Prostate Cancer Predictor at Low PSA tients with a higher age, prostate volume ≤36 cc, and PSAD ≥0.06 ng/ml/cc. Conflicts of Interest The authors have nothing to disclose. REFERENCES 1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer sta- tistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:225-49. 2. Park SK, Sakoda LC, Kang D, Chokkalingam AP, Lee E, Shin HR, et al. Rising prostate cancer rates in South Korea. Prostate 2006;66:1285-91. 3. Brawer MK. Screening for prostate cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 2000;18:29-36. 4. Pelzer AE, Tewari A, Bektic J, Berger AP, Frauscher F, Bartsch G, et al. Detection rates and biologic significance of prostate can- cer with PSA less than 4.0 ng/mL: observation and clinical im- plications from Tyrol screening project. Urology 2005;66:1029- 33. 5. Bunting PS. Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen: beware the biases. Clin Chim Acta 2002;315:71-97. 6. Schilsky RL, Taube SE. Tumor markers as clinical cancer tests--are we there yet? Semin Oncol 2002;29:211-2. 7. Fowler JE Jr, Bigler SA, Farabaugh PB, Wilson SS. Prostate can- cer detection in Black and White men with abnormal digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen less than 4 ng/ml. J Urol 2000;164:1961-3. 8. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level ≤4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2239-46. 9. Jeon HJ, Kim YS, Kang DR, Nam CM, Kim CI, Seong DH, et al. Age-specific reference ranges for serum prostate-specific antigen in Korean men. Korean J Urol 2006;47:586-90. 10. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random system- atic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989;142:71-4. 11. Presti JC Jr, O’Dowd GJ, Miller MC, Mattu R, Veltri RW. Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer de- tection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-prac- tice study. J Urol 2003;169:125-9. 12. Hankey BF, Feuer EJ, Clegg LX, Hayes RB, Legler JM, Prorok PC, et al. Cancer surveillance series: interpreting trends in pros- tate cancer--part I: evidence of the effects of screening in recent prostate cancer incidence, mortality and survival rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1017-24. 13. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, Basler JW. Detection of or- gan-confined prostate cancer is increased through prostate-spe- cific antigen-based screening. JAMA 1993;270:948-54. 14. Schmid HP, Riesen W, Prikler L. Update on screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2004;50:71-8. 15. Kobayashi T, Nishizawa K, Ogura K, Mitsumori K, Ide Y. Detection of prostate cancer in men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 2.0 to 4.0 ng/mL equivalent to that in men with 4.1 to 10.0 171 ng/mL in a Japanese population. Urology 2004;63:727-31. 16. Park HK, Hong SK, Byun SS, Lee SE. Comparison of the rate of detecting prostate cancer and the pathologic characteristics of the patients with a serum PSA level in the range of 3.0 to 4.0 ng/mL and the patients with a serum PSA level in the range 4.1 to 10.0 ng/mL. Korean J Urol 2006;47:358-61. 17. Kwon T, Jeong IG, Hong JH, Ahn H, Kim CS. Analysis of the clin- icopathologic characteristics of men with prostate cancer under- going radical prostatectomy in the prostate-specific antigen range of less than 4 ng/ml. Korean J Urol 2009;50:320-6. 18. Shekarriz B, Upadhyay J, Bianco FJ Jr, Tefilli MV, Tiguert R, Gheiler EL, et al. Impact of preoperative serum PSA level from 0 to 10 ng/mL on pathological findings and disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Prostate 2001;48:136-43. 19. Berger AP, Volgger H, Rogatsch H, Strohmeyer D, Steiner H, Klocker H, et al. Screening with low PSA cutoff values results in low rates of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 2002;53:241-5. 20. Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Kane CJ, Terris MK, Presti JC Jr, Trock B, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy among men with normal preoperative serum prostate-specific an- tigen levels. Cancer 2004;101:748-53. 21. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ornstein DK. Prostate cancer detection in men with serum PSA concentrations of 2.6 to 4.0 ng/mL and benign prostate examination. Enhancement of specificity with free PSA measurements. JAMA 1997;277:1452-5. 22. Gann PH, Hennekens CH, Stampfer MJ. A prospective evalua- tion of plasma prostate-specific antigen for detection of prostatic cancer. JAMA 1995;273:289-94. 23. Lee HW, Kwak KW, Choi YH, Choi HY, Lee HM. New thresholds for prostate-specific antigen velocity for prostate cancer screen- ing in Korean patients younger than 60 years old. Korean J Urol 2008;49:113-7. 24. Catalona WJ, Ramos CG, Carvalhal GF, Yan Y. Lowering PSA cutoffs to enhance detection of curable prostate cancer. Urology 2000;55:791-5. 25. Gretzer MB, Partin AW. PSA levels and the probability of prostate cancer on biopsy. Eur Urol 2002;(Suppl 1):21-7. 26. Lee DH, Yang WJ, Chung BH, Kim SI, Kim SJ, Kim YS, et al. A multicenter study of the detection rate for prostate cancer accord- ing to the serum prostate-specific antigen level in Korean men. Korean J Urol 2005;46:433-7. 27. Bozeman CB, Carver BS, Caldito G, Venable DD, Eastham JA. Prostate cancer in patients with an abnormal digital rectal exami- nation and serum prostate-specific antigen less than 4.0 ng/mL. Urology 2005;66:803-7. 28. Al-Azab R, Toi A, Lockwood G, Kulkarni GS, Fleshner N. Prostate volume is strongest predictor of cancer diagnosis at transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy with prostate-specific antigen values between 2.0 and 9.0 ng/mL. Urology 2007;69:103-7. 29. Stephan C, Stroebel G, Heinau M, Lenz A, Roemer A, Lein M, et al. The ratio of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to prostate volume (PSA density) as a parameter to improve the detection of prostate carcinoma in PSA values in the range of ＜4 ng/mL. Cancer 2005; 104:993-1003. 30. Ellis WJ, Brawer MK. Repeat prostate needle biopsy: who needs it? J Urol 1995;153:1496-8. Korean J Urol 2011;52:166-171