Preoperative prostate health index predicts poor pathologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-detected low-risk patients prostate cancer: results from a Chinese prospective cohort

Published online:



To determine the performance of the prostate health index (PHI) in predicting pathologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) in Chinese patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa).


Of all consecutive patients who underwent RP in one tertiary center from September 2013 to January 2017, we prospectively examined the data of 140 patients with low-risk PCa based on the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria. All patients were eligible for active surveillance, but underwent RP. Clinical and pathological data were collected. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the associations between the PHI and outcome of RP. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the accuracy of different models. Decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the potential clinical usefulness of making model-based decisions.


Only 44 (31.4%) patients were finally confirmed to have organ-confined Gleason ≤6 PCa. A low PHI was significantly predictive of organ-confined Gleason ≤6 PCa (p = 0.001), while tPSA and f/tPSA were not associated with final pathology. In the multivariate analyses, addition of the PHI significantly increased the predictive accuracy (AUC = 0.767, 95% Cl 0.685–0.849, p < 0.001).


The PRIAS criteria for active surveillance may not suitable for Chinese patients with PCa. Addition of the PHI to the PRIAS models improved the prognostic performance. If confirmed in future larger and multicenter studies, PHI may help us to identify patients eligible for AS in China.

  • Subscribe to Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases for full access:



Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.


  1. 1.

    Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, Bergdahl S, Khatami A, Lodding P, et al. Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(8):725–32.

  2. 2.

    Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, Tammela TL, Penson DF, Carter HB, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1046–55.

  3. 3.

    Mikolajczyk SD, Millar LS, Wang TJ, Rittenhouse HG, Marks LS, Song W, et al. A precursor form of prostate-specific antigen is more highly elevated in prostate cancer compared with benign transition zone prostate tissue. Cancer Res. 2000;60(3):756–59.

  4. 4.

    Lazzeri M, Haese A, de la Taille A, Palou Redorta J, McNicholas T, Lughezzani G, et al. Serum isoform [-2]proPSA derivatives significantly improve prediction of prostate cancer at initial biopsy in a total PSA range of 2-10 ng/ml: a multicentric European study. Eur Urol. 2013;63(6):986–94.

  5. 5.

    Huang YQ, Sun T, Zhong WD, Wu CL. Clinical performance of serum [-2]proPSA derivatives, %p2PSA and PHI, in the detection and management of prostate cancer. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2014;2(4):343–50.

  6. 6.

    Guazzoni G, Lazzeri M, Nava L, Lughezzani G, Larcher A, Scattoni V, et al. Preoperative prostate-specific antigen isoform p2PSA and its derivatives, %p2PSA and prostate health index, predict pathologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):455–66.

  7. 7.

    Fossati N, Buffi NM, Haese A, Stephan C, Larcher A, McNicholas T, et al. Preoperative Prostate-specific Antigen Isoform p2PSA and Its Derivatives, %p2PSA and Prostate Health Index, Predict Pathologic Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: Results from a Multicentric European Prospective Study. Eur Urol. 2015;68(1):132–38.

  8. 8.

    Chiu PK, Lai FM, Teoh JY, Lee WM, Yee CH, Chan ES, et al. Prostate health index and %p2PSA predict aggressive prostate cancer pathology in Chinese patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(8):2707–14.

  9. 9.

    Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, Stranne J, Hugosson J. Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol. 2013;63(1):101–07.

  10. 10.

    Louie-Johnsun M, Neill M, Treurnicht K, Jarmulowicz M, Eden C. Final outcomes of patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance but treated surgically. BJU Int. 2009;104(10):1501–04.

  11. 11.

    Mufarrij P, Sankin A, Godoy G, Lepor H. Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2010;76(3):689–92.

  12. 12.

    van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Aus G, Hugosson J, Rannikko AS, et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol. 2009;55(1):1–8.

  13. 13.

    Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, Jorda M, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):462–68.

  14. 14.

    Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Wever E, Gulati R, et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(6):374–83.

  15. 15.

    Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ, van der Cruijsen IW, Damhuis RA, Schroder FH, et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(12):868–78.

  16. 16.

    McVey GP, McPhail S, Fowler S, McIntosh G, Gillatt D, Parker CC. Initial management of low-risk localized prostate cancer in the UK: analysis of the British Association of urological surgeons cancer registry. BJU Int. 2010;106(8):1161–64.

  17. 17.

    Zhu Y, Wang HK, Qu YY, Ye DW. Prostate cancer in East Asia: evolving trend over the last decade. Asian J Androl. 2015;17(1):48–57.

  18. 18.

    Yamada Y, Sakamoto S, Sazuka T, Goto Y, Kawamura K, Imamoto T, et al. Validation of active surveillance criteria for pathologically insignificant prostate cancer in Asian men. Int J Urol. 2016;23(1):49–54.

  19. 19.

    Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin TY, Chung BH, Hong SJ, Choi YD, et al. Yonsei criteria: a new protocol for active surveillance in the era of robotic and local ablative surgeries. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2013;11(4):501–07.

  20. 20.

    El Hajj A, Ploussard G, de la Taille A, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, et al. Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS). BJU Int. 2013;111(1):53–59.

  21. 21.

    Na R, Ye D, Liu F, Chen H, Qi J, Wu Y, et al. Performance of serum prostate-specific antigen isoform [-2]proPSA (p2PSA) and the prostate health index (PHI) in a Chinese hospital-based biopsy population. Prostate. 2014;74(15):1569–75.

  22. 22.

    Porpiglia F, Cantiello F, De Luca S, Manfredi M, Veltri A, Russo F, et al. In-parallel comparative evaluation between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, prostate cancer antigen 3 and the prostate health index in predicting pathologically confirmed significant prostate cancer in men eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int. 2016;118(4):527–34.

  23. 23.

    Cantiello F, Russo GI, Cicione A, Ferro M, Cimino S, Favilla V, et al. PHI and PCA3 improve the prognostic performance of PRIAS and Epstein criteria in predicting insignificant prostate cancer in men eligible for active surveillance. World J Urol. 2016;34(4):485–93.

  24. 24.

    Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Feng Z, Isharwal S, Landis P, Elliot DJ, et al. Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188(4):1131–36.

  25. 25.

    Hirama H, Sugimoto M, Ito K, Shiraishi T, Kakehi Y. The impact of baseline [-2]proPSA-related indices on the prediction of pathological reclassification at 1 year during active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: the Japanese multicenter study cohort. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014;140(2):257–63.

  26. 26.

    Link RE, Shariat SF, Nguyen CV, Farr A, Weinberg AD, Morton RA, et al. Variation in prostate specific antigen results from 2 different assay platforms: clinical impact on 2304 patients undergoing prostate cancer screening. J Urol. 2004;171(6 Pt 1):2234–38.

Download references


This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81672544 and No. 81502192) and Shanghai Rising Star Program (Grant No. 16QA1401100).

Author information

Author notes


    1. Department of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong’an Road, Shanghai, 200032, China

      • Bo Tang
      • , Cheng-Tao Han
      • , Xiao-Lin Lu
      • , Fang-Ning Wan
      • , Cui-Zhu Zhang
      • , Yao Zhu
      •  & Ding-Wei Ye
    2. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical Colleague, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China

      • Bo Tang
      • , Cheng-Tao Han
      • , Xiao-Lin Lu
      • , Fang-Ning Wan
      • , Cui-Zhu Zhang
      • , Yao Zhu
      •  & Ding-Wei Ye


    1. Search for Bo Tang in:

    2. Search for Cheng-Tao Han in:

    3. Search for Xiao-Lin Lu in:

    4. Search for Fang-Ning Wan in:

    5. Search for Cui-Zhu Zhang in:

    6. Search for Yao Zhu in:

    7. Search for Ding-Wei Ye in:

    Conflict of interest

    The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

    Corresponding authors

    Correspondence to Yao Zhu or Ding-Wei Ye.