Extended use of Prostate Health Index and percentage of [-2]pro-prostate-specific antigen in Chinese men with prostate specific antigen 10–20 ng/mL and normal digital rectal examination

Purpose: We investigated the extended use of Prostate Health Index (PHI) and percentage of [-2]pro-prostate-specific antigen (%p2PSA) in Chinese men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 10–20 ng/mL and normal digital rectal examination (DRE). Materials and Methods: All consecutive Chinese men with PSA 10–20 ng/mL and normal DRE who agreed for transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided 10-core prostate biopsy were recruited. Blood samples were taken immediately before TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. The performances of total PSA (tPSA), %free-to-total PSA (%fPSA), %p2PSA, and PHI were compared using logistic regression, receiver operating characteristic, and decision curve analyses (DCA). Results: From 2008 to 2015, 312 consecutive Chinese men were included. Among them, 53 out of 312 (17.0%) men were diagnosed to have prostate cancer on biopsy. The proportions of men with positive biopsies were 6.7% in PHI<35, 22.8% in PHI 35–55, and 54.5% in PHI>55 (chi-square test, p<0.001). The area under curves (AUC) of the base model including age, tPSA and status of initial/repeated biopsy was 0.64. Adding %p2PSA and PHI to the base model improved the AUC to 0.79 (p<0.001) and 0.78 (p<0.001), respectively, and provided net clinical benefit in DCA. The positive biopsy rates of Gleason 7 or above prostate cancers were 2.2% for PHI55 (chi-square test, p<0.001). By utilizing the PHI cutoff of 35 to men with PSA 10–20 ng/mL and normal DRE, 57.1% (178 of 312) biopsies could be avoided. Conclusions: Both PHI and %p2PSA performed well in predicting prostate cancer and high grade prostate cancer. The use of PHI and %p2PSA should be extended to Chinese men with PSA 10–20 ng/mL and normal DRE

Table_6_The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.XLSX

The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml.</p

Table_4_The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.xlsx

The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml.</p

Table_3_The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.xlsx

The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml.</p

Table_2_The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.xlsx

The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml.</p

Table_7_The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.XLSX

The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml.</p

Table_5_The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.XLSX

The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml.</p

Table_1_The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.XLSX

The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml.</p