PCA3 sensitivity and specificity for prostate cancer detection in patients with abnormal PSA and/or suspicious digital rectal examination. First Latin American experience

The impact of urine biomarkers for prostate cancer detection-A systematic state of the art review

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) screening primarily relies on Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA), which has low specificity and therefore leads to unnecessary biopsies. Consequently, there is a growing need for, ideally, non-invasive biomarkers. Liquid biopsy, a diagnostic approach analyzing circulating tumor components in body fluids, has emerged as a promising diagnostic tool for various cancers, including PCa.

METHODS

To evaluate recent evidence on urine-based biomarkers for the detection of PCa, we conducted a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Our literature search identified a total of 286 studies, of which 66 met our inclusion criteria (men suspected of PCa with no prior history of PCa). After assessing the risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool, studies on five distinct urinary biomarker tests were included for further analysis.

RESULTS

Tests that do not rely on digital rectal examination (non-DRE), such as Exosome Dx Prostate IntelliScore (EPI) and Protexam Prostate Status Management (PSM)/Prostate Check-Up (PSU), demonstrated strong performance in detecting PCa, particularly clinically significant PCa. Meanwhile, the MyProstateScore test (MPS) showed the highest efficacy among tests utilizing urine samples collected post-DRE. Unfortunately, the performance of the biomarker test with the most available studies, PCA3 ProGensa® Score, was underwhelming with only moderate sensitivity and specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite promising results from various urine-based biomarker tests, we are currently unable to recommend one specific test for implementation into clinical practice. The broad heterogeneity of the studies conducted hindered the ability to perform a meta-analysis, and prospective randomized trials providing clinical evidence are still lacking.

Established and emerging liquid biomarkers for prostate cancer detection: A review

Prostate cancer remains one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers among men in the world today. Since its introduction in 1987 and FDA approval in 1994, prostate specific antigen (PSA) has reduced prostate cancer specific mortality considerably. However, the positive and negative predictive value of PSA is less than ideal and can lead to the over-detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. In the search for better screening measures to identify this cohort, liquid biomarkers for prostate cancer have emerged. In this review we will explore the commonly used urine and blood based prostate cancer liquid biomarkers. We detail the mechanism of each test and the validation studies that underscore their efficacy. Additionally, we will examine each test's effect on shared decision making as well as their cost efficacy in clinical practice.

The Clinical Utility of lncRNAs and Their Application as Molecular Biomarkers in Breast Cancer

Given their tumor-specific and stage-specific gene expression, long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have demonstrated to be potential molecular biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment response. Particularly, the lncRNAs DSCAM-AS1 and GATA3-AS1 serve as examples of this because of their high subtype-specific expression profile in luminal B-like breast cancer. This makes them candidates to use as molecular biomarkers in clinical practice. However, lncRNA studies in breast cancer are limited in sample size and are restricted to the determination of their biological function, which represents an obstacle for its inclusion as molecular biomarkers of clinical utility. Nevertheless, due to their expression specificity among diseases, such as cancer, and their stability in body fluids, lncRNAs are promising molecular biomarkers that could improve the reliability, sensitivity, and specificity of molecular techniques used in clinical diagnosis. The development of lncRNA-based diagnostics and lncRNA-based therapeutics will be useful in routine medical practice to improve patient clinical management and quality of life.

Long noncoding RNA as a potential diagnostic tool for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To identify consistently expressed lncRNAs and suitable lncRNAs with high sensitivity and specificity from multiple independent studies as potential biomarkers for PCa diagnostics.

METHODS

We searched multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, CQVIP, Wanfang, and CBMdisc for studies published up to July 2022. The quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers based on the QUADAS-2 tool using Review Manager 5.3. A vote-counting method was used based on the ranking of potential molecular biomarkers. The top-ranked lncRNAs were further assessed for diagnostic value using Meta-disc version 1.4 software.

RESULTS

Among the 26 included studies, 2 circulating lncRNAs (PCA3 and MALAT-1) were reported 3 or more times in PCa patients versus non-PCa patients. In further analysis, the areas under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic curves for PCA3 and MALAT-1 distinguishing PCa patients were 0.775 and 0.771, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current evidence, PCA3 and MALAT-1 are reliable lncRNAs for the diagnosis of PCa.

Prostate cancer screening: Continued controversies and novel biomarker advancements

Prostate cancer (PCa) screening remains one of the most controversial topics in clinical and public health. Despite being the second most common cancer in men worldwide, recommendations for screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are unclear. Early detection and the resulting postscreening treatment lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of otherwise indolent cases. In addition, several unwanted harms are associated with PCa screening process. This literature review focuses on the limitations of PSA-specific PCa screening, reasons behind the screening controversy, and the novel biomarkers and advanced innovative methodologies that improve the limitations of traditional screening using PSA. With the verdict of whether or not to screen not yet unanimous, we hope to aid in resolution of the long-standing debate.

Accuracy of novel urinary biomarker tests in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective

The purpose of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic value of different urinary markers for prostate cancer.

Methods

As of June 2022, the literature was retrieved by searching Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science databases and other databases. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values ​​was used to determine the most effective diagnostic method and the data were analyzed accordingly using data analysis software.

Results

A total of 16 articles was included including 9952 patients. The ranking results of network meta-analysis showed that the diagnostic performance of the four urine markers Selectmdx, MIPS, PCA3 and EPI was better than that of PSA. Among them, the specificity, positive predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of Selectmdx ranked first in the SUCRA ranking (SUCRA values: 85.2%, 88.3%, 97.1%), and the sensitivity ranked second in the SUCRA ranking (SUCRA value: 54.4%), and the negative predictive value ranked fourth in SUCRA (SUCRA value: 51.6%). The most sensitive screening tool was MIPS (SUCRA value: 67.1%), and it was also the second screening tool ranked higher in specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy (SUCRA value: 56.5%, respectively)., 57.1%, 67.9%, 74.3%). The high negative predictive value SUCRA ranking is EPI (SUCRA value: 68.0%), its sensitivity ranks third (SUCRA value: 45.6%), and its specificity, positive predictive value and diagnostic accuracy are ranked fourth (SUCRA values are: 45%, 38.2%, 35.8%).

Conclusion

According to the network ranking diagram, we finally concluded that Selectmdx and MIPS can be used as the most suitable urine markers for prostate cancer screening and diagnosis. To further explore the diagnostic value of different urinary markers in the screening of PCa patients.

Systematic Review Registration

https://inplasy.com/, identifier INPLASY202290094.

Current advances in prognostic and diagnostic biomarkers for solid cancers: Detection techniques and future challenges

Solid cancers are one of the leading causes of cancer related deaths, characterized by rapid growth of tumour, and local and distant metastases. Current advances on multimodality care have substantially improved local control and metastasis-free survival of patients by resection of primary tumour. The major concern in disease prognosis is the timely detection of resectable or metastatic tumour, thus reinforcing the need for identification of biomarkers for premalignant lesions of solid cancer. This ultimately improves the outcome for the patients. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to update the recent advancements on prognostic and diagnostic biomarkers to enhance early detection of common solid cancers including, breast, lung, colorectal, prostate and stomach cancer. We also provide an insight into Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved solid cancers biomarkers; various conventional techniques used for detection of prognostic and diagnostic biomarkers and discuss approaches to turn challenges in this field into opportunities.

Prostate Cancer Liquid Biopsy Biomarkers' Clinical Utility in Diagnosis and Prognosis

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men worldwide. The current gold standard for diagnosing PCa relies on a transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic core needle biopsy indicated after detection changes in a digital rectal examination (DRE) and elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level in the blood serum. PSA is a marker produced by prostate cells, not just cancer cells. Therefore, an elevated PSA level may be associated with other symptoms such as benign prostatic hyperplasia or inflammation of the prostate gland. Due to this marker's low specificity, a common problem is overdiagnosis, which leads to unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment. This is associated with various treatment complications (such as bleeding or infection) and generates unnecessary costs. Therefore, there is no doubt that the improvement of the current procedure by applying effective, sensitive and specific markers is an urgent need. Several non-invasive, cost-effective, high-accuracy liquid biopsy diagnostic biomarkers such as Progensa PCA3, MyProstateScore ExoDx, SelectMDx, PHI, 4K, Stockholm3 and ConfirmMDx have been developed in recent years. This article compares current knowledge about them and their potential application in clinical practice.

[Diagnostic markers in urology]

Cancer diagnostics can be supplemented by disease-related biomarkers. In the course of modern patient-tailored cancer treatment, the importance of correct risk stratification, prognosis and monitoring has significantly increased. In recent years, a multitude of biomarkers and related test procedures have emerged to fulfil this purpose. The following review article summarizes the most recent developments with respect to the use of biomarkers in the diagnostics of urological cancers.

Omics Derived Biomarkers and Novel Drug Targets for Improved Intervention in Advanced Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most frequently diagnosed malignancies, and the fifth leading cause of cancer related mortality in men. For advanced PCa, radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, and/or long-term androgen deprivation therapy are the recommended treatment options. However, subsequent progression to metastatic disease after initial therapy results in low 5-year survival rates (29%). Omics technologies enable the acquisition of high-resolution large datasets that can provide insights into molecular mechanisms underlying PCa pathology. For the purpose of this article, a systematic literature search was conducted through the Web of Science Database to critically evaluate recent omics-driven studies that were performed towards: (a) Biomarker development and (b) characterization of novel molecular-based therapeutic targets. The results indicate that multiple omics-based biomarkers with prognostic and predictive value have been validated in the context of PCa, with several of those being also available for commercial use. At the same time, omics-driven potential drug targets have been investigated in pre-clinical settings and even in clinical trials, holding the promise for improved clinical management of advanced PCa, as part of personalized medicine pipelines.

NMR-Based Metabolomic Profiling of Urine: Evaluation for Application in Prostate Cancer Detection

Detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and distinguishing indolent versus aggressive forms of the disease is a critical clinical challenge. The current clinical test is circulating prostate-specific antigen levels, which faces particular challenges in cancer diagnosis in the range of 4 to 10 ng/mL. Thus, a concerted effort toward building a noninvasive biomarker panel has developed. In this report, the hypothesis that nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-derived metabolomic profiles measured in the urine of biopsy-negative versus biopsy-positive individuals would nominate a selection of potential biomarker signals was investigated. 1H NMR spectra of urine samples from 317 individuals (111 biopsy-negative, 206 biopsy-positive) were analyzed. A double cross-validation partial least squares-discriminant analysis modeling technique was utilized to nominate signals capable of distinguishing the two classes. It was observed that after variable selection protocols were applied, a subset of 29 variables produced an area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.94 after logistic regression analysis, whereas a “master list” of 18 variables produced a receiver operating characteristic ROC) AUC of 0.80. As proof of principle, this study demonstrates the utility of NMR-based metabolomic profiling of urine biospecimens in the nomination of PCa-specific biomarker signals and suggests that further investigation is certainly warranted.

Proteomics biomarkers for solid tumors: Current status and future prospects

Cancer is a heterogeneous multifactorial disease, which continues to be one of the main causes of death worldwide. Despite the extensive efforts for establishing accurate diagnostic assays and efficient therapeutic schemes, disease prevalence is on the rise, in part, however, also due to improved early detection. For years, studies were focused on genomics and transcriptomics, aiming at the discovery of new tests with diagnostic or prognostic potential. However, cancer phenotypic characteristics seem most likely to be a direct reflection of changes in protein metabolism and function, which are also the targets of most drugs. Investigations at the protein level are therefore advantageous particularly in the case of in-depth characterization of tumor progression and invasiveness. Innovative high-throughput proteomic technologies are available to accurately evaluate cancer formation and progression and to investigate the functional role of key proteins in cancer. Employing these new highly sensitive proteomic technologies, cancer biomarkers may be detectable that contribute to diagnosis and guide curative treatment when still possible. In this review, the recent advances in proteomic biomarker research in cancer are outlined, with special emphasis placed on the identification of diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for solid tumors. In view of the increasing number of screening programs and clinical trials investigating new treatment options, we discuss the molecular connections of the biomarkers as well as their potential as clinically useful tools for diagnosis, risk stratification and therapy monitoring of solid tumors.

Urinary markers aiding in the detection and risk stratification of prostate cancer

The purpose of this review is to highlight the role of existing and promising urinary biomarkers for the detection and prognostication of prostate cancer (PCa). A number of novel urinary biomarkers have been introduced into the clinical space, which in combination with clinical variables, have demonstrated an increased ability to select patients for biopsy and identify men at risk of harboring clinically significant PCa. Though a number of assays require further validation, initial data is promising and forthcoming results will ultimately determine their clinical utility and commercial availability. For the past 30 years, first-line screening for PCa has relied on measurement of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and the results from a digital rectal exam (DRE). A large body of evidence from the last 3 decades indicates that these screening methods are problematic, and often inadequate for detecting clinically significant PCa. Extensive efforts have recently been made to identify and commercialize novel PCa biomarkers for more effective detection of PCa, either alone or in combination with current screening methods. This review article highlights problems with current screening standards, and discusses 6 urinary biomarker assays in terms of their ability to detect and risk-stratify PCa: prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), TMPRSS2-ERG, second chromosome locus associated with prostate-1 (SChLAP1), ExoDx, SelectMDx, and Michigan Prostate Score (MiPS).

Genomic biomarkers in prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous cancer among men in the United States. In the last decade there has been a rapid expansion in the field of biomarker assays for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment prediction in prostate cancer. The evidence base for these assays is rapidly evolving. With several commercial assays available at each stage of the disease, deciding which genomic assays are appropriate for which patients can be nuanced for physicians. In an effort to help guide these decisions in clinical practice, we aim to give an update on the current status of the biomarker field of prostate cancer.

[[Is the PCA3 cost-effective in Latin America and the Caribbean?]]

Sr. editor: El Antígeno de Cáncer de Próstata 3 (PCA 3) es un segmento no codificante del ácido ribonucleico mensajero (ARNm) del gen ubicado en el cromosoma 9q21-22.1 Se expresa en 95% de las células del cáncer de próstata (CaP) y tiene una precisión de 100% para diferenciarlas de las células benignas.

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.

Somatic Mutation Analyses in Studies of the Clonal Evolution and Diagnostic Targets of Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common uro-oncological disease in the global population and still requires a more efficient laboratory diagnosis. Point mutations of oncogenes and tumor sup-pressor genes are the most frequent molecular genetic events in carcinogenesis. The mutations are re-sponsible, to a great extent, for the clonal evolution of cancer and can be considered as primary candi-date molecular markers of PC. Using next-generation sequencing to analyze the mutations in PC, the main molecular PC subtypes were identified, which depended on the presence of fusion genes and FOXA1, CHD1, and SPOP point mutations; other driver mutations responsible for the progression of PC subclones were also characterized. This review summarizes the data on early PC genetic markers (an mtDNA deletion, and TMPRSS2:ERG expression), as well as these somatic mutations at later stages of PC. Emphasis is placed on a switch in AR synthesis to a constitutively active variant and the point muta-tions that facilitate PC transition to a castration-refractory state that is resistant to new AR inhibitors. Based on the current whole-exome sequencing data, the frequencies and localizations of the somatic mu-tations that may provide new genetic diagnostic markers and drug targets are described.

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.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PROGENSA® prostate cancer antigen 3 assay and the Prostate Health Index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

There is no single definitive test to identify prostate cancer in men. Biopsies are commonly used to obtain samples of prostate tissue for histopathological examination. However, this approach frequently misses cases of cancer, meaning that repeat biopsies may be necessary to obtain a diagnosis. The PROGENSA(®) prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) assay (Hologic Gen-Probe, Marlborough, MA, USA) and the Prostate Health Index (phi; Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA, USA) are two new tests (a urine test and a blood test, respectively) that are designed to be used to help clinicians decide whether or not to recommend a repeat biopsy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PCA3 assay and the phi in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple publication databases and trial registers were searched in May 2014 (from 2000 to May 2014), including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, Medion, Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility database, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

REVIEW METHODS

The assessment of clinical effectiveness involved three separate systematic reviews, namely reviews of the analytical validity, the clinical validity of these tests and the clinical utility of these tests. The assessment of cost-effectiveness comprised a systematic review of full economic evaluations and the development of a de novo economic model.

SETTING

The perspective of the evaluation was the NHS in England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

Men suspected of having prostate cancer for whom the results of an initial prostate biopsy were negative or equivocal.

INTERVENTIONS

The use of the PCA3 score or phi in combination with existing tests (including histopathology results, prostate-specific antigen level and digital rectal examination), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical judgement.

RESULTS

In addition to documents published by the manufacturers, six studies were identified for inclusion in the analytical validity review. The review identified issues concerning the precision of the PCA3 assay measurements. It also highlighted issues relating to the storage requirements and stability of samples intended for analysis using the phi assay. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria for the clinical validity review. These studies reported results for 10 different clinical comparisons. There was insufficient evidence to enable the identification of appropriate test threshold values for use in a clinical setting. In addition, the implications of adding either the PCA3 assay or the phi to clinical assessment were not clear. Furthermore, the addition of the PCA3 assay or the phi to clinical assessment plus magnetic resonance imaging was not found to improve discrimination. No published papers met the inclusion criteria for either the clinical utility review or the cost-effectiveness review. The results from the cost-effectiveness analyses indicated that using either the PCA3 assay or the phi in the NHS was not cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations of the systematic review of clinical validity are that the review conclusions are over-reliant on findings from one study, the descriptions of clinical assessment vary widely within reviewed studies and many of the reported results for the clinical validity outcomes do not include either standard errors or confidence intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical benefit of using the PCA3 assay or the phi in combination with existing tests, scans and clinical judgement has not yet been confirmed. The results from the cost-effectiveness analyses indicate that the use of these tests in the NHS would not be cost-effective.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014009595.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Screening for Prostate Cancer-Beyond Total PSA, Utilization of Novel Biomarkers

Urology has been beset by several major trends that have shifted the entire paradigm for prostate cancer screening. These stem from a backlash against overdiagnosis and overtreatment due to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening efforts and have led national societies to modify their guidelines. More importantly, the public outcry has shifted the focus of early detection from an effort to diagnose any and all prostate cancers to an effort to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancers at an early stage. This review provides an update on contemporary biomarkers for prostate cancer that may be used to supplement PSA-based screening approaches.

RNA biomarkers to facilitate the identification of aggressive prostate cancer

A large number of men are diagnosed with prostate cancer each year, but many will not experience morbidity or mortality as a result of their cancers. Therefore, biomarkers for prostate cancer are necessary to carefully select patients for initial diagnostic biopsy or to facilitate care decisions for men who have already been diagnosed with prostate cancer. RNA-based approaches to biomarker discovery allow the investigation of non-coding RNAs, gene fusion transcripts, splice variants, and multi-gene expression panels in tissue, urine, or blood as opportunities to improve care decisions. This review focuses on RNA biomarkers that are available as commercial assays, and therefore already available for potential clinical use, as well as providing an overview of newer RNA biomarkers that are in earlier stages of clinical development.

Urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The field of urology has been beset by several major trends that have affected the early detection of prostate cancer. These stem primarily from a backlash against overdiagnosis due to prostate specific antigen-based screening efforts and are epitomized by the US Preventive Services Task Force giving prostate specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening a 'D' recommendation. Consequently, the active surveillance strategy for low-risk prostate cancer has become commonplace, leading many to ask how best to follow these patients. More importantly, this public outcry has shifted the focus of early detection from an effort to diagnose any and all prostate cancers to an effort to diagnose only 'high-risk' cancer. Along with a trend for minimally invasive procedures, these forces have challenged the early detection field to more efficiently identify clinically significant prostate cancers at an early stage while limiting the number of biopsies.

RECENT FINDINGS

With US Food and Drug Administration approval, prostate cancer antigen 3 has emerged as the first bona-fide urinary biomarker for prostate cancer. Using the same platform, investigators have developed a second urinary test based on TMPRSS2:erg fusion. Recent literature supports the use of these biomarkers as a combined panel that improves risk evaluation in the setting of prostate cancer detection. Early works for applying urinary biomarkers for active surveillance are underway. Other biomarkers in the pipeline will require further prevalidation and validation work.

SUMMARY

Recent literature would support that urinary biomarkers have a clear role to supplement risk evaluation for men undergoing prostate biopsy and for prognostication.

Can urinary PCA3 supplement PSA in the early detection of prostate cancer?

PURPOSE

Given the limited sensitivity and specificity of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), its widespread use as a screening tool has raised concerns for the overdiagnosis of low-risk and the underdiagnosis of high-grade prostate cancer. To improve early-detection biopsy decisions, the National Cancer Institute conducted a prospective validation trial to assess the diagnostic performance of the prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) urinary assay for the detection of prostate cancer among men screened with PSA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 859 men (mean age, 62 years) from 11 centers scheduled for a diagnostic prostate biopsy between December 2009 and June 2011 were enrolled. The primary outcomes were to assess whether PCA3 could improve the positive predictive value (PPV) for an initial biopsy (at a score > 60) and the negative predictive value (NPV) for a repeat biopsy (at a score < 20).

RESULTS

For the detection of any cancer, PPV was 80% (95% CI, 72% to 86%) in the initial biopsy group, and NPV was 88% (95% CI, 81% to 93%) in the repeat biopsy group. The addition of PCA3 to individual risk estimation models (which included age, race/ethnicity, prior biopsy, PSA, and digital rectal examination) improved the stratification of cancer and of high-grade cancer.

CONCLUSION

These data independently support the role of PCA3 in reducing the burden of prostate biopsies among men undergoing a repeat prostate biopsy. For biopsy-naive patients, a high PCA3 score (> 60) significantly increases the probability that an initial prostate biopsy will identify cancer.

PCA3 and PCA3-based nomograms improve diagnostic accuracy in patients undergoing first prostate biopsy

While now recognized as an aid to predict repeat prostate biopsy outcome, the urinary PCA3 (prostate cancer gene 3) test has also been recently advocated to predict initial biopsy results. The objective is to evaluate the performance of the PCA3 test in predicting results of initial prostate biopsies and to determine whether its incorporation into specific nomograms reinforces its diagnostic value. A prospective study included 601 consecutive patients addressed for initial prostate biopsy. The PCA3 test was performed before ≥12-core initial prostate biopsy, along with standard risk factor assessment. Diagnostic performance of the PCA3 test was evaluated. The three available nomograms (Hansen's and Chun's nomograms, as well as the updated Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator; PCPT) were applied to the cohort, and their predictive accuracies were assessed in terms of biopsy outcome: the presence of any prostate cancer (PCa) and high-grade prostate cancer (HGPCa). The PCA3 score provided significant predictive accuracy. While the PCPT risk calculator appeared less accurate; both Chun's and Hansen's nomograms provided good calibration and high net benefit on decision curve analyses. When applying nomogram-derived PCa probability thresholds ≤30%, ≤6% of HGPCa would have been missed, while avoiding up to 48% of unnecessary biopsies. The urinary PCA3 test and PCA3-incorporating nomograms can be considered as reliable tools to aid in the initial biopsy decision.