The specificity and sensitivity values were:
for tPSA greater than 4.0 ng/mL, 16.3% and 92.4%;
for f/tPSA less than 25 ng/mL, 29% and 81.2%;
for cPSA greater than 3.8 ng/mL, 32.6% and 81.1%;
for cPSA greater than 3.6%, 28.2% and 84.3%;
for cPSA greater than 3.4 ng/mL, 22.8% and 88.5%;
for cPSA greater than 3.2 ng/mL, 18.6% and 91.3%; and
for cPSA greater than 3.0 ng/mL, 16.9% and 92.6%.
The Gleason scores were:
for tPSA greater than 4.0 ng/mL, 5 in 5 patients, 6 in 226 patients, 7 in 111 patients, 8 in 25 patients, and 9 in 1 patient (368 total cases);
for f/tPSA less than 25 ng/mL, 5 in 4 patients, 6 in 183 patients, 7 in 89 patients, 8 in 25 patients, and 9 in 1 patient (302 total cases);
for cPSA greater than 3.8 ng/mL, 5 in 5 patients, 6 in 194 patients, 7 in 101 patients, 8 in 25 patients, and 9 in 1 patient (326 total cases);
for cPSA greater than 3.6%, 5 in 5 patients, 6 in 201 patients, 7 in 104 patients, 8 in 25 patients, and 9 in 1 patient (336 total cases);
for cPSA greater than 3.4 ng/mL, 5 in 5 patients, 6 in 216 patients, 7 in 109 patients, 8 in 25 patients, and 9 in 1 patient (356 total cases);
for cPSA greater than 3.2 ng/mL, 5 in 5 patients, 6 in 225 patients, 7 in 112 patients, 8 in 25 patients, and 9 in 1 patient (368 total cases); and
for cPSA greater than 3.0 ng/mL, 5 in 5 patients, 6 in 228 patients, 7 in 112 patients, 8 in 25 patients, and 9 in 1 patient (371 total cases).
The ROC analysis showed that the curves obtained were significantly different. cPSA and tPSA had better performance in minimising false-negatives, while f/tPSA had better performance in minimising false-positives.