not evaluate PSA as the screening or staging of PCa. No RCT evaluated exceedingly early SRT. In our SR, only one reviewer undertook analyses of the findings of the studies, but obtained three separate evaluations of the findings.
The studies in our SR varied considerable in duration of the follow-up, and most studies had a limited follow-up of < 10 years. The heterogeneity in the duration of follow-up may explain part of the differences in mortality between the studies. A histologic type of PCa did not produce PSA [163,164]; therefore, PSA could not detect recurrence in patients with that histology. Finally, our SR only evaluated blood tests and did not evaluate PSA derivatives, circulating tumor cells [165], SCHLAP1 [166,167], other long non-coding RNA [168] or genomic classifiers [169,170].
In addition to our SR, a recent individual patient data (IPD) analysis of 10,415 patients with localized PCa treated with radiation therapy with or without ADT reported a consistent prognostic value of a PSA threshold of 0.10 ng/mL (100 ng/L) for the PSA nadir up to six months after the initial radiation therapy [171]. The patients had a median PSA at randomization of 13.2 ng/mL (IQR 8–24). The PSA threshold during the first six months of follow-up significantly predicted the outcome.

5. Conclusions

The clinical use of exceedingly low but rising PSA values was shown to be promising for patients with localized high-risk PCa who may develop recurrence after the initial treatment.

6. Perspectives

An estimated 1.5 million patients worldwide develop PCa each year, an estimated 400,000 patients developed PSAR and an estimated 70,000 patients die each year. A shift from the conventional measuring of PSA to measuring PSA with a third-generation uPSA and reporting PSA as ng/L could detect recurrent PCa exceedingly early and assist in the clinical management. The shift is a challenge. In the pre-PSAR-phase, a measurable PSA may not indicate PSAR, but for many patients in this phase, the shift from having “unmeasurable” PSA to having extremely low but rising PSA may have clinical implications.
The improved implementation of the present goal for early salvage treatment implies a consensus between oncologists. A consensus is especially needed for exceedingly early SRT.
Our SR gave a perspective for patients with high-risk PCa. In patients with recurrent PCa, the detection of early but rising PSA values facilitated exceedingly early SRT. A shift from early SRT to exceedingly early SRT did not change the adverse effects or the costs of the SRT. Compared with early SRT, exceedingly early SRT may reduce the risk of later metastatic PCa and death as a result of PCa.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/biomedicines12040822/s1, Table S1: All studies. References [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134] are mentioned in the Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: F.E.v.E. Methodology: F.E.v.E. and D.S.K. Software: F.E.v.E. Validation: F.E.v.E., K.K. and D.S.K. Validation: F.E.v.E., K.K. and D.S.K. Formal analysis: F.E.v.E., K.K. and D.S.K. Data curation: F.E.v.E. and D.S.K. Original draft preparation: F.E.v.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

We only refer to publications of patients. The original studies were carried out in accordance with the Helsinki declaration.

Data Availability Statement

We have not sent our database to a national archive.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bottke, D.; Bartkowiak, D.; Schrader, M.; Wiegel, T. Radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: Immediate or early delayed? Strahlenther. Onkol. 2012, 188, 1096–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Pisansky, T.M.; Thompson, I.M.; Valicent, I.R.K.; D’Amico, A.V.; Selvarajah, S. Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: ASTRO/AUA guideline amendment 2018–2019. J. Urol. 2019, 202, 533–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Daly, T.; Hickey, B.E.; Lehman, M.; Francis, D.P.; See, A.M. Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2011, CD007234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Cornford, P.; van den Bergh, R.C.N.; Briers, E.; Van den Broeck, T.; Cumberbatch, M.G.; De Santis, M.; Fanti, S.; Fossati, N.; Gandaglia, G.; Gillessen, S.; et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II-2020 Update: Treatment of relapsing and metastatic prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2021, 79, 263–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Vale, C.L.; Fisher, D.; Kneebone, A.; Parker, C.; Pearse, M.; Richaud, P.; Sargos, P.; Sydes, M.R.; Brawley, C.; Brihoum, M.; et al. Adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy for the treatment of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer: A prospectively planned systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data. Lancet 2020, 396, 1422–1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kneebone, A.; Fraser-Browne, C.; Duchesne, G.M.; Fisher, R.; Frydenberg, M.; Herschtal, A.; Williams, S.G.; Brown, C.; Delprado, W.; Haworth, A.; et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy (TROG 08.03/ANZUP RAVES): A randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 1331–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mottet, N.; van den Bergh, R.C.N.; Briers, E.; Van den Broeck, T.; Cumberbatch, M.G.; De Santis, M.; Fanti, S.; Fossati, N.; Gandaglia, G.; Gillessen, S.; et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur. Urol. 2021, 79, 243–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. D’Amico, A.V.; Whittington, R.; Malkowicz, S.B.; Schultz, D.; Blank, K.; Broderick, G.A.; Tomaszewski, J.E.; Renshaw, A.A.; Kaplan, I.; Beard, C.J.; et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998, 280, 969–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vickers, A.J.; Brewster, S.F. PSA velocity and doubling time in diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. Br. J. Med. Surg. Urol. 2012, 5, 162–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dowlatshahi, S.; Abdekhodaie, M.J. Electrochemical prostate-specific antigen biosensors based on electroconductive nanomaterials and polymers. Clin. Chim. Acta 2021, 516, 111–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Simon, N.I.; Parker, C.; Hope, T.A.; Paller, C.J. Best approaches and updates for prostate cancer biochemical recurrence. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 2022, 42, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Elgamal, A.A.; Van de Voorde, W.; Van Poppel, H.; Lauweryns, J.; Baert, L. Immunohistochemical localization of prostate-specific markers within the accessory male sex glands of Cowper, Littre, and Morgagni. Urology 1994, 44, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Olsson, A.Y.; Bjartell, A.; Lilja, H.; Lundwall, A. Expression of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and human glandular kallikrein 2 (hK2) in ileum and other extraprostatic tissues. Int. J. Cancer 2005, 113, 290–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Diamandis, E.P.; Yu, H. Nonprostatic sources of prostate-specific antigen. Urol. Clin. N. Am. 1997, 24, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Merriel, S.W.D.; Pocock, L.; Gilbert, E.; Creavin, S.; Walter, F.M.; Spencer, A.; Hamilton, W. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection of prostate cancer in symptomatic patients. BMC Med. 2022, 20, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Semjonow, A.; De Angelis, G. “Ultrasensitive “ methods for prostate specific antigen (PSA): How deep should we measure ? J. Lab. Med. 2003, 27, 16–19. (In German) [Google Scholar]
  17. Lilja, H.; Ulmert, D.; Vickers, A.J. Prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer: Prediction, detection and monitoring. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2008, 8, 268–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dash, P. Reconnoitring the status of prostate specific antigen and its role in women. Indian J. Clin. Biochem. 2015, 30, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 2021, 74, 790–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bogemann, M.; Shore, N.D.; Smith, M.R.; Tammela, T.L.J.; Ulys, A.; Vjaters, E.; Polyakov, S.; Jievaltas, M.; Luz, M.; Alekseev, B.; et al. Efficacy and safety of darolutamide in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer stratified by prostate-specific antigen doubling time: Planned subgroup analysis of the phase 3 ARAMIS trial. Eur. Urol. 2023, 83, 212–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Hussain, M.; Sternberg, C.N.; Efstathiou, E.; Fizazi, K.; Shen, Q.; Lin, X.; Sugg, J.; Steinberg, J.; Noerby, B.; De Giorgi, U.; et al. Nadir prostate-specific antigen as an Independent predictor of survival outcomes: A post hoc analysis of the PROSPER randomized clinical trial. J. Urol. 2023, 209, 532–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, E.E.; Singh, T.; Hu, C.; Han, M.; Deville, C.J.; Halthore, A.; Greco, S.; Tran, P.; DeWeese, T.; Song, D.Y. The impact of salvage radiotherapy initiation at PSA </= 0.5 ng/ml on metastasis-free survival in patients with relapsed prostate cancer following prostatectomy. Prostate 2023, 83, 190–197. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ozyurt, C.; Uludag, I.; Sezginturk, M.K. An ultrasensitive and disposable electrochemical aptasensor for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) detection in real serum samples. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2023, 415, 1123–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sutil, R.S.; Varguz-Martal, D.; De Pablos-Rodriguez, P.; Altez-Fernandes, C.A.; Lozano, A.G.-F.; Backhaus, M.R.; Abal, V.C.; Antolin, A.R. European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence risk groups after radical prostatectomy: External validation and identification of independent risk factors. Actas Urol. Esp. 2023, 47, 422–429. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tilki, D.; Chen, M.H.; Wu, J.; Huland, H.; Graefen, M.; Mohamad, O.; Cowan, J.E.; Feng, F.Y.; Carroll, P.R.; D’Amico, A.V. Prostate-specific antigen level at the time of salvage therapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and the risk of death. J. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 41, 2428–2435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ueno, Y.; Fukumori, T.; Kusuhara, Y.; Fukawa, T.; Tsuda, M.; Daizumoto, K.; Sasaki, Y.; Tomida, R.; Yamamoto, Y.; Yamaguchi, K.; et al. Prostate-specific antigen levels following brachytherapy impact late biochemical recurrence in japanese patients with localized prostate cancer. In Vivo 2023, 37, 738–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wu, K.; Lai, K.; Chen, J.; Yao, J.; Zeng, S.; Jiang, T.; Si, H.; Gu, C.; Jiang, J. Ag NC and Ag NP/PorC film-based surface-enhanced raman spectroscopy-type immunoassay for ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen detection. ACS Omega 2023, 8, 18523–18529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cao, X.; Liu, M.; Zhao, M.; Li, J.; Xia, J.; Zou, T.; Wang, Z. Synergetic PtNP@Co3O4 hollow nanopolyhedrals as peroxidase-like nanozymes for the dual-channel homogeneous biosensing of prostate-specific antigen. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2022, 414, 1921–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Orlov, A.V.; Burenin, A.G.; Skirda, A.M.; Nikitin, P.I. Kinetic analysis of prostate-specific antigen interaction with monoclonal antibodies for development of a magnetic immunoassay based on nontransparent fiber structures. Molecules 2022, 27, 8077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Saad, F.; Small, E.J.; Feng, F.Y.; Graff, J.N.; Olmos, L.D.; Hadaschik, B.A.; Oudard, S.; Londhe, A.; Bhaumik, A.; Lopez-Gitlitz, A.; et al. Deep prostate-specific antigen response following addition of apalutamide to ongoing androgen deprivation therapy and long-term clinical benefit in SPARTAN. Eur. Urol. 2022, 81, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shen, J.; Situ, B.; Du, X.; Wang, Z.; Hu, R.; Li, B.; Qin, A.; Tang, B.Z. Aggregation-induced emission luminogen-based dual-mode enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for ultrasensitive detection of cancer biomarkers in a broad concentration range. ACS Sens. 2022, 7, 766–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Von Eyben, R.; Hoffmann, M.A.; Kapp, D.S.; Soydal, C.; Uprimny, C.; Virgolini, I.; Tuncel, M.; Gauthe, M.; von Eyben, F.E. Quality goal for salvage treatment for patients with prostate cancer at prostate-specific antigen relapse. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2022, 5, 732–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Von Eyben, R.; Kapp, D.S.; Hoffmann, M.A.; Soydal, C.; Uprimny, C.; Virgolini, I.; Tuncel, M.; Gauthe, M.; von Eyben, F.E. A risk model for patients with PSA-only recurrence (biochemical recurrence) based on PSA and PSMA PET/CT: An individual patient data meta-analysis. Cancers 2023, 15, 1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chung, J.J.; Jeong, J.Y.; Lee, J.Y.; Song, W.; Kang, M.; Hwn, H.; Jeon, H.G.; Jeong, B.C.; Seo, S.I.; Lee, H.M.; et al. Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy according to nadir prostate specific antigen value. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0249709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jansen, B.H.E.; van Leeuwen, P.J.; Wondergem, M.; van der Sluis, T.M.; Nieuwenhuijzen, J.A.; Knol, R.J.J.; van Moorselaar, R.J.A.; van der Poel, H.G.; Oprea-Lager, D.E.; Vis, A.N. Detection of recurrent prostate cancer using prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in patients not meeting the Phoenix criteria for biochemical recurrence after curative radiotherapy. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2021, 4, 821–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zakaria, A.S.; Schwartz, R.N.; Hodhod, A.; Couture, F.; Tholomier, C.; Shahine, H.; Negrean, C.; Guyen, D.D.; Zanaty, M.; Stolzenbach, F.; et al. Detectable prostate-specific antigen value between 0.01 and 0.1 ng/ml following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): Does it correlate with future biochemical recurrence? World J. Urol. 2021, 39, 1853–1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Akl, M.A.; El-Gharkawy, E.R.; El-Mahdy, N.A.; El-Sheikh, S.M.; Sheta, S.M. A novel nano copper complex: Potentiometry, DFT and application as a cancer prostatic biomarker for the ultrasensitive detection of human PSA. Dalton Trans. 2020, 49, 15769–15778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cid-Barrio, L.; Ruiz Encinar, J.; Costa-Fernandez, J.M. Catalytic gold deposition for ultrasensitive optical immunosensing of prostate specific antigen. Sensors 2020, 20, 2587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dess, R.T.; Sun, Y.; Jackson, W.C.; Jairath, N.K.; Kishan, A.U.; Wallington, D.G.; Mahal, B.A.; Stish, B.J.; Zumsteg, Z.S.; Den, R.B.; et al. Association of presalavage radiotherapy PSA levels after prostatectomy with outcomes of long-term antiandrogen therapy in men with prostate cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2020, 6, 735–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Farschi, F.; Saadati, A.; Hasanzadeh, M. A novel immunosensor for the monitoring of PSA using binding of biotinylated antibody to the prostate specific antigen based on nano-ink modified flexible paper substrate: Efficient method for diagnosis of cancer using biosensing technology. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04327. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ren, A.H.; Soosaipillai, A.; Mathew, A.; Nikolenko, G.; Sardesai, L.; Stengelin, M.; Diamandis, E.P. Utility of a fifth-generation ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen assay for monitoring prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy with 3 years of follow-up. Clin. Chem. 2020, 66, 1329–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, H.M.; Huang, X.Q.; Wang, A.J.; Luo, X.; Liu, W.D.; Yuan, P.X.; Feng, J.J. Construction of efficient “on-off-on” fluorescence aptasensor for ultrasensitive detection of prostate specific antigen via covalent energy transfer between g-C3N4 quantum dots and palladium triangular plates. Anal. Chim. Acta 2020, 104, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bottke, D.; Bartkowiak, D.; Siegmann, A.; Thamm, R.; Bohmer, D.; Budach, V.; Wiegel, T. Effect of early salvage radiotherapy at PSA < 0.5 ng/ml and impact of post-SRT PSA nadir in post-prostatectomy recurrent prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019, 22, 344–349. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bryant, A.K.; McKay, R.R.; Kader, A.K.; Parsons, J.K.; Einck, J.P.; Kane, C.J.; Mundt, A.J.; Murphy, J.D.; Rose, B.S. Subcastrate testosterone nadir and clinical outcomes in intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2019, 103, 1068–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Grivas, N.; de Bruin, D.; Barwari, K.; van Muilekom, E.; Tillier, C.; van Leeuwen, P.J.; Wit, E.; Kroese, W.; van der Poel, H. Ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen level as a predictor of biochemical progression after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Towards risk adapted follow-up. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 2019, 33, e22693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hahn, J.; Kim, E.; You, Y.; Choi, Y.J. Colorimetric switchable linker-based bioassay for ultrasensitive detection of prostate-specific antigen as a cancer biomarker. Analyst 2019, 144, 4439–4446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jalalvand, A.R. Fabrication of a novel and ultrasensitive label-free electrochemical aptasensor for detection of biomarker prostate specific antigen. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 126, 1065–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pike, L.R.G.; Wu, J.; Chen, M.H.; Loffredo, M.; Renshaw, A.A.; Pfail, J.; Kantoff, P.W.; D’Amico, A.V. Time to prostate-specific antigen nadir and the risk of death from prostate cancer following radiation and androgen deprivation therapy. Urology 2019, 126, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Schroeder, C.; Geiger, F.; Siebert, F.A.; Baumann, R.; Bockelmann, G.; Schultze, J.; Kimmig, B.; Dunst, J.; Galalae, R. Radical dose escalation by high-dose-rate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer-significance of prostate-specific antigen nadir level within 18 months as correlation for long-term biochemical control. Brachytherapy 2019, 18, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sun, Y.; Wang, C.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, G. A non-enzymatic and label-free fluorescence bioassay for ultrasensitive detection of PSA. Molecules 2019, 24, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tian, C.; Wang, L.; Luan, F.; Zhuang, X. An electrochemiluminescence sensor for the detection of prostate protein antigen based on the graphene quantum dots infilled TiO2 nanotube arrays. Talanta 2019, 191, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Burkhardt, O.; Neuemschwander, J.; John, H.; Randazzo, M. Does seminal-vesicle-sparing robotic radical prostatectomy influence postoperative prostate-specific antigen measured with an ultrasensitive immunoassay? Swiss Med. Wkly. 2018, 148, 14685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kang, J.J.; Reiter, R.E.; Steinberg, M.L.M.; King, C.R. First postprostatectomy ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen predicts survival in patients with high-risk prostate cancer pathology. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2018, 1, 378–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yang, Y.; Yan, Q.; Liu, Q.; Li, Y.; Liu, H.; Wang, P.; Chen, L.; Zhang, D.; Li, Y.; Dong, Y. An ultrasensitive sandwich-type electrochemical immunosensor based on the signal amplification strategy of echinoidea-shaped Au@Ag-Cu2O nanoparticles for prostate specific antigen detection. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2018, 99, 450–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhou, X.; Yang, L.; Tan, X.; Zhao, G.; Xie, X.; Du, G. A robust electrochemical immunosensor based on hydroxyl pillar [5]arene@AuNPs@g-C3N4 hybrid nanomaterial for ultrasensitive detection of prostate specific antigen. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2018, 112, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Abugharib, A.; Jackson, W.C.; Tumati, V.; Dess, R.T.; Lee, J.Y.; Zhao, S.G.; Soliman, M.; Zumsteg, Z.S.; Mehra, R.; Feng, F.Y.; et al. Very early salvage radiotherapy improves distant metastasis-free survival. J. Urol. 2017, 197, 662–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Heydari-Bafrooei, E.; Shamszadeh, N.S. Electrochemical bioassay development for ultrasensitive aptasensing of prostate specific antigen. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2017, 91, 284–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Liu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Yu, J.; Xie, J.; Li, C.M. A concentration-dependent multicolor conversion strategy for ultrasensitive colorimetric immunoassay with the naked eye. Anal. Chim. Acta 2017, 963, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Royce, T.J.; Chen, M.H.; Wu, J.; Loffredo, M.; Renshaw, A.A.; Kantoff, P.W.; D’Amico, A.V. Surrogate end points for all-cause mortality in men with localized unfavorable-risk prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy vs. radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2017, 3, 652–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Skove, S.L.; Howard, L.E.; Aronson, W.J.; Terris, M.K.; Kane, C.J.; Amling, C.L.; Cooperberg, M.R.; Moreira, D.M.; Freedland, S.J. Timing of prostate-specific antigen nadir after radical prostatectomy and risk of biochemical recurrence. Urology 2017, 108, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Vesely, S.; Jarolim, L.; Schmidt, M.; Do Carmo Silva, J.; Duskova, K.; Babjuk, M. Stratification model based on early postprostatectomy prostate-specific antigen kinetics may help to reduce the risk of overtreatment in candidates for adjuvant radiotherapy. Scand. J. Urol. 2017, 51, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Von Eyben, F.E.; Kiljunen, T.; Joensuu, T.; Kairemo, K.; Uprimny, C.; Virgolini, I. 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy for a patient with lymph node metastatic prostate cancer. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 66112–66116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Boehm, K.; Schiffmann, J.; Tian, Z.; Lesmana, H.; Larcher, A.; Mandel, P.; Karakiewicz, P.I.; Graefen, M.; Schwarz, R.; Krull, A.; et al. Five-year biochemical recurrence-free and overall survival following high-dose-rate brachytherapy with additional external beam or radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol. Oncol. 2016, 34, 119.e11–119.e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fossati, N.; Karnes, R.J.; Cozzarini, C.; Fiorino, C.; Gandaglia, G.; Joniau, S.; Boorjian, S.A.; Goldner, G.; Hinkelbein, W.; Haustermans, K.; et al. Assessing the optimal timing for early salvage radiation therapy in patients with prostate-specific antigen rise after radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2016, 69, 728–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Laajala, T.D.; Seikkula, H.; Seyednasrollah, F.; Mirtti, T.; Bostrom, P.J.; Elo, L.L. Longitudinal modeling of ultrasensitive and traditional prostate-specific antigen and prediction of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 36161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Naik, M.; Reddy, C.A.; Stephans, K.L.; Ciezki, J.P.; Garcia, J.; Grivas, P.; Stephenson, A.J.; Klein, E.A.; Tendulkar, R.D. Posttreatment prostate-specific antigen 6 months after radiation with androgen deprivation therapy predicts for distant metastasis-free survival and prostate cancer-specific mortality. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2016, 96, 617–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sokoll, L.J.; Zhang, Z.; Chan, D.W.; Reese, A.C.; Bivalacqua, T.J.; Partin, A.W.; Sokoll, L.J.; Zhang, Z.; Chan, D.W.; Reese, A.C.; et al. Do ultrasensitive prostate specific antigen measurements have a role in predicting long-term biochemical recurrence-free survival in men after radical prostatectomy? J. Urol. 2016, 195, 330–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Stish, B.; Pisansky, T.M.; Harmsen, W.S.; Davis, B.J.; Tzou, K.S.; Choo, R.; Buskirk, S.J. Improved metastasis-free and survival outcomes with early salvage radiotherapy in men with detectable prostate-specific antigen after prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 3864–3871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kang, J.J.; Reiter, R.E.; Steinberg, M.L.; King, C.R. Ultrasensitive prostate specific antigen after prostatectomy reliably identifies patients requiring postoperative radiotherapy. J. Urol. 2015, 193, 1532–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kavosi, B.; Salimi, A.; Hallaj, R.; Moradi, F. Ultrasensitive electrochemical immunosensor for PSA biomarker detection in prostate cancer cells using gold nanoparticles/PAMAM dendrimer loaded with enzyme linked aptamer as integrated triple signal amplification strategy. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2015, 74, 915–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Liang, J.; Yao, C.; Li, X.; Wu, Z.; Huang, C.; Fu, Q.; Lan, C.; Cao, D.; Tang, Y. Silver nanoprism etching-based plasmonic ELISA for the high sensitive detection of prostate-specific antigen. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2015, 69, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Seikkula, H.; Syvanen, K.T.; Kurki, S.; Mirtti, T.; Taimen, P.; Laato, M.; Bostrom, P.J. Role of ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen in the follow-up of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urol. Oncol. 2015, 33, 16.e1–16.e7. [Google Scholar]
  73. Tang, L.; Li, S.; Xu, L.; Ma, W.; Kuang, H.; Wang, L.; Xu, C. Chirality-based Au@Ag nanorod dimers sensor for ultrasensitive PSA detection. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7, 12708–12712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tilki, D.; Mandel, P.; Schlomm, T.; Chun, F.K.M.; Tennstedt, P.; Pehrke, D.; Haese, A.; Huland, H.; Graefen, M.; Salomon, G.; et al. External validation of the CAPRA-S score to predict biochemical recurrence, metastasis and mortality after radical prostatectomy in a European cohort. J. Urol. 2015, 193, 1970–1975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Briganti, A.; Karnes, R.J.; Joniau, S.; Boorjian, S.A.; Cozzarini, C.; Gandaglia, G.; Hinkelbein, W.; Haustermans, K.; Tombal, B.; Shariat, S.; et al. Prediction of outcome following early salvage radiotherapy among patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2014, 66, 479–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chen, X.; Zhou, G.; Song, P.; Wang, J.; Gao, J.; Lu, J.; Fan, C.; Zuo, X. Ultrasensitive electrochemical detection of prostate-specific antigen by using antibodies anchored on a DNA nanostructural scaffold. Anal. Chem. 2014, 86, 7337–7342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Furubayashi, N.; Negishi, T.; Kashiwagi, E.; Hirata, Y.; Taguchi, K.; Hasegawa, Y.; Nakamura, M. Usefulness of ultra-sensitive prostate-specific antigen following radical prostatectomy. Mol. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 2, 851–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jackson, W.C.; Johnson, S.B.; Foster, B.; Foster, C.; Li, D.; Song, Y.; Vainshtein, J.; Zhou, J.; Hamstra, D.A.; Feng, F.Y. Combining prostate-specific antigen nadir and time to nadir allows for early identification of patients at highest risk for development of metastasis and death following salvage radiation therapy. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2014, 4, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Keto, C.J.; Aronson, W.J.; Terris, M.K.; Presti, J.C.; Kane, C.J.; Amling, C.L.; Freedland, S.J. Detectable prostate-specific antigen nadir during androgen-deprivation therapy predicts adverse prostate cancer-specific outcomes: Results from the SEARCH database. Eur. Urol. 2014, 65, 620–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mir, M.C.; Li, J.; Klink, J.C.; Kattan, M.W.; Klein, E.A.; Stephenson, A.J. Optimal definition of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy depends on pathologic risk factors: Identifying candidates for early salvage therapy. Eur. Urol. 2014, 66, 204–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Vesely, S.; Jarolim, L.; Duskova, K.; Schmidt, M.; Dusek, P.; Babjuk, M. The use of early postoperative prostate-specific antigen to stratify risk in patients with positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy. BMC Urol. 2014, 14, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Vesely, S.; Jarolim, L.; Schmidt, M.; Minarik, I.M.; Dusek, P.; Babjuk, M. Parameters derived from the postoperative decline in ultrasensitive PSA improve the prediction of radical prostatectomy outcome. World J. Urol. 2013, 31, 299–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. D’Amico, A.V.; Chen, M.H.; de Castro, M.; Loffredo, M.; Lamb, D.S.; Steigler, A.; Kantoff, P.W.; Denham, J.W. Surrogate endpoints for prostate cancer-specific mortality after radiotherapy and androgen suppression therapy in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer: An analysis of two randomised trials. Lancet Oncol. 2012, 13, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ho, T.; Gerber, L.; Aronson, W.J.; Terris, M.K.; Presti, J.C.; Kane, C.J.; Amling, C.L.; Freedland, S.J. Obesity, prostate-specific antigen nadir, and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: Biology or technique? Results from the SEARCH database. Eur. Urol. 2012, 62, 910–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lepor, H.; Cheli, C.D.; Thiel, R.P.; Taneja, S.S.; Laze, J.; Chan, D.W.; Sokoll, L.J.; Mangold, L.; Partin, A.W. Clinical evaluation of a novel method for the measurement of prostate-specific antigen, AccuPSA(TM), as a predictor of 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy: Results of a pilot study. BJU Int. 2012, 109, 1770–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. McDermed, J.E.; Sanders, R.; Fait, S.; Klem, R.E.; Sarno, M.J.; Adams, T.H.; Diamandis, E.P. Nucleic acid detection immunoassay for prostate-specific antigen based on immuno-PCR methodology. Clin. Chem. 2012, 58, 732–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Siegmann, A.; Bottke, D.; Faehndrich, J.; Brachert, M.; Lohm, G.; Miller, K.; Bartkowiak, D.; Hinkelbein, W.; Wiegel, T. Salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy—What is the best time to treat? Radiother. Oncol. 2012, 103, 239–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yoshida, T.; Matsuzaki, K.; Kobayashi, Y.; Takeda, K.; Nakayama, M.; Arai, Y.; Kakimoto, K.; Nishimura, K. Usefulness of postoperative nadir prostate-specific antigen value by ultrasensitive assay as a predictor of prostate-specific antigen relapse for pathological T3 or positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2012, 44, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Malik, R.D.; Goldberg, J.D.; Hochman, T.; Lepor, H. Three-year postoperative ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen following open radical retropubic prostatectomy is a predictor for delayed biochemical recurrence. Eur. Urol. 2011, 60, 548–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wilson, D.H.; Hanlon, D.W.; Provuncher, G.K.; Chang, L.; Song, L.; Patel, P.P.; Ferrell, E.P.; Lepor, H.; Partin, A.W.; Chan, D.W.; et al. Fifth-generation digital immunoassay for prostate-specific antigen by single molecule array technology. Clin. Chem. 2011, 57, 1712–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Chang, S.L.; Freedland, S.J.; Terris, M.K.; Aronson, W.J.; Kane, C.J.; Amling, C.L.; Presti, J.C., Jr. Freedom from a detectable ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen at two years after radical prostatectomy predicts a favorable clinical outcome: Analysis of the SEARCH database. Urology 2010, 75, 439–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Eisenberg, M.L.; Davies, B.J.; Cooperberg, M.R.; Cowan, J.E.; Carroll, P.R. Prognostic implications of an undetectable ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen level after radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2010, 57, 622–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hong, S.K.; Park, H.Z.; Lee, W.K.; Kim, D.S.; Lee, J.S.; Doo, S.H.; Jeong, S.J.; Yoon, C.Y.; Byun, S.S.; Lee, S.E. Prognostic significance of undetectable ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen nadir after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2010, 76, 723–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Moreira, D.M.; Presti, J.C., Jr.; Aronson, W.J.; Terris, M.K.; Kane, C.J.; Amling, C.L.; Sun, L.L.; Moul, J.W.; Freedland, S.J. Postoperative prostate-specific antigen nadir improves accuracy for predicting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: Results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) and Duke Prostate Center databases. Int. J. Urol. 2010, 17, 914–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lee, S.M.; Hwang, K.S.; Yoon, H.J.; Yoon, D.S.; Kim, S.K.; Lee, Y.S.; Kim, T.S. Sensitivity enhancement of a dynamic mode microcantilever by stress inducer and mass inducer to detect PSA at low picogram levels. Lab. Chip 2009, 9, 2683–2690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Mani, V.; Chikkaveeraiah, B.V.; Patel, V.; Gutkind, J.S.; Rusling, J.F. Ultrasensitive immunosensor for cancer biomarker proteins using gold nanoparticle film electrodes and multienzyme-particle amplification. ACS Nano 2009, 3, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Thaxton, C.S.; Elghanian, R.; Thomas, A.D.; Stoeva, S.I.; Lee, J.S.; Smith, N.D.; Schaeffer, A.J.; Klocker, H.; Horninger, W.; Bartsch, G.; et al. Nanoparticle-based bio-barcode assay redefines “undetectable” PSA and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 18437–18442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Viney, R.; Gommersall, L.; Zeif, J.; Hayne, D.; Shah, Z.H.; Doherty, A. Ultrasensitive prostate specific antigen assay following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy—An outcome measure for defining the learning curve. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2009, 91, 399–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wiegel, T.; Lohm, G.; Bottke, D.; Hocht, S.; Miller, K.; Siegmann, A.; Schostak, M.; Neumann, K.; Hinkelbein, W. Achieving an undetectable PSA after radiotherapy for biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy is an independent predictor of biochemical outcome—Results of a retrospective study. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2009, 73, 1009–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zelefsky, M.J.; Shi, W.; Yamada, Y.; Kollmeier, M.A.; Cox, B.; Park, J.; Seshan, V.E. Postradiotherapy 2-year prostate-specific antigen nadir as a predictor of long-term prostate cancer mortality. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2009, 75, 1350–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kinoshita, H.; Kamoto, T.; Nishiyama, H.; Nakamura, E.; Matsuda, T.; Ogawa, O. Prostate specific antigen nadir determined using ultra-sensitive prostate specific antigen as a predictor of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy in Japanese males. Int. J. Urol. 2007, 14, 930–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Shimizu, F.; Tanaka, S.; Matsuyama, Y.; Tominaga, T.; Ohashi, Y.; Fujime, M. Efficiency of ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen assay in diagnosing biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 37, 446–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Stephenson, A.J.; Scardino, P.T.; Kattan, M.W.; Pisansky, T.M.; Slawin, K.M.; Klein, E.A.; Anscher, M.S.; Michalski, J.M.; Sandler, H.M.; Lin, D.W.; et al. Predicting the outcome of salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25, 2035–2041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Ray, M.E.; Thames, H.D.; Levy, L.B.; Horwitz, E.M.; Kupelian, P.A.; Martinez, A.A.; Michalski, J.M.; Pisansky, T.M.; Shipley, W.U.; Zelefsky, M.J.; et al. PSA nadir predicts biochemical and distant failures after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A multi-institutional analysis. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2006, 64, 1140–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Sakai, I.; Harada, K.; Kurahashi, T.; Muramaki, M.; Yamanaka, K.; Hara, I.; Inoue, T.A.; Miyake, H. Usefulness of the nadir value of serum prostate-specific antigen measured by an ultrasensitive assay as a predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol. Int. 2006, 76, 227–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Stephenson, A.J.; Kattan, M.W.; Eastham, J.A.; Dotan, Z.A.M.; Bianco, F.J., Jr.; Lilja, H.; Scardino, P.T. Defining biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: A proposal for a standardized definition. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006, 24, 3973–3978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Taylor, J.A., 3rd; Koff, S.G.; Dauser, D.A.; McLeod, D.G. The relationship of ultrasensitive measurements of prostate-specific antigen levels to prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2006, 98, 540–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Nakamura, M.; Hasumi, H.; Miyoshi, Y.; Sugiura, S.; Fujinami, K.; Yao, M.; Kubota, Y.; Uemura, H. Usefulness of ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen assay for early detection of biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Int. J. Urol. 2005, 12, 1050–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Shen, S.; Lepor, H.; Yaffee, R.; Taneja, S.S. Ultrasensitive serum prostate specific antigen nadir accurately predicts the risk of early relapse after radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2005, 173, 777–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Shinghal, R.; Yemoto, C.; McNeal, J.E.; Brooks, J.D. Biochemical recurrence without PSA progression characterizes a subset of patients after radical prostatectomy. Prostate-specific antigen. Urology 2003, 61, 380–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Doherty, A.P.; Bower, M.; Smith, G.L.; Miano, R.; Mannion, E.M.; Mitchell, H.; Christmas, T.J. Undetectable ultrasensitive PSA after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer predicts relapse-free survival. Br. J. Cancer 2000, 83, 1432–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Vassilikos, E.J.; Yu, H.; Trachtenberg, J.; Nam, R.K.; Narod, S.A.; Bromberg, I.L.; Diamandis, E.P. Relapse and cure rates of prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy and 5 years of follow-up. Clin. Biochem. 2000, 33, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Allard, W.J.; Cheli, C.D.; Morris, D.L.; Goldblatt, J.; Pierre, Y.; Kish, L.; Chen, Y.; Dai, J.; Vessella, R.; Chan, D.W.; et al. Multicenter evaluation of the performance and clinical utility in longitudinal monitoring of the Bayer Immuno 1 complexed PSA assay. Int. J. Biol. Markers 1999, 14, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Haese, A.; Huland, E.; Graefen, M.; Hammerer, P.; Noldus, J.; Huland, H. Ultrasensitive detection of prostate specific antigen in the followup of 422 patients after radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 1999, 161, 1206–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Pound, C.R.; Partin, A.W.; Eisenberger, M.A.; Chan, D.W.; Pearson, J.D.; Walsh, P.C. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999, 281, 1591–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Arai, Y.; Okubo, K.; Aoki, Y.; Maekawa, S.; Okada, T.; Maeda, H. Ultrasensitive assay of prostate-specific antigen for early detection of residual cancer after radical prostatectomy. Int. J. Urol. 1998, 5, 550–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Garg, M.K.; Tekyi-Mensah, S.; Bolton, S.; Velasco, J.; Pontes, E.; Wood, D.P., Jr.; Porter, A.T.; Forman, J.D. Impact of postprostatectomy prostate-specific antigen nadir on outcomes following salvage radiotherapy. Urology 1998, 51, 998–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Morris, D.L.; Dillon, P.W.; Very, D.L.; Ng, P.; Kish, L.; Goldblatt, J.L.; Bruzek, D.J.; Chan, D.W.; Ahmed, M.S.; Witek, D.; et al. Bayer Immuno 1 PSA Assay: An automated, ultrasensitive method to quantitate total PSA in serum. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 1998, 12, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Ellis, L.W.J.; Vessella, R.L.; Noteboom, J.L.; Lange, P.H.; Wolfert, R.L.; Rittenhouse, H.G. Early detection of recurrent prostate cancer with an ultrasensitive chemiluminescent prostate-specific antigen assay. Urology 1997, 50, 573–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Pruthi, R.S.; Haese, A.; Huland, E.; Stamey, T.A. Use of serum concentration techniques to enhance early detection of recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997, 49, 404–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Witherspoon, L.R.; Lapeyrolerie, T. Sensitive prostate specific antigen measurements identify men with long disease-free intervals and differentiate aggressive from indolent cancer recurrences within 2 years after radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 1997, 157, 1322–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Yu, H.; Diamandis, E.P.; Wong, P.Y.; Nam, R.; Trachtenberg, J. Detection of prostate cancer relapse with prostate specific antigen monitoring at levels of 0.001 to 0.1 microG./L. J. Urol. 1997, 157, 913–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Ferguson, R.A.; Yu, H.; Kalyva, S.M.; Zammit, S.; Diamandis, E.P. Ultrasensitive detection of prostate-specific antigen by a time-resolved immunofluorometric assay and the Immulite immunochemiluminescent third-generation assay: Potential applications in prostate and breast cancers. Clin. Chem. 1996, 42, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Iersel, M.P.v.; Thomas, C.M.; Segers, M.F.; Witjes, W.P.; Debruyne, F.M.; Oosterhof, G.O. The use of ‘ultrasensitive’ prostate-specific antigen assays in the detection of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Br. J. Urol. 1996, 77, 418–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Khosravi, M.J.; Papanastasiou-Diamandi, A.; Mistry, J. An ultrasensitive immunoassay for prostate-specific antigen based on conventional colorimetric detection. Clin. Biochem. 1995, 28, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Mione, R.; Barichello, M.; Sartorello, P.; Leon, A.; Barioli, P.; Gion, M. Third-generation PSA: Ultrasensitive or ultraprecise assay? Int. J. Biol. Markers 1995, 10, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Schambeck, C.M. Evaluation of the COBAS CORE Immunoassay for measuring prostate-specific antigen (PSA)—Multi-centre study results. The PSA Study Group. Eur. J. Clin. Chem. Clin. Biochem. 1995, 33, 541–547. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  128. Yu, H.; Diamandis, E.P.; Prestigiacomo, A.F.; Stamey, T.A. Ultrasensitive assay of prostate-specific antigen used for early detection of prostate cancer relapse and estimation of tumor-doubling time after radical prostatectomy. Clin. Chem. 1995, 41, 430–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Klee, G.G.; Preissner, C.M.; Oesterling, J.E. Development of a highly sensitive immunochemiluminometric assay for prostate-specific antigen. Urology 1994, 44, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Arai, Y.; Onishi, H.; Oishi, K.; Takeuchi, H.; Yoshida, O. Use of a new hypersensitive assay for the detection of prostate specific antigen in prostate cancer. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 1993, 23, 110–115. [Google Scholar]
  131. Liedtke, R.J.; Kroon, G.; Batjer, J.D. Modified assay of prostate-specific antigen with a detection limit < 0.01 microgram/L. Clin. Chem. 1993, 39, 2150–2154. [Google Scholar]
  132. Stamey, T.A.; Graves, H.C.; Wehner, N.; Ferrari, M.; Freiha, F.S. Early detection of residual prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy by an ultrasensitive assay for prostate specific antigen. J. Urol. 1993, 149, 787–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Yu, H.; Diamandis, E.P. Ultrasensitive time-resolved immunofluorometric assay of prostate-specific antigen in serum and preliminary clinical studies. Clin. Chem. 1993, 39, 2108–2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Vessella, R.L.; Noteboom, J.; Lange, P.H. Evaluation of the Abbott IMx automated immunoassay of prostate-specific antigen. Clin. Chem. 1992, 38, 2044–2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Whitby, L.G. The International System of Units (SI) and its application to clinical chemistry. Scott. Med. J. 1974, 19, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Roach, M., 3rd; Hanks, G.; Thames, H., Jr.; Schellhammer, P.; Shipley, W.U.; Sokol, G.H.; Sandler, H. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: Recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2006, 65, 965–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Pfister, D.; Bolla, M.; Briganti, A.; Carroll, P.; Cozzarini, C.; Joniau, S.; van Poppel, H.; Roach, M.; Stephenson, A.; Wiegel, T.; et al. Early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2014, 65, 1034–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Nyaga, V.N.; Arbyn, M.; Aerts, M. Metaprop: A Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Arch. Public Health 2014, 72, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Tobias, A. Meta-analysis of p values. Stata Tech. Bull. 1999, 49, 15–17. [Google Scholar]
  140. Soletormos, G.; Semjonow, A.; Sibley, P.E.; Lamerz, R.; Petersen, P.H.; Albrecht, W.; Bialk, P.; Gion, M.; Junker, F.; Schmid, H.P.; et al. Biological variation of total prostate-specific antigen: A survey of published estimates and consequences for clinical practice. Clin. Chem. 2005, 51, 1342–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Prestigiacomo, A.F.; Stamey, T.A. A comparison of 4 ultrasensitive prostate specific antigen assays for early detection of residual cancer after radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 1994, 152, 1515–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Forde, J.C.; Marignol, L.; Blake, O.; McDermott, T.; Grainger, R.; Crowley, V.E.; Lynch, T.H. Standardization of assay methods reduces variability of total PSA measurements: An Irish study. BJU Int. 2012, 110, 644–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Ferguson, J.; Patel, D.; Atkinson, E.; Rigsby, P.; Burns, C. Continued provision of WHO international standards for total and free PSA: Content and commutability of replacement preparations. Clin. Biochem. 2019, 71, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Kort, S.A.; Martens, F.; Vanpoucke, H.; van Duijnhoven, H.L.; Blankenstein, M.A. Comparison of 6 automated assays for total and free prostate-specific antigen with special reference to their reactivity toward the WHO 96/670 reference preparation. Clin. Chem. 2006, 52, 1568–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Garrido, M.M.; Marta, J.C.; Ribeiro, R.M.; Pinheiro, L.C.; Holdenrieder, S.; Guimaraes, J.T. Comparison of three assays for total and free PSA using hybritech and WHO calibrations. In Vivo 2021, 35, 3431–3439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Foj, L.; Filella, X.; Alcover, J.; Auge, J.M.; Escudero, J.M.; Molina, R. Variability of assay methods for total and free PSA after WHO standardization. Tumour Biol. 2014, 35, 1867–1873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Stephan, C.; Bangma, C.; Vignati, G.; Bartsch, G.; Lein, M.; Jung, K.; Philippe, M.; Semjonow, A.; Catalona, W.J. 20–25% lower concentrations of total and free prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after calibration of PSA assays to the WHO reference materials—Analysis of 1098 patients in four centers. Int. J. Biol. Markers 2009, 24, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  148. Deng, L.; Yue, D.; Wang, X.; Li, H. Consistency and diagnostic accuracy of 4 assays in the detection of the total and free prostate-specific antigen. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2023, 12, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Von Eyben, F.E.; Kangasmaki, A.; Kiljunen, T.; Joensuu, T. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy for a pelvic lymph-node metastasis from prostate cancer—A case report. Tumori 2013, 99, e120–e123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Von Eyben, F.E.; Joensuu, T.; Kangasmaki, A.; Kairemo, K.; Kiljunen, T. Abiraterone and volumetric modulated arc therapy for second recurrence of node-positive prostate cancer—A case report. Diagn. Imaging Ther. 2014, 1, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Scher, H.I.; Morris, M.J.; Stadler, W.M.; Higano, C.; Basch, E.; Fizazi, K.; Antonarakis, E.S.; Beer, T.M.; Carducci, M.A.; Chi, K.N.; et al. Trial Design and Objectives for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 1402–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. King, C.R. The timing of salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: A systematic review. Int J Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012, 84, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Kabasakal, L.; Demirci, E.; Nematyazar, J.; Akyel, R.; Razavi, B.; Ocak, M.; Aygun, A.; Obek, C.; Kural, A.R. The role of PSMA PET/CT imaging in restaging of prostate cancer patients with low prostate-specific antigen levels. Nucl. Med. Commun. 2017, 38, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Vogel, M.M.E.; Dewes, S.; Sage, E.K.; Devecka, M.; Gschwend, J.E.; Eiber, M.; Combs, S.E.; Schiller, K. A survey among German-speaking radiation oncologists on PET-based radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Radiat. Oncol. 2021, 16, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Vogel, M.M.E.; Dewes, S.; Sage, E.K.; Devecka, M.; Gschwend, J.E.; Schiller, K.; Combs, S.E. Patterns of care for prostate cancer radiotherapy-results from a survey among German-speaking radiation oncologists. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2021, 197, 962–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Burgard, C.; Hoffmann, M.A.; Frei, M.; Buchholz, H.G.; Khreish, F.; Marlowe, R.J.; Schreckenberger, M.; Ezziddin, S.; Rosar, F. Detection efficacy of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer with very low PSA levels: A 7-year, two-center “real-world” experience. Cancers 2023, 15, 1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Renard-Penna, R.; Zhang-Yin, J.; Montagne, S.; Aupin, L.; Bruguiere, E.; Labidi, M.; Latorzeff, I.; Hennequin, C. Targeting local recurrence after surgery with MRI imaging for prostate cancer in the setting of salvage radiation therapy. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 775387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Diamandis, E.P. Prostate-specific antigen: Its usefulness in clinical medicine. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 1998, 9, 310–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. McClelland, S., 3rd; Sandler, K.A.; Degnin, C.; Chen, Y.; Mitin, T. Adjuvant vs. salvage radiation therapy in men with high-risk features after radical prostatectomy: Survey of North American genitourinary expert radiation oncologists. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 2019, 13, E132–E134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Parker, C.; Sydes, M.R.; Catton, C.M.; Kynaston, H.; Logue, J.; Murphy, C.; Morgan, R.C.; Mellon, K.; Morash, C.; Parulekar, W.; et al. Radiotherapy and androgen deprivation in combination after local surgery (RADICALS): A new Medical Research Council/National Cancer Institute of Canada phase III trial of adjuvant treatment after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2007, 99, 1376–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Wegener, D.; Aebersold, D.M.; Grimm, M.O.; Hammerer, P.; Froehner, M.; Graefen, M.; Boehmer, D.; Zips, D.; Wiegel, T. Postoperative radiotherapy of prostate cancer: Adjuvant versus early salvage. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 2256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Von Eyben, F.E.; Bauman, G. Re: Joaquin Mateo, Karim Fizazi, Silke Gillessen; et al. Managing nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2019, 75, 285–293, Erratum in Eur. Urol. 2020, 77, e67–e68. [Google Scholar]
  163. Taskovska, M.; Frelih, M.; Smrkolj, T.; Volavsek, M. Basal cell carcinoma of the prostate misdiagnosed as high-grade urothelial cancer—A case report of a diagnostic pitfall. Res. Rep. Urol. 2023, 15, 187–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Grossman, J.E.; Wu, Y.; Ye, H.; Bhatt, R.S. Case of basal cell carcinoma of the prostate successfully treated before and after a BRCA2 reversion mutation. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2018, 2, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Pak, S.; Suh, Y.S.; Lee, D.E.; Kim, S.H.; Joung, J.Y.; Park, W.S.; Lee, S.J.; Lee, K.H. Association between postoperative detection of circulating tumor cells and recurrence in patients with prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2020, 203, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Prensner, J.R.; Iyer, M.K.; Sahu, A.; Asangani, I.A.; Cao, Q.; Patel, L.; Vergara, I.A.; Davicioni, E.; Erho, N.; Ghadessi, M.; et al. The long noncoding RNA SChLAP1 promotes aggressive prostate cancer and antagonizes the SWI/SNF complex. Nat. Genet. 2013, 45, 1392–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Kidd, S.G.; Carm, K.T.; Bogaard, M.; Olsen, L.G.; Bakken, A.C.; Lovf, M.; Lothe, R.A.; Axcrona, K.; Axcrona, U.; Skotheim, R.I. High expression of SCHLAP1 in primary prostate cancer is an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence, despite substantial heterogeneity. Neoplasia 2021, 23, 634–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Berenguer, C.V.; Pereira, F.; Camara, J.S.; Pereira, J.A.M. Underlying features of prostate cancer-statistics, risk factors, and emerging methods for its diagnosis. Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30, 2300–2321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Jairath, N.K.; Dal Pra, A.; Vince, R., Jr.; Dess, R.T.; Jackson, W.C.; Tosoian, J.J.; McBride, S.M.; Zhao, S.G.; Berlin, A.; Mahal, B.A.; et al. A Systematic Review of the Evidence for the Decipher Genomic Classifier in Prostate Cancer. Eur. Urol. 2021, 79, 374–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Feng, F.Y.; Huang, H.C.; Spratt, D.E.; Zhao, S.G.; Sandler, H.M.; Simko, J.P.; Davicioni, E.; Nguyen, P.L.; Pollack, A.; Efstathiou, J.A.; et al. Validation of a 22-gene genomic classifier in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: An ancillary study of the NRG/RTOG 9601 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021, 7, 544–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Kwak, L.; Ravi, P.; Armstrong, J.G.; Beckendorf, V.; Chin, J.L.; D’Amico, A.V.; Dearnaley, D.P.; Di Stasi, S.M.; Gillessen, S.; Lukka, H.; et al. Prognostic Impact of Prostate-Specific Antigen at 6 Months After Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: An Individual Patient Data Analysis of Randomized Trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 2024, JCO2300762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biomedicines 12 00822 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow scheme for the selection of studies.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow scheme for the selection of studies.
Biomedicines 12 00822 g001
Biomedicines 12 00822 g002
Figure 2. Frequency of patients with PSA relapse (PSAR) in studies of PSA nadir following radical prostatectomy (RP). The studies varied in frequency of PSAR after RP following radical prostatectomy [22,34,36,45,52,53,60,77,81,84,85,88,89,93,94,101,107,109,110,111,135,136].
Figure 2. Frequency of patients with PSA relapse (PSAR) in studies of PSA nadir following radical prostatectomy (RP). The studies varied in frequency of PSAR after RP following radical prostatectomy [22,34,36,45,52,53,60,77,81,84,85,88,89,93,94,101,107,109,110,111,135,136].
Biomedicines 12 00822 g002
Biomedicines 12 00822 g003
Figure 3. Scatterplot of pretest PSA in relation to age at diagnosis based on the multicenter study of patients with PSAR by von Eyben et al. [33]. The figure was truncated at PSA 20 µg/L. Most PSAR patients were restaged at PSA value > 0.5 µg/L, the upper limit for most PSAR patients that was recommended in recent guidelines and shown in the figure with green color. PSA had a weak but statistically significant linear association with age at diagnosis.
Figure 3. Scatterplot of pretest PSA in relation to age at diagnosis based on the multicenter study of patients with PSAR by von Eyben et al. [33]. The figure was truncated at PSA 20 µg/L. Most PSAR patients were restaged at PSA value > 0.5 µg/L, the upper limit for most PSAR patients that was recommended in recent guidelines and shown in the figure with green color. PSA had a weak but statistically significant linear association with age at diagnosis.
Biomedicines 12 00822 g003
Biomedicines 12 00822 g004
Figure 4. Changes in PSA for a patient who initially had aggressive PCa with bilateral lymph node metastases. (A) Clinical course up to first PSAR. (B) Clinical course up to second BCR. (C) Explanatory model indicating how changes in measured PSA (S-PSA) reflected PSA released from treated PCa lesion (green) and untreated PCa lesions (red) up to the second PSAR.
Figure 4. Changes in PSA for a patient who initially had aggressive PCa with bilateral lymph node metastases. (A) Clinical course up to first PSAR. (B) Clinical course up to second BCR. (C) Explanatory model indicating how changes in measured PSA (S-PSA) reflected PSA released from treated PCa lesion (green) and untreated PCa lesions (red) up to the second PSAR.
Biomedicines 12 00822 g004
Biomedicines 12 00822 g005
Figure 5. Distribution of PSA nadir after radical prostatectomy for PSAR-prone patients (red curve) and non-PSAR-prone patients (green curve). The x-axis shows PSA values on a logarithmic scale.
Figure 5. Distribution of PSA nadir after radical prostatectomy for PSAR-prone patients (red curve) and non-PSAR-prone patients (green curve). The x-axis shows PSA values on a logarithmic scale.
Biomedicines 12 00822 g005
Biomedicines 12 00822 g006
Figure 6. PSA relapse (PSAR) during the follow-up after radical prostatectomy (RP) (time 0). The figure combines the clinical course of PSA after radical prostatectomy (RP) for individual patients as they were shown in previous studies. The PSA values on the y-axis are shown on a logarithmic scale. Three non-PSAR-prone patients (green lines) and twenty PSAR-prone patients (red lines) differed regarding PSA kinetics following RP. Non-PSAR -prone patients had fluctuating PSA values < 30 ng/L following RP. After PSA nadir following RP, PSA increased to >50 ng/L for the twenty PSAR-prone patients before they were given salvage treatment for PSAR. Already during the first year after RP, PSAR-prone patients had rising PSA values in contrast to the falling PSA values for the non-PSAR-prone patients. The PSA kinetics separated PSAR-prone and non-PSAR-prone patients better than the numeric PSA values. The figure illustrates that within the first two years after RP, some PSAR-prone patients had an obvious rise in PSA, but were nevertheless followed-up with up to 6 years before they were started on salvage treatment. Abbreviations: S-PSA—serum prostate-specific antigen.
Figure 6. PSA relapse (PSAR) during the follow-up after radical prostatectomy (RP) (time 0). The figure combines the clinical course of PSA after radical prostatectomy (RP) for individual patients as they were shown in previous studies. The PSA values on the y-axis are shown on a logarithmic scale. Three non-PSAR-prone patients (green lines) and twenty PSAR-prone patients (red lines) differed regarding PSA kinetics following RP. Non-PSAR -prone patients had fluctuating PSA values < 30 ng/L following RP. After PSA nadir following RP, PSA increased to >50 ng/L for the twenty PSAR-prone patients before they were given salvage treatment for PSAR. Already during the first year after RP, PSAR-prone patients had rising PSA values in contrast to the falling PSA values for the non-PSAR-prone patients. The PSA kinetics separated PSAR-prone and non-PSAR-prone patients better than the numeric PSA values. The figure illustrates that within the first two years after RP, some PSAR-prone patients had an obvious rise in PSA, but were nevertheless followed-up with up to 6 years before they were started on salvage treatment. Abbreviations: S-PSA—serum prostate-specific antigen.
Biomedicines 12 00822 g006
Biomedicines 12 00822 g007aBiomedicines 12 00822 g007b
Figure 7. Diagnostic performance of ultrasensitive PSA assays in clinical studies of PSA nadirs after radical prostatectomy [67,77,85,101,105,111,119,121]. (A) Predictive values of a positive PSA test. (B) Predictive value of a negative PSA test. The high predictive value of a negative PSA test supported the clinical use of PSA measured with ultrasensitive PSA assays for PCa patients in the pre-PSAR phase.
Figure 7. Diagnostic performance of ultrasensitive PSA assays in clinical studies of PSA nadirs after radical prostatectomy [67,77,85,101,105,111,119,121]. (A) Predictive values of a positive PSA test. (B) Predictive value of a negative PSA test. The high predictive value of a negative PSA test supported the clinical use of PSA measured with ultrasensitive PSA assays for PCa patients in the pre-PSAR phase.
Biomedicines 12 00822 g007aBiomedicines 12 00822 g007b
Biomedicines 12 00822 g008
Figure 8. Overall mortality in studies that reported the mortality [43,49,53,56,59,63,66,68,78,88,105,112,117]. The PSAR patients varied in mortality between the studies. The mortality increased with the duration of the follow-up; therefore, differences in duration of the follow-up may have contributed to the differences in mortality.
Figure 8. Overall mortality in studies that reported the mortality [43,49,53,56,59,63,66,68,78,88,105,112,117]. The PSAR patients varied in mortality between the studies. The mortality increased with the duration of the follow-up; therefore, differences in duration of the follow-up may have contributed to the differences in mortality.
Biomedicines 12 00822 g008
Biomedicines 12 00822 g009aBiomedicines 12 00822 g009b
Figure 9. We based the five-year overall survival (OS) of the patients with PSA relapse (PSAR) on a previous study of patients restaged with PSMA PET/CT [85]. We based the OS for patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa (nmCRPC) in publications of randomized controlled trials. The three risk groups of PSAR patients and nmCRPC patients differed in five-year OS. (A) In the two phases of recurrent PCa, OS differed more for the subgroup of intermediate patients (yellow line) and high-risk subgroup of patients (red line) than for the low-risk subgroup of patients (green line). (B) PSAR patients (blue columns) and nmCRPC patients (orange columns) had similar proportions of patients in the three risk groups.
Figure 9. We based the five-year overall survival (OS) of the patients with PSA relapse (PSAR) on a previous study of patients restaged with PSMA PET/CT [85]. We based the OS for patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa (nmCRPC) in publications of randomized controlled trials. The three risk groups of PSAR patients and nmCRPC patients differed in five-year OS. (A) In the two phases of recurrent PCa, OS differed more for the subgroup of intermediate patients (yellow line) and high-risk subgroup of patients (red line) than for the low-risk subgroup of patients (green line). (B) PSAR patients (blue columns) and nmCRPC patients (orange columns) had similar proportions of patients in the three risk groups.
Biomedicines 12 00822 g009aBiomedicines 12 00822 g009b
Table 1. Ultraselective PSA assays.
Table 1. Ultraselective PSA assays.
YearStudyReferenceMethodLLD (ng/L)
2023Ozyurt[23]ITO-PET0.0074
Wu[27]Ag NP0.001
2022Cao[28]PtNP@Co2O4 NP10
Orlov[29]Enzyme-linked19
Shen[31]AIE-ELISA1.3
2020Aki[37]Membrane biosensor5
Cid-Barrio[38]Au NP1
Farsschi[40]Citrate-Ag NPs70
Ren[41]MesoScale0.0035
Wang[42]Pd TP4.2
2019Hahn[46]Au NP0.1
Jalalvand[47]Aptamer0.5
Sun[50]Fluorescence10
Tian[51]Electrochemilumiscence0.001
2018Yang[54]Sandwich immunosensor0.003
Zhou[55]Au NP0.12
2017Heydari-Bafrooei[57]Au NP1
Liu[58]Au BN sensor0.27
2015Kavosi[70]Au NP10
Liang[71]Ag NP0.004
Tang[73]Au NPNR
2014Chen[76]Au NP1
2012McDermed[86]Immuno-PCR0.27
2011Wilson[90]Digital immunoassay0.65
2009Lee,[95]Polyclonal Ab1
Mani[96]Au NP0.5
Thaxton[97]Au NP0.33
1996Ferguson,[123]Bayer Immuno 1 PSA3
1995Khosravi[125]Polyclonal Ab12
Mione[126]Polyclonal Ab9.8
Schambeck[127]Immunolite3.8
1994Klee[129]Monoclonal Ab8
1993Arai[130]IMx PSA4
Iiedtke[131]MARKIT-M PSA200
Yu[133]Tb fluorometry2
1992Vessella[134]Abbot IMx PSA30
Abbreviations: Ab—antibody; Ag—silver; Au—gold; ELISA—enzyme-linked immunosorbent immunoassay; ITO-PET—indium tin-oxide polyethylene terephatlate; LLD—lowest limit of detection; NP—nanoparticle; NR—not reported; Pd—palladium; Tb—terbium; TP triangular plates. Abbott IMx—Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA; Bayer Immuno 1—Business Group, Diagnostics, Bayer Group, Tarrytown, NY, USA.
Table 2. Clinical studies.
Table 2. Clinical studies.
YearStudyReferencePatientsp Values
for Outcmes		Hazard Ratio
Total
Number		Median Age at Diagnosis (Years)Outcomes (Numbers)
PSARDeathsPSAROS
2023Bokemann [20]150974NR760NRNRNR
Hussain [21]140974NR364NRNRNR
Lee [22]39759126NR<0.00001NRNR
Sutil [24]42764NR72NRNRNR
Tilki [25]75964NR127NR0.0081.49
Ueno [26]4186751NR0.001NRNR
2022Saad[30]140174NRNRNRNRNR
Von Eyben[32,33]121668NR133NR<0.0001NR
2021Chung [34]148364323NR<0.001NRNR
Jansen [35]31570NRNRNRNRNR
Zakaria [36]1676123NR0.013NR2.7
2020Dess [39]76065238104NR0.0041.59
2019Bottke[43]301669217NR0.0043
Bryant[44]764669525NRNRNR
Grivas [45]21363103NR<0.01NRNR
Pike [48]204NRNR160NR<0.0015.07
Schroeder [49]459NR75240.010.006NR
2018Burkhardt [52]102NR752NRNRNR
Kang [53]269NR13721<0.0001<0.001NR
2017Abugharib[56]657NR198135<0.00010.002NR
Royce [59]1577285110NR<0.01NR
Skove [60]1790NR820NR<0.001NRNR
Vessely[61]205NR106NR<0.01NRNR
Von Eyben[62]150NRNRNRNRNR
2016Boehm [63]5619651014181NFNRNR
Fossatti[64]71664129NR<0.001NRNR
Laajaala[65]503NR NRNRNRNR
Naik [66]53264354185<0.0001>0.05NR
Sokolls [67]75469262NRNRNRNR
Stish [68]110661669183<0.001NRNR
2015Kang [69]24767114NR<0.0001NRNR
Sikkula [72]604NR365NR<0.01NR1.12
Tilki [74]14,532642950NR<0.0001NRNR
2014Briganti[75]472NR126NRNRNRNR
Furubayashi[77]2006617NR<0.0001NRNR
Jackson [78]4096526149NRNRNR
Keto [79]29465NR31NR<0.0001NR
Mir [80]23486717731<0.00010.0098NR
Vessely[81]1166055NRNRNRNR
2013Vesely[82]319NR10731NRNRNR
2012D’Amico [83]73463NR201NRNRNR
Ho [84]103869262NR<0.001NRNR
Lepor[85]346011NRNRNRNR
Siegmann [87]30161823NRNRNR
Yoshida [88]1026622NR>0.001NRNR
2011Malik[89]11975932NR0.001NRNR
2010Chang[91]11558NRNRNRNRNR
Eisenberg[92]5256587NR<0.001NRNR
Hong [93]384NR63NR<0.001NRNR
Moreira[94]273565635NR<0.01NRNR
2009Viney[98]300NR70NR<0.001NRNR
Wiegel[99]1626275NRNRNRNR
Zelefsky[100]84466NR65NRNRNR
2007Kinoshita[101]2576849NRNRNRNR
Shimizu[102]2576523NRNRNRNR
Stephenson [103]1540NR1047NR0.003NRNR
2006Ray[104]4839NR2318NRNRNRNR
Sakai [105]177NR16NR<0.0001NRNR
Stephenson[106]3125NR458NRNRNRNR
Taylor [107]22569021NRNRNRNR
2005Nakamura[108]46NR150<0.001NRNR
Shen [109]5456754NR<0.05NRNR
2003Shinhal[110]14600NRNRNRNR
2000Doherty[111]1346449NR<0.001NRNR
Vassilikos[112]NR64NRNRNRNRNR
1999Allard [113]384NR494<0.0005NRNR
Hase[114]442NR88NRNRNRNR
Pound [115]1997NR315NRNRNRNR
1998Arai[116]34NRNR16NRNRNR
Garg[117]78NR21NR<0.0001NRNR
Morris[118]159NR2NRNRNRNR
1997Ellis[119]170NRNR24NRNRNR
Pruthi[120]31NR31NRNRNRNR
Whiterspoon[121]127NR66NRNRNRNR
Yu [122]1486551NRNRNRNR
1996Van Irrsel[124]137NRNR12NRNRNR
1995Yu[128]15NR10NRNRNRNR
1993Stamey[132]187NR22NRNRNRNR
Total number 67,489 14,8652663
NR—not reported.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

von Eyben, F.E.; Kairemo, K.; Kapp, D.S. Prostate-Specific Antigen as an Ultrasensitive Biomarker for Patients with Early Recurrent Prostate Cancer: How Low Shall We Go? A Systematic Review. Biomedicines 2024, 12, 822. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12040822

AMA Style

von Eyben FE, Kairemo K, Kapp DS. Prostate-Specific Antigen as an Ultrasensitive Biomarker for Patients with Early Recurrent Prostate Cancer: How Low Shall We Go? A Systematic Review. Biomedicines. 2024; 12(4):822. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12040822

Chicago/Turabian Style

von Eyben, Finn Edler, Kalevi Kairemo, and Daniel S. Kapp. 2024. "Prostate-Specific Antigen as an Ultrasensitive Biomarker for Patients with Early Recurrent Prostate Cancer: How Low Shall We Go? A Systematic Review" Biomedicines 12, no. 4: 822. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12040822

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop