[A head-to-head comparison of contemporary indolent prostate cancer screen protocols in Chinese]

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of five internationally used indolent prostate cancer screen protocols in Chinese prostate cancer patients.

Retrospective analysis was made of the consecutive cohort of 314 patients, from Jan. 2006 to Apr. 2014, who had both prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy in Peking University First Hospital. The Gleason score≤6, pT2, tumor volume≤0.5 mL, margin negative and lymph nodes negative were defined as indolent prostate cancer. The predictive value of five indolent screen criteria including Epstein, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS), University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and University of Miami (UM) were evaluated in Chinese prostate cancer patients. Measures of diagnostic accuracy and areas under the receiver-operating curve (AUC) were calculated for each protocol and compared.

A total of 16% (49 cases) of the patients met the inclusion criteria of at least one protocol, including 24 cases in Epstein, 33 cases in MSKCC, 28 cases in PRIAS, 34 cases in UCSF, and 22 cases in UM. Three percent were eligible for all the studied criteria. UCSF and MSKCC protocols had the highest sensitivity and specificity than the others. The Epstein and PRIAS protocols demonstrated acceptable positive predictive value, but the specificity and sensitivity were inefficient. The UM protocol was performed unsatisfiedly on sensitivity, positive predictive value and AUC. A strict limited protocol which contained all the five protocols could not improve the predictive accuracy.

The UCSF protocol had better diagnostic accuracy than the others, but the results were not satisfied. A further investigation on indolent prostate cancer screening in Chinese patients is needed.