Urine TMPRSS2:ERG Plus PCA3 for Individualized Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment

New biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of localized prostate cancer

The diagnostics and management of localized prostate cancer is complicated because of cancer heterogeneity and differentiated progression in various subgroups of patients. As a prostate cancer biomarker, FDA-approved detection assay for serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) and its derivatives are not potent enough to diagnose prostate cancer, especially high-grade disease (Gleason ≥7). To date, a collection of new biomarkers was developed. Some of these markers are superior for primary screening while others are particularly helpful for cancer risk stratification, detection of high-grade cancer, and prediction of adverse events. Two of those markers such as proPSA (a part of the Prostate Health Index (PHI)) and prostate specific antigen 3 (PCA3) (a part of the PCA3 Progensa test) were recently approved by FDA for clinical use. Other markers are not PDA-approved yet but are available from Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA)-certified clinical laboratories. In this review, we characterize diagnostic performance of these markers and their diagnostic and prognostic utility for prostate cancer.

Prostate Cancer Markers

Diagnostic biomarkers derived from blood, urine, or prostate tissue provide additional information beyond clinical calculators to determine the risk of detecting high-grade prostate cancer. Once diagnosed, multiple markers leverage prostate cancer biopsy tissue to prognosticate clinical outcomes, including adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy, disease recurrence, and prostate cancer mortality; however the clinical utility of some outcomes to patient decision making is unclear. Markers using tissue from radical prostatectomy specimens provide additional information about the risk of biochemical recurrence, development of metastatic disease, and subsequent mortality beyond existing multivariable clinical calculators (the use of a marker to simply sub-stratify risk groups such as the NCCN groups is of minimal value). No biomarkers currently available for prostate cancer have been prospectively validated to be predict an improved clinical outcome for a specific therapy based on the test result; however, further research and development of these tests may produce a truly predictive biomarker for prostate cancer treatment.

Novel Biomarkers for Prostate Cancer Detection and Prognosis

Prostate cancer (PCa) remains as one of the most controversial issues in health care because of the dilemmas related to screening using Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA). A high number of false positive biopsies and an elevated rate of overdiagnosis are the main problems associated with PSA. New PCa biomarkers have been recently proposed to increase the predictive value of PSA. The published results showed that PCA3 score, Prostate Health Index and 4Kscore can reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies, outperforming better than PSA and the percentage of free PSA. Furthermore, 4Kscore provides with high accuracy an individual risk for high-grade PCa. High values of PHI are also associated with tumor aggressiveness. In contrast, the relationship of PCA3 score with aggressiveness remains controversial, with studies showing opposite conclusions. Finally, the development of molecular biology has opened the study of genes, among them TMPRSS2:ERG fusion gene and miRNAs, in PCa detection and prognosis.

The molecular biology of prostate cancer: current understanding and clinical implications

BACKGROUND

With continuous progress over the past few decades in understanding diagnosis, treatment, and genetics, much has been learned about the prostate cancer-diagnosed genome.

METHODS

A comprehensive MEDLINE® and Google scholar literature search was conducted using keyword variations relating to the genetics of prostate cancer such as chromosomal alterations, androgen receptor, castration-resistant, inheritance, polymorphisms, oncogenes, metastasis, biomarkers, and immunotherapy.

RESULTS

Traditionally, androgen receptors (AR) have been the focus of research. Recently, identification of recurrent chromosomal alterations that lead to either multiplication of regions (gain-of-function) or deletion of regions (loss-of-function) has opened the door to greater genetic accessibility. These chromosomal aberrations lead to variation in copy number and gene expression. Some of these chromosomal alterations are inherited, while others undergo somatic mutations during disease progression. Inherited gene mutations that make one susceptible to prostate cancer have been identified with familial-linked studies. Somatic genes that progress tumorigenesis have also been identified. Research on the molecular biology of prostate cancer has characterized these genes into tumor suppressor genes or oncogenes. Additionally, genome-wide assay studies have identified many high-risk single-nucleotide polymorphisms recurrent throughout the prostate cancer-diagnosed genome. Castration-resistant prostate cancer is the most aggressive form of prostate cancer, and its research has elucidated many types of mutations associated with AR itself, including enhanced expression and amplification, point mutations, and alternative splicing. Understanding the molecular biology of prostate cancer has permitted more accurate identification using advanced biomarkers and therapy for aggressive forms using immunotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

An age-related disease, prostate cancer commands profound attention. With increasing life expectancy and the continuous pursuit of it, prostate cancer is a powerful obstacle best defeated using targeted therapies specifically designed for the unique molecular profile of the malignancy.

Novel insights into chromosomal conformations in cancer

Exploring gene function is critical for understanding the complexity of life. DNA sequences and the three-dimensional organization of chromatin (chromosomal interactions) are considered enigmatic factors underlying gene function, and interactions between two distant fragments can regulate transactivation activity via mediator proteins. Thus, a series of chromosome conformation capture techniques have been developed, including chromosome conformation capture (3C), circular chromosome conformation capture (4C), chromosome conformation capture carbon copy (5C), and high-resolution chromosome conformation capture (Hi-C). The application of these techniques has expanded to various fields, but cancer remains one of the major topics. Interactions mediated by proteins or long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are typically found using 4C-sequencing and chromatin interaction analysis by paired-end tag sequencing (ChIA-PET). Currently, Hi-C is used to identify chromatin loops between cancer risk-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) found by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and their target genes. Chromosomal conformations are responsible for altered gene regulation through several typical mechanisms and contribute to the biological behavior and malignancy of different tumors, particularly prostate cancer, breast cancer and hematologic neoplasms. Moreover, different subtypes may exhibit different 3D-chromosomal conformations. Thus, C-tech can be used to help diagnose cancer subtypes and alleviate cancer progression by destroying specific chromosomal conformations. Here, we review the fundamentals and improvements in chromosome conformation capture techniques and their clinical applications in cancer to provide insight for future research.

Biomarkers in prostate cancer - Current clinical utility and future perspectives

Current tendencies in the treatment course of prostate cancer patients increase the need for reliable biomarkers that help in decision-making in a challenging clinical setting. Within the last decade, several novel biomarkers have been introduced. In the following comprehensive review article, we focus on diagnostic (PHI^®, 4K score, SelectMDx^®, ConfirmMDx^®, PCA3, MiPS, ExoDX^®, mpMRI) and prognostic (OncotypeDX GPS^®, Prolaris^®, ProMark^®, DNA-ploidy, Decipher^®) biomarkers that are in widespread clinical use and are supported by evidence. Hereby, we focus on multiple clinical situations in which innovative biomarkers may guide decision-making in prostate cancer therapy. In addition, we describe novel liquid biopsy approaches (circulating tumor cells, cell-free DNA) that have been described as predictive biomarkers in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and might support an individual patient-centred oncological approach in the nearer future.

Genomic Markers in Prostate Cancer Decision Making

CONTEXT

Although the widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has led to an early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and a reduction of metastatic disease at diagnosis, PSA remains one of the most controversial biomarkers due to its limited specificity. As part of emerging efforts to improve both detection and management decision making, a number of new genomic tools have recently been developed.

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes the ability of genomic biomarkers to recognize men at high risk of developing PCa, discriminate clinically insignificant and aggressive tumors, and facilitate the selection of therapies in patients with advanced disease.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A PubMed-based literature search was conducted up to May 2017. We selected the most recent and relevant original articles and clinical trials that have provided indispensable information to guide treatment decisions.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Genome-wide association studies have identified several genetic polymorphisms and inherited variants associated with PCa susceptibility. Moreover, the urine-based assays SelectMDx, Mi-Prostate Score, and ExoDx have provided new insights into the identification of patients who may benefit from prostate biopsy. In men with previous negative pathological findings, Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 and ConfirmMDx predicted the outcome of subsequent biopsy. Commercially available tools (Decipher, Oncotype DX, and Prolaris) improved PCa risk stratification, identifying men at the highest risk of adverse outcome. Furthermore, other biomarkers could assist in treatment selection in castration-resistant PCa. AR-V7 expression predicts resistance to abiraterone/enzalutamide, while poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 inhibitor and platinum-based chemotherapy could be indicated in metastatic patients who are carriers of mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes.

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of genomic biomarkers has dramatically improved the detection, prognosis, and risk evaluation of PCa. Despite the progress made in discovering suitable biomarker candidates, few have been used in a clinical setting. Large-scale and multi-institutional studies are required to validate the efficacy and cost utility of these new technologies.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease with a wide variability. Genomic biomarkers in combination with clinical and pathological variables are useful tools to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies, stratify low-risk from high-risk tumors, and guide personalized treatment decisions.

Whom to Biopsy: Prediagnostic Risk Stratification with Biomarkers, Nomograms, and Risk Calculators

This article describes markers used for prostate biopsy decisions, including prostrate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, the prostate health index, 4Kscore, PCA3, and ConfirmMDx. It also summarizes the use of nomograms combining multiple variables for prostate cancer detection.

Prognostic value of urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) during active surveillance of patients with low-risk prostate cancer receiving 5α-reductase inhibitors

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical performance of the urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) test to predict the risk of Gleason grade re-classification amongst men receiving a 5α-reductase inhibitor (5ARI) during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with low-risk prostate cancer were enrolled in a prospective Phase II study of AS complemented with prescription of a 5ARI. A repeat biopsy was taken within the first year and annually according to physician and patient preference. In all, 90 patients had urine collected after digital rectal examination of the prostate before the first repeat biopsy. The PCA3 test was performed in a blinded manner at a central laboratory.

RESULTS

Using a PCA3-test score threshold of 35, there was a significant difference (P < 0.001) in the risk of being diagnosed with Gleason ≥7 cancer during a median of 7 years of follow-up. Adjusted Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses also showed a significantly higher risk of upgrading to Gleason ≥7 during follow-up for those with a higher PCA3-test score.

CONCLUSION

The urinary PCA3 test predicted Gleason grade re-classification amongst patients receiving a 5ARI during AS for low-risk prostate cancer.

Current Management Strategy for Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Active surveillance has been increasingly utilized as a strategy for the management of favorable-risk, localized prostate cancer. In this review, we describe contemporary management strategies of active surveillance, with a focus on traditional stratification schemes, new prognostic tools, and patient outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient selection, follow-up strategy, and indication for delayed intervention for active surveillance remain centered around PSA, digital rectal exam, and biopsy findings. Novel tools which include imaging, biomarkers, and genetic assays have been investigated as potential prognostic adjuncts; however, their role in active surveillance remains institutionally dependent. Although 30-50% of patients on active surveillance ultimately undergo delayed treatment, the vast majority will remain free of metastasis with a low risk of dying from prostate cancer. The optimal method for patient selection into active surveillance is unknown; however, cancer-specific mortality rates remain excellent. New prognostication tools are promising, and long-term prospective, randomized data regarding their use in active surveillance will be beneficial.

Development and clinical testing of individual immunoassays for the quantification of serum glycoproteins to diagnose prostate cancer

Prostate Cancer (PCa) diagnosis is currently hampered by the high false-positive rate of PSA evaluations, which consequently may lead to overtreatment. Non-invasive methods with increased specificity and sensitivity are needed to improve diagnosis of significant PCa. We developed and technically validated four individual immunoassays for cathepsin D (CTSD), intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM1), olfactomedin 4 (OLFM4), and thrombospondin 1 (THBS1). These glycoproteins, previously identified by mass spectrometry using a Pten mouse model, were measured in clinical serum samples for testing the capability of discriminating PCa positive and negative samples. The development yielded 4 individual immunoassays with inter and intra-variability (CV) <15% and linearity on dilution of the analytes. In serum, ex vivo protein stability (<15% loss of analyte) was achieved for a duration of at least 24 hours at room temperature and 2 days at 4°C. The measurement of 359 serum samples from PCa positive (n = 167) and negative (n = 192) patients with elevated PSA (2-10 ng/ml) revealed a significantly improved accuracy (P <0.001) when two of the glycoproteins (CTSD and THBS1) were combined with %fPSA and age (AUC = 0.8109; P <0.0001; 95% CI = 0.7673-0.8545). Conclusively, the use of CTSD and THBS1 together with commonly used parameters for PCa diagnosis such as %fPSA and age has the potential to improve the diagnosis of PCa.

Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Identification, Management, and Outcomes

CONTEXT

The incidence of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) has increased as a consequence of prostate-specific antigen testing.

OBJECTIVE

In this collaborative review article, we examine recent literature regarding low-risk PCa and the available prognostic and therapeutic options.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a literature review of the Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The search strategy included the terms: prostate cancer, low risk, active surveillance, focal therapy, radical prostatectomy, watchful waiting, biomarker, magnetic resonance imaging, alone or in combination.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Prospective randomized trials have failed to show an impact of radical treatments on cancer-specific survival in low-risk PCa patients. Several series have reported the risk of adverse pathologic outcomes at radical prostatectomy. However, it is not clear if these patients are at higher risk of death from PCa. Long-term follow-up indicates the feasibility of active surveillance in low-risk PCa patients, although approximately 30% of men starting active surveillance undergo treatment within 5 yr. Considering focal therapies, robust data investigating its impact on long-term survival outcomes are still required and therefore should be considered experimental. Magnetic resonance imaging and tissue biomarkers may help to predict clinically significant PCa in men initially diagnosed with low-risk disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of low-risk PCa has increased in recent years. Only a small proportion of men with low-risk PCa progress to clinical symptoms, metastases, or death and prospective trials have not shown a benefit for immediate radical treatments. Tissue biomarkers, magnetic resonance imaging, and ongoing surveillance may help to identify those men with low-risk PCa who harbor more clinically significant disease.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Low-risk prostate cancer is very common. Active surveillance has excellent long-term results, while randomized trials have failed to show a beneficial impact of immediate radical treatments on survival. Biomarkers and magnetic resonance imaging may help to identify which men may benefit from early treatment.

The impact of sociodemographic factors and PSA screening among low-income Black and White men: data from the Southern Community Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Variation in PSA screening is a potential source of disparity in prostate cancer survival, particularly among underserved populations. We sought to examine the impact of race and socioeconomic status (SES) on receipt of PSA testing among low-income men.

METHODS

Black (n=22 167) and White (n=9588) men aged ⩾40 years completed a baseline questionnaire from 2002 to 2009 as part of the Southern Community Cohort Study. Men reported whether they had ever received PSA testing and had testing within the prior 12 months. To evaluate the associations between SES, race and receipt of PSA testing, odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from the multivariable logistic models where age, household income, insurance status, marital status, body mass index and educational level were adjusted.

RESULTS

Black men were younger, had a lower income, less attained education and were more likely to be unmarried and uninsured (all P<0.001). Percentages of men having ever received PSA testing rose from <40% under the age of 45 years to ~90% above the age of 65 years, with Whites >50 more likely than Blacks to have received testing. Lower SES was significantly associated with less receipt of PSA testing in both groups. After adjustment for SES, White men had significantly lower odds of PSA testing (OR 0.81; 95% CI: 0.76-0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater PSA testing among White than Black men over the age of 50 years in this low-income population appears to be mainly a consequence of SES. Strategies for PSA screening may benefit from tailoring to the social circumstances of the men being screened.

Racial Variation in the Utility of Urinary Biomarkers PCA3 and T2ERG in a Large Multicenter Study

PURPOSE

To our knowledge it is unknown whether urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer have added utility to clinical risk calculators in different racial groups. We examined the utility of urinary biomarkers added to clinical risk calculators for predicting prostate cancer in African American and nonAfrican American men.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Demographics, PCPT (Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial) risk scores, data on the biomarkers data PCA3 (prostate cancer antigen 3) and T2ERG (transmembrane protease serine 2 and v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog gene fusion), and biopsy pathology features were prospectively collected on 718 men as part of EDRN (Early Detection Research Network). Utility was determined by generating ROC curves and comparing AUC values for the baseline multivariable PCPT model and for models containing biomarker scores.

RESULTS

PCA3 and T2ERG added utility for the prediction of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer when combined with the PCPT Risk Calculator. This utility was seen in nonAfrican American men only for PCA3 (AUC 0.64 increased to 0.75 for prostate cancer and to 0.69-0.77 for clinically significant prostate cancer, both p <0.001) and for T2ERG (AUC 0.64-0.74 for prostate cancer, p <0.001, and 0.69-0.73 for clinically significant prostate cancer, p = 0.029). African American men did not have an added benefit with the addition of biomarkers, including PCA3 (AUC 0.75-0.77, p = 0.64, and 0.65-0.66, p = 0.74) and T2ERG (AUC 0.75-0.74, p = 0.74, and 0.65-0.64, p = 0.88), for prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer, respectively. Limitations include the small number of African American men (72). The post hoc subgroup analysis nature of the study limited findings to being hypothesis generating.

CONCLUSIONS

As novel biomarkers are discovered, clinical utility should be established across demographically diverse cohorts.

Cost consideration in utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer

The screening, evaluation and management of prostate cancer changed significantly in the last decade. The recommendations regarding prostate cancer screening continue to evolve with new revelations about existing data sets and longer followup of landmark trials. Robotics has gained the vast majority of the marketplace for surgically managed prostate cancer in rapid fashion. The need for intervention in low risk prostate cancer has been closely examined and more men are being expectantly managed than ever before. Amidst all these changes, prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has emerged as a disruptive technology. Through the use of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion weighted series, prostate tumors that were previously not visible have become identifiable and quantifiable. The ability of MRI to improve staging and identification of clinically significant disease has resulted in increased utilization for different aspects of prostate cancer care. The best studied use is in men with a prior negative transrectal ultrasound guided (TRUS) prostate biopsy and the performance characteristics in this role match well with the clinical question raised. The role for MRI in initial biopsy, in pre-surgical planning before prostatectomy and in men on active surveillance is less well defined. A primary concern in the use of MRI is that of cost. MRI units are expensive, both in initial outlay and ongoing use. The availability of MRI varies widely between countries and even within regions of the same country. Different healthcare models have different approaches for allocating the use of expensive resources, including MRI, in times when they are scarce. Prostate MRI can be used at multiple points in the management algorithm of prostate cancer and each implies different cost concerns. In this review we present an overview of current research in cost and cost efficacy for the use of MRI in the management of prostate cancer. By examining what is known and highlighting areas of ongoing research we hope to provide the reader with a solid foundation for understanding these complex, ever-changing issues.

Detection of prostate cancer-specific transcripts in extracellular vesicles isolated from post-DRE urine

BACKGROUND

The measurement of gene expression in post-digital rectal examination (DRE) urine specimens provides a non-invasive method to determine a patient's risk of prostate cancer. Many currently available assays use whole urine or cell pellets for the analysis of prostate cancer-associated genes, although the use of extracellular vesicles (EVs) has also recently been of interest. We investigated the expression of prostate-, kidney-, and bladder-specific transcripts and known prostate cancer biomarkers in urine EVs.

METHODS

Cell pellets and EVs were recovered from post-DRE urine specimens, with the total RNA yield and quality determined by Bioanalyzer. The levels of prostate, kidney, and bladder-associated transcripts in EVs were assessed by TaqMan qPCR and targeted sequencing.

RESULTS

RNA was more consistently recovered from the urine EV specimens, with over 80% of the patients demonstrating higher RNA yields in the EV fraction as compared to urine cell pellets. The median EV RNA yield of 36.4 ng was significantly higher than the median urine cell pellet RNA yield of 4.8 ng. Analysis of the post-DRE urine EVs indicated that prostate-specific transcripts were more abundant than kidney- or bladder-specific transcripts. Additionally, patients with prostate cancer had significantly higher levels of the prostate cancer-associated genes PCA3 and ERG.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-DRE urine EVs are a viable source of prostate-derived RNAs for biomarker discovery and prostate cancer status can be distinguished from analysis of these specimens. Continued analysis of urine EVs offers the potential discovery of novel biomarkers for pre-biopsy prostate cancer detection.

Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 Score Does Not Predict for Adverse Pathologic Features at Radical Prostatectomy or for Progression-free Survival in Clinically Localized, Intermediate- and High-risk Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether preoperative urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) scores predict for adverse pathologic features (APFs) or progression-free survival (PFS) in men with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred nine men with intermediate- (n = 52) or high-risk (n = 57) PCa who underwent RP were retrospectively identified. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association of PCA3 score with various APFs (eg, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, etc.). Among 78 men with ≥1 year of follow-up, the association between PCA3 score and PFS was assessed using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

At RP, 52% of patients had at least 1 APF, and with median follow-up of 2.3 years, overall 3-year PFS was 70%. PCA3 was not a significant predictor of any APF on multivariate analysis (MVA), whereas canonical predictors (eg, biopsy Gleason score and initial prostate-specific antigen) remained predictive of various APFs. No significant predictors for PFS were found on MVA, although certain canonical predictors (eg, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group) were significant predictors of PFS on univariate analysis (UVA). PCA3 score was not a significant predictor of PFS on either UVA or MVA.

CONCLUSION

Unlike in lower risk cohorts, increasing PCA3 score was not associated with any APF in this higher risk cohort, despite enrichment for APFs, nor was it associated with PFS. Notably, multiple known preoperative predictors for APFs were significant on MVA, and multiple predictors were associated with PFS on UVA. Therefore, PCA3 may not be a useful adjunct predictive marker in men with intermediate- or high-risk PCa.

Improving the evaluation and diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in 2017

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an overview of the current state of the evidence and highlight recent advances in the evaluation and diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer, focusing on biomarkers, risk calculators and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI).

RECENT FINDINGS

In 2017 there are numerous options to improve early detection as compared to a purely prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based approach. All have strengths and drawbacks. In addition to repeating the PSA and performing clinical work-up (digital rectal examination and estimation of prostate volume), additional tests investigated in the initial biopsy setting are: %free PSA, Prostate Health Index, 4-kallikrein score, SelectMDx, and Michigan Prostate Score and in the repeat setting: %free PSA, Prostate Health Index, 4-kallikrein score, Prostate Cancer Antigen 3, and ConfirmMDx. Risk calculators are available for both biopsy settings and incorporate clinical data with, or without, biomarkers. mpMRI is an important diagnostic adjunct.

SUMMARY

There are numerous tests available that can help increase the specificity of PSA, in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. All coincide with a small decrease in sensitivity of detecting high-grade cancer. Cost effectiveness is crucial. The way forward is a multivariable risk assessment on the basis of readily available clinical data, potentially with the addition of PSA subforms, preferably at low cost. MRI in the prediagnostic setting is promising, but is not ready for 'prime time'.

Identification and evaluation of clinically significant prostate cancer: a step towards personalized diagnosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics are evolving rapidly. The quest to differentiate 'clinically significant' from 'clinically insignificant' disease has gathered momentum, leading to substantial change in traditional diagnostic approaches. Herein, we review the relevant information on currently available biomarkers and assess their ability to help physicians and patients in making a shared and personalized decision based on their individual risk of harbouring clinically significant disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Serum, urine, tissue and imaging biomarkers have been evaluated to improve the identification of clinically significant disease, and this international effort has yielded promising, but not always consistent results. Changes in MRI technology have realized a quantum change, and this facility is now becoming more widely incorporated into diagnostic and disease risk-stratification protocols. However, standardization and further validation is required.

SUMMARY

Acceptance and widespread adoption of serum, urine and genetic markers is awaited, but novel and promising techniques alone and in combination have emerged. With validation and further focus, these may be adopted more widely.

The role of prostate cancer biomarkers in undiagnosed men

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article intends to review biomarkers derived from blood, urine, and tissue that can aid in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa).

RECENT FINDINGS

PCa screening requires tools that complement prostate-specific antigen (PSA) with a higher specificity for clinically significant disease. Novel blood biomarkers, such as the Prostate Health Index (phi) and 4Kscore, utilize isoforms of PSA to more accurately predict high-grade PCa than traditional tools such as PSA and the percentage free-to-total PSA. Several gene products associated with PCa can be detected in the urine through commercially available assays. PCa antigen 3 (PCA3), though approved for repeat biopsy decisions, appears inferior to other biomarkers such as phi for identifying aggressive disease. However, combinations of PCA3 with other urine assays have shown promising results. One tissue-based hypermethylation test, named ConfirmMDx, can also be used to determine the need for repeat biopsy in men with a prior negative biopsy.

SUMMARY

Several biomarkers have been developed to aid in the screening and diagnosis of PCa. Such tests are often indicated in men with moderately elevated PSA or history of a prior negative biopsy. Their use facilitates reduction of unnecessary biopsies without sacrificing the early diagnosis of clinically significant PCa.

Longitudinal assessment of urinary PCA3 for predicting prostate cancer grade reclassification in favorable-risk men during active surveillance

Background

To assess the utility of urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) as both a one-time and longitudinal measure in men on active surveillance (AS).

Methods

The Johns Hopkins AS program monitors men with favorable-risk prostate cancer with serial PSA, digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate MRI, and prostate biopsy. Since 2007, post-DRE urinary specimens have also been routinely obtained. Men with multiple PCA3 measures obtained over ≥3 years of monitoring were included. Utility of first PCA3 score (fPCA3), subsequent PCA3 (sPCA3), and change in PCA3 were assessed for prediction of Gleason grade reclassification (GR, Gleason score>6) during follow-up.

Results

In total, 260 men met study criteria. Median time from enrollment to fPCA3 was 2 years (IQR 1–3) and from fPCA3 to sPCA3 was 5 years (IQR 4–6). During median follow-up of 6 years (IQR 5–8), 28 men (11%) underwent GR. Men with GR had higher median fPCA3 (48.0vs.24.5, p=0.007) and sPCA3 (63.5vs.36.0, p=0.002) than those without GR, while longitudinal change in PCA3 did not differ by GR status (log-normalized rate 0.07vs.0.06, p=0.53). In a multivariable model including age, risk-classification, and PSA density, fPCA3 remained significantly associated with GR (log[fPCA3] odds ratio=1.77, p=0.04).

Conclusions

PCA3 scores obtained during AS were higher in men who underwent GR, but the rate of change in PCA3 over time did not differ by GR status. PCA3 was a significant predictor of GR in a multivariable model including conventional risk factors, suggesting that PCA3 provides incremental prognostic information in the AS setting.

Evaluation of a short RNA within Prostate Cancer Gene 3 in the predictive role for future cancer using non-malignant prostate biopsies

Background

Prostate Cancer 3 (PCA3) is a long non-coding RNA (ncRNA) upregulated in prostate cancer (PCa). We recently identified a short ncRNA expressed from intron 1 of PCA3. Here we test the ability of this ncRNA to predict the presence of cancer in men with a biopsy without PCa.

Methods

We selected men whose initial biopsy did not identify PCa and selected matched cohorts whose subsequent biopsies revealed PCa or benign tissue. We extracted RNA from the initial biopsy and measured PCA3-shRNA2, PCA3 and PSA (qRT-PCR).

Results

We identified 116 men with and 94 men without an eventual diagnosis of PCa in 2–5 biopsies (mean 26 months), collected from 2002–2008. The cohorts were similar for age, PSA and surveillance period. We detected PSA and PCA3-shRNA2 RNA in all samples, and PCA3 RNA in 90% of biopsies. The expression of PCA3 and PCA3-shRNA2 were correlated (Pearson’s r = 0.37, p<0.01). There was upregulation of PCA3 (2.1-fold, t-test p = 0.02) and PCA3-shRNA2 (1.5-fold) in men with PCa on subsequent biopsy, although this was not significant for the latter RNA (p = 0.2). PCA3 was associated with the future detection of PCa (C-index 0.61, p = 0.01). This was not the case for PCA3-shRNA2 (C-index 0.55, p = 0.2).

Conclusions

PCA3 and PCA3-shRNA2 expression are detectable in historic biopsies and their expression is correlated suggesting co-expression. PCA3 expression was upregulated in men with PCa diagnosed at a future date, the same did not hold for PCA3-shRNA2. Futures studies should explore expression in urine and look at a time course between biopsy and PCa detection.

Prostate cancer screening in Europe and Asia

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer among men worldwide and even ranks first in Europe. Although Asia is known as the region with the lowest PCa incidence, it has been rising rapidly over the last 20 years mostly due to the introduction of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Randomized PCa screening studies in Europe show a mortality reduction in favor of PSA-based screening but coincide with high proportions of unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment. Conclusive data on the value of PSA-based screening and hence the balance between harms and benefits in Asia is still lacking. Because of known racial variations, Asian countries should not directly apply the European screening models. Like in the western world also in Asia, new predictive markers, tools and risk stratification strategies hold great potential to improve the early detection of PCa and to reduce the worldwide existing negative aspects of PSA-based PCa screening.

Two-Stage Biomarker Protocols for Improving the Precision of Early Detection of Prostate Cancer

Background. New cancer biomarkers are being discovered at a rapid pace; however, these tests vary in their predictive performance characteristics, and it is unclear how best to use them. Methods. We investigated 2-stage biomarker-based screening strategies in the context of prostate cancer using a partially observable Markov model to simulate patients’ progression through prostate cancer states to mortality from prostate cancer or other causes. Patients were screened every 2 years from ages 55 to 69. If the patient’s serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was over a specified threshold in the first stage, a second stage biomarker test was administered. We evaluated design characteristics for these 2-stage strategies using 7 newly discovered biomarkers as examples. Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate the number of screening biopsies, prostate cancer deaths, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per 1000 men. Results. The all-cancer biomarkers significantly underperformed the high-grade cancer biomarkers in terms of QALYs. The screening strategy that used a PSA threshold of 2 ng/mL and a second biomarker test with high-grade sensitivity and specificity of 0.86 and 0.62, respectively, maximized QALYs. This strategy resulted in a prostate cancer death rate within 1% of using PSA alone with a threshold of 2 ng/mL, while reducing the number of biopsies by 20%. Sensitivity analysis suggests that the results are robust with respect to variation in model parameters. Conclusions. Two-stage biomarker screening strategies using new biomarkers with risk thresholds optimized for high-grade cancer detection may increase quality-adjusted survival and reduce unnecessary biopsies.

The context of prostate cancer genomics in personalized medicine

Prostate cancer is one of the most common types of cancer in males. Heterogeneous genomic aberrations may lead to prostate cancer onset, progression and metastasis. This heterogeneity also contributes to the variety in cancer risk and outcomes, different drug responses and progression, observed between individual patients. Classical prognostic factors, including prostate-specific antigen, Gleason Score and clinical tumor staging, are not sufficient to portray the complexity of a clinically relevant cancer diagnosis, risk prognosis, treatment choice and therapy monitoring. There is a requirement for novel genetic biomarkers in order to understand the oncogenic heterogeneity in a patient-personalized clinical setting and to improve the efficacy of risk prognosis and treatment choice. A number of biomarkers and gene panels have been established from patient sample cohort studies. These previous studies have provided distinct information to the investigation of heterogeneous malignancy in prostate cancer, which aids in clinical decision-making. Biomarker-guided therapies may facilitate the effective selection of drugs during early treatment; therefore, are beneficial to the individual patient. A non-invasive approach allows for convenient and repeated sampling to screen for cancer and monitor treatment response without the requirement for invasive tissue biopsies. With the current availability of numerous advanced technologies, reliable detection of the minimal tumor residues present following treatment may become clinical practice and, therefore, inform further in the field of personalized medicine.

Long Non-Coding RNA as Potential Biomarker for Prostate Cancer: Is It Making a Difference?

Whole genome transcriptomic analyses have identified numerous long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) transcripts that are increasingly implicated in cancer biology. LncRNAs are found to promote essential cancer cell functions such as proliferation, invasion, and metastasis, with the potential to serve as novel biomarkers of various cancers and to further reveal uncharacterized aspects of tumor biology. However, the biological and molecular mechanisms as well as the clinical applications of lncRNAs in diverse diseases are not completely understood, and remain to be fully explored. LncRNAs may be critical players and regulators in prostate cancer carcinogenesis and progression, and could serve as potential biomarkers for prostate cancer. This review focuses on lncRNA biomarkers that are already available for clinical use and provides an overview of lncRNA biomarkers that are under investigation for clinical development in prostate cancer.

Evaluation of Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators for Shared Decision Making Across Diverse Urology Practices in Michigan

OBJECTIVE

To compare the predictive performance of a logistic regression model developed with contemporary data from a diverse group of urology practices to that of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) Risk Calculator version 2.0.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

With data from all first-time prostate biopsies performed between January 2012 and March 2015 across the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC), we developed a multinomial logistic regression model to predict the likelihood of finding high-grade cancer (Gleason score ≥7), low-grade cancer (Gleason score ≤6), or no cancer on prostate biopsy. The performance of the MUSIC model was evaluated in out-of-sample data using 10-fold cross-validation. Discrimination and calibration statistics were used to compare the performance of the MUSIC model to that of the PCPT risk calculator in the MUSIC cohort.

RESULTS

Of the 11,809 biopsies included, 4289 (36.3%) revealed high-grade cancer; 2027 (17.2%) revealed low-grade cancer; and the remaining 5493 (46.5%) were negative. In the MUSIC model, prostate-specific antigen level, rectal examination findings, age, race, and family history of prostate cancer were significant predictors of finding high-grade cancer on biopsy. The 2 models, based on similar predictors, had comparable discrimination (multiclass area under the curve = 0.63 for the MUSIC model and 0.62 for the PCPT calculator). Calibration analyses demonstrated that the MUSIC model more accurately predicted observed outcomes, whereas the PCPT risk calculator substantively overestimated the likelihood of finding no cancer while underestimating the risk of high-grade cancer in this population.

CONCLUSION

The PCPT risk calculator may not be a good predictor of individual biopsy outcomes for patients seen in contemporary urology practices.

Clinical Validation of a Serum Protein Panel (FLNA, FLNB and KRT19) for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer

This study reports on the development of a novel serum protein panel of three prostate cancer biomarkers, Filamin A, Filamin B and Keratin-19 (FLNA, FLNB and KRT19) using multivariate models for disease screening and prognosis. ELISA and IPMRM (LC-MS/MS) based assays were developed and analytically validated by quantitative measurements of the biomarkers in serum. Retrospectively collected and clinically annotated serum samples with PSA values and Gleason scores were analyzed from subjects who underwent prostate biopsy, and showed no evidence of cancer with or without indication of prostatic hyperplasia, or had a definitive pathology diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Probit linear regression models were used to combine the analytes into score functions to address the following clinical questions: does the biomarker test augment PSA for population screening? Can aggressive disease be differentiated from lower risk disease, and can the panel discriminate between prostate cancer and benign prostate hyperplasia? Modelling of the data showed that the new prostate biomarkers and PSA in combination were better than PSA alone in identifying prostate cancer, improved the prediction of high and low risk disease, and improved prediction of cancer versus benign prostate hyperplasia.

miRNAs as drivers of TMPRSS2-ERG negative prostate tumors in African American men

African Americans (AAs) who have PCa typically have more aggressive disease and make up a disproportionate number of the disease deaths, relative to European Americans (EAs). TMPRSS2 translocations, a common event in EA patients, are exploited in diagnostic and prognostic settings, whereas they are diminished in frequency in AA men. Thus, these patients with TMPRSS2 fusion-negative disease represent an under-investigated patient group. We propose that epigenetic events are a significant and alternative driver of aggressive disease in fusion-negative PCa. To reveal epigenetically governed microRNAs (miRNAs) that are enriched in fusion-negative disease and associated with aggressive in AA PCa, we leveraged both our experimental evidence and publically available data. These analyses identified 18 miRNAs that are differentially altered in fusion-negative disease, associated with DNA CpG methylation, and implicated in aggressive and AA PCas. Understanding the relationships between miRNA expression, upstream epigenetic regulation by DNA methylation, and downstream regulation of mRNA targets in fusion negative disease is imperative to understanding the biological basis of the racial health disparity in PCa.

The Use of Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Screening and Treatment

Prostate cancer screening and diagnosis has been guided by prostate-specific antigen levels for the past 25 years, but with the most recent US Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations, as well as concerns regarding overdiagnosis and overtreatment, a new wave of prostate cancer biomarkers has recently emerged. These assays allow the testing of urine, serum, or prostate tissue for molecular signs of prostate cancer, and provide information regarding both diagnosis and prognosis. In this review, we discuss 12 commercially available biomarker assays approved for the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. The results of clinical validation studies and clinical decision-making studies are presented. This information is designed to assist urologists in making clinical decisions with respect to ordering and interpreting these tests for different patients. There are numerous fluid and biopsy-based genomic tests available for prostate cancer patients that provide the physician and patient with different information about risk of future disease and treatment outcomes. It is important that providers be able to recommend the appropriate test for each individual patient; this decision is based on tissue availability and prognostic information desired. Future studies will continue to emphasize the important role of genomic biomarkers in making individualized treatment decisions for prostate cancer patients.

PRECISION MANAGEMENT OF LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER

INTRODUCTION

The vast majority of men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer die of other causes, highlighting the importance of determining which patient has a risk of death from prostate cancer. Precision management of prostate cancer patients includes distinguishing which men have potentially lethal disease and employing strategies for determining which treatment modality appropriately balances the desire to achieve a durable response while preventing unnecessary overtreatment.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we highlight precision approaches to risk assessment and a context for the precision-guided application of definitive therapy. We focus on three dilemmas relevant to the diagnosis of localized prostate cancer: screening, the decision to treat, and postoperative management.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

In the last five years, numerous precision tools have emerged with potential benefit to the patient. However, to achieve optimal outcome, the decision to employ one or more of these tests must be considered in the context of prevailing conventional factors. Moreover, performance and interpretation of a molecular or imaging precision test remains practitioner-dependent. The next five years will witness increased marriage of molecular and imaging biomarkers for improved multi-modal diagnosis and discrimination of disease that is aggressive versus truly indolent.

Novel biomarkers for the detection of prostate cancer

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is widely used as a biomarker in the detection of prostate cancer and for decision making regarding treatment options, response to therapy, and clinical follow-up. Despite its widespread use, it is well recognised that PSA has suboptimal performance as a screening tool due to poor specificity, resulting in high negative biopsy rates and potential ‘over-diagnosis’ and ‘over-treatment’ of clinically insignificant cancers. In particular, PSA does not reliably distinguish either cancer from benign prostatic conditions, or ‘clinically significant’ from ‘indolent cancers’, and it is inaccurate in predicting disease burden and response to treatment. There is an urgent demand for novel biomarkers to address these clinical needs. This article provides an update on the novel candidate biomarkers in development, which have shown potential for improving the detection of clinically significant cases of this malignancy.

Toward Precision Medicine: A Cancer Molecular Subtyping Nano-Strategy for RNA Biomarkers in Tumor and Urine

Cancer is a heterogeneous disease which manifests as different molecular subtypes due to the complex nature of tumor initiation, progression, and metastasis. The concept of precision medicine aims to exploit this cancer heterogeneity by incorporating diagnostic technology to characterize each cancer patient's molecular subtype for tailored treatments. To characterize cancer molecular subtypes accurately, a suite of multiplexed bioassays have currently been developed to detect multiple oncogenic biomarkers. Despite the reliability of current multiplexed detection techniques, novel strategies are still needed to resolve limitations such as long assay time, complex protocols, and difficulty in interpreting broad overlapping spectral peaks of conventional fluorescence readouts. Herein a rapid (80 min) multiplexed platform strategy for subtyping prostate cancer tumor and urine samples based on their RNA biomarker profiles is presented. This is achieved by combining rapid multiplexed isothermal reverse transcription-recombinase polymerase amplification (RT-RPA) of target RNA biomarkers with surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) nanotags for "one-pot" readout. This is the first translational application of a RT-RPA/SERS-based platform for multiplexed cancer biomarker detection to address a clinical need. With excellent sensitivity of 200 zmol (100 copies) and specificity, we believed that this platform methodology could be a useful tool for rapid multiplexed subtyping of cancers.

The potential use of urine cell free DNA as a marker for cancer

INTRODUCTION

Although the role of circulating cell free DNA in cancer has been widely demonstrated, less is known about the role of urine cell free DNA (UcfDNA). UcfDNA can serve as a 'liquid biopsy' for urological and non-urological tumors, as it carries information on DNA from cells exfoliated in urine and from circulation. Areas covered: We review the studies on UcfDNA as a source of biomarkers for cancer, focusing on the new techniques and the differences between urological and non-urological tumors. We searched Pubmed for articles published between 1998 and 2016 with the following key words and phrases: 'urine' and 'cell free DNA' or 'liquid biopsy' or 'cancer'. Expert commentary: Despite the few papers published on this topic, UcfDNA is an important component of 'liquid biopsy', a useful and non-invasive tool for cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment monitoring, containing a wide range of genetic information.

Use of Age and Medical Comorbidity to Assess Long-term Other-cause Mortality Risk in a Cohort of Men Undergoing Prostate Biopsy at an Academic Medical Center

OBJECTIVE

To assess life expectancy and biopsy outcomes in men undergoing prostate biopsy at an academic medical center.

METHODS

We analyzed men who underwent prostate biopsy at our medical center between July 2012 and June 2014. Long-term other-cause mortality risk was determined using survival tables. Indications for biopsy and biopsy outcomes were assessed, and compared among men with varying mortality risks.

RESULTS

A total of 417 men underwent prostate biopsy, in whom 14-year other-cause mortality risk ranged from 9% to 74%. One hundred ninety-three men (46.3%) were considered low-mortality risk (<40% risk of 14-year mortality), 131 (31.4%) intermediate risk (41%-55% 14-year mortality), and 93 (22.3%) high risk (>55% 14-year mortality). Of the 417 patients who underwent biopsy, 149 (35.7%) were found to have prostate cancer. There was no significant difference in the rate of positive biopsies (P = .72), distribution of Gleason scores (P = .60), or percentage of positive biopsy cores (P = .74) between mortality risk groups. However, by UCSF Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score, there was significant trend toward higher-risk prostate cancer in men with intermediate and high-mortality risk (P = .04).

CONCLUSION

In this analysis, a large number of men with limited life expectancies underwent prostate biopsy. The majority of these men had negative biopsies or low-risk cancers, suggesting that they were unlikely to benefit from biopsy. To avoid potentially unnecessary prostate biopsies, the practitioner must give serious consideration to a patient's age and medical comorbidities before making a recommendation as to whether biopsy should be performed.

Prostate Cancer Detection and Prognosis: From Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) to Exosomal Biomarkers

Prostate specific antigen (PSA) remains the most used biomarker in the management of early prostate cancer (PCa), in spite of the problems related to false positive results and overdiagnosis. New biomarkers have been proposed in recent years with the aim of increasing specificity and distinguishing aggressive from non-aggressive PCa. The emerging role of the prostate health index and the 4Kscore is reviewed in this article. Both are blood-based tests related to the aggressiveness of the tumor, which provide the risk of suffering PCa and avoiding negative biopsies. Furthermore, the use of urine has emerged as a non-invasive way to identify new biomarkers in recent years, including the PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG fusion gene. Available results about the PCA3 score showed its usefulness to decide the repetition of biopsy in patients with a previous negative result, although its relationship with the aggressiveness of the tumor is controversial. More recently, aberrant microRNA expression in PCa has been reported by different authors. Preliminary results suggest the utility of circulating and urinary microRNAs in the detection and prognosis of PCa. Although several of these new biomarkers have been recommended by different guidelines, large prospective and comparative studies are necessary to establish their value in PCa detection and prognosis.

PBX3 is a putative biomarker of aggressive prostate cancer

There is a great need to identify new and better prognostic and predictive biomarkers to stratify prostate cancer patients for optimal treatment. The aims of this study were to characterize the expression profile of pre-B cell leukemia homeobox (PBX) transcription factors in prostate cancer with an emphasis on investigating whether PBX3 harbours any prognostic value. The expression profile of PBX3 and PBX1 in prostate tissue was determined by immunohistochemical and immunoblot analysis. Furthermore, the expression of PBX3 transcript variants was analyzed by RT-PCR, NanoString Technologies®, and by analyzing RNA sequence data. The potential of PBX3 to predict prognosis, either at mRNA or protein level, was studied in four independent cohorts. PBX3 was mainly expressed in the nucleus of normal prostate basal cells, while it showed cytosolic expression in prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer cells. We detected four PBX3 transcript variants in prostate tissue. Competing risk regression analysis revealed that high PBX3 expression was associated with slower progression to castration resistant prostate cancer (sub-hazard ratio (SHR) 0.18, 95% CI: 0.081-0.42, p values < 0.001). PBX3 expression had a high predictive accuracy (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.82) when combined with Gleason score and age. Patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, with high levels of PBX3 mRNA, had improved prostate cancer specific survival compared to patients expressing low levels (SHR 0.21, 95% CI: 0.46-0.93, p values < 0.001, and AUC = 0.75). Our findings strongly indicate that PBX3 has potential as a biomarker, both as part of a larger gene panel and as an immunohistochemical marker, for aggressive prostate cancer.

Development and validation of a 24-gene predictor of response to postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a matched, retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative radiotherapy has an important role in the treatment of prostate cancer, but personalised patient selection could improve outcomes and spare unnecessary toxicity. We aimed to develop and validate a gene expression signature to predict which patients would benefit most from postoperative radiotherapy.

METHODS

Patients were eligible for this matched, retrospective study if they were included in one of five published US studies (cohort, case-cohort, and case-control studies) of patients with prostate adenocarcinoma who had radical prostatectomy (with or without postoperative radiotherapy) and had gene expression analysis of the tumour, with long-term follow-up and complete clinicopathological data. Additional treatment after surgery was at the treating physician's discretion. In each cohort, patients who had postoperative radiotherapy were matched with patients who had not had radiotherapy using Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen concentration, surgical margin status, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node invasion, and androgen deprivation therapy. We constructed a matched training cohort using patients from one study in which we developed a 24-gene Post-Operative Radiation Therapy Outcomes Score (PORTOS). We generated a pooled matched validation cohort using patients from the remaining four studies. The primary endpoint was the development of distant metastasis.

FINDINGS

In the training cohort (n=196), among patients with a high PORTOS (n=39), those who had radiotherapy had a lower incidence of distant metastasis than did patients who did not have radiotherapy, with a 10-year metastasis rate of 5% (95% CI 0-14) in patients who had radiotherapy (n=20) and 63% (34-80) in patients who did not have radiotherapy (n=19; hazard ratio [HR] 0·12 [95% CI 0·03-0·41], p<0·0001), whereas among patients with a low PORTOS (n=157), those who had postoperative radiotherapy (n=78) had a greater incidence of distant metastasis at 10 years than did their untreated counterparts (n=79; 57% [44-67] vs 31% [20-41]; HR 2·5 [1·6-4·1], p<0·0001), with a significant treatment interaction (p_interaction<0·0001). The finding that PORTOS could predict outcome due to radiotherapy treatment was confirmed in the validation cohort (n=330), which showed that patients who had radiotherapy had a lower incidence of distant metastasis compared with those who did not have radiotherapy, but only in the high PORTOS group (high PORTOS [n=82]: 4% [95% CI 0-10] in the radiotherapy group [n=57] vs 35% [95% CI 7-54] in the no radiotherapy group [n=25] had metastasis at 10 years; HR 0·15 [95% CI 0·04-0·60], p=0·0020; low PORTOS [n=248]: 32% [95% CI 19-43] in the radiotherapy group [n=108] vs 32% [95% CI 22-40] in the no radiotherapy group [n=140]; HR 0·92 [95% CI 0·56-1·51], p=0·76), with a significant interaction (p_interaction=0·016). The conventional prognostic tools Decipher, CAPRA-S, and microarray version of the cell cycle progression signature did not predict response to radiotherapy (p_interaction>0·05 for all).

INTERPRETATION

Patients with a high PORTOS who had postoperative radiotherapy were less likely to have metastasis at 10 years than those who did not have radiotherapy, suggesting that treatment with postoperative radiotherapy should be considered in this subgroup. PORTOS should be investigated further in additional independent cohorts.

FUNDING

None.

Recent progress and perspectives on prostate cancer biomarkers

The application of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in prostate cancer (PC) screening, diagnosis, and prognosis has improved the clinical management of PC patients. However, the PSA assay has been faced with criticism due to its potential association with over-diagnosis and subsequent overtreatment of patients with indolent disease. The United States Preventive Services Task Force incited much debate over PSA-based screening in 2012 by recommending against this approach. However, the PSA assay remains the first-line tool for the early detection of PC. This debate highlights the unmet need for non-invasive PC biomarkers with greater sensitivity and specificity that are capable of distinguishing aggressive disease from indolent disease, predicting treatment response, and guiding treatment decisions. Recent investigations into putative PC biomarkers have focused on PSA isoform assays (prostate health index, 4-kallikurein panel), PC-associated genes in the urine (PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG), glycan-associated biomarkers (S2, 3PSA, GCNT1, and tri- and tetra-antennary serum N-glycans), and circulating tumor cells. Although substantial efforts to identify novel PC biomarkers that might replace PSA have been put forth, the majority of the putative PC biomarkers reported in the last few years are still under investigation or validation. This review provides an overview of the current state of PC biomarker research and focuses on a few promising PC biomarkers in development.

Translational and clinical implications of the genetic landscape of prostate cancer

Over the past several years, analyses of data from high-throughput studies have elucidated many fundamental insights into prostate cancer biology. These insights include the identification of molecular alterations and subtypes that drive tumour progression, recurrent aberrations in signalling pathways, the existence of substantial intertumoural and intratumoural heterogeneity, Darwinian evolution in response to therapeutic pressures and the complicated multidirectional patterns of spread between primary tumours and metastatic sites. However, these concepts have not yet been fully translated into clinical tools to improve prognostication, prediction and personalization of treatment of patients with prostate cancer. The current and future clinical implications of 'omics' level knowledge is not only revolutionizing our understanding of prostate cancer biology, but is also shaping ongoing, and future clinical investigations and practice. In this Review, we summarize these advances, and the remaining challenges surrounding tumour heterogeneity and the ability to overcome treatment resistance are also described.