Evidence Hub

Avoiding unnecessary biopsy in suspicious prostate cancer using PRIMARY score ≤3 and PSAD ≤0.2 ng/mL/cm3: a real-world, dual-center study from China

Jia-Wei He, Lin Qi, Min-Feng Chen, Shuo Hu, Xiao-Mei Gao, Yong-Xiang Tang, Shouzhen Chen, Yi Cai

International Journal of Surgery, 2026

243 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background Among Chinese men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 4–20 ng/mL scheduled for biopsy, <20% harbor clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] ≥2); most procedures target non-clinically significant prostate cancer (non-csPCa; ISUP <2) or benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We tested whether prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) combined with multiparametric imaging and laboratory assays can accurately identify non-csPCa/BPH and safely reduce unnecessary biopsies. Materials and methods We retrospectively enrolled patients from two centers. In the discovery cohort, participants underwent PSA testing, mpMRI, and 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT, and were assessed for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and PRIMARY scores. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, decision curve analysis, and diagnostic tests compared the efficacy of each indicator for non-csPCa/BPH and established the optimal strategy. The validation cohort independently verified this strategy. Results Discovery cohort (n = 243): PRIMARY score area under the curve (AUC) 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88–0.95); cutoff ≤3 provided 83.5% sensitivity and 90.9% specificity, outperforming PI-RADS (P = 0.002), PSA density (PSAD), free/total PSA (f/tPSA), and total PSA (tPSA) (all P < 0.0001). Combined models: PRIMARY score + PI-RADS AUC 0.95 (0.92–0.97); PRIMARY + PSAD or +…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 243 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free