Developing an effective strategy to improve the detection of significant prostate cancer by combining the 4Kscore and multiparametric MRI

How to Integrate Prostate Cancer Biomarkers in Urology Clinical Practice: An Update

Nowadays, the management of prostate cancer has become more and more challenging due to the increasing number of available treatment options, therapeutic agents, and our understanding of its carcinogenesis and disease progression. Moreover, currently available risk stratification systems used to facilitate clinical decision-making have limitations, particularly in providing a personalized and patient-centered management strategy. Although prognosis and prostate cancer-specific survival have improved in recent years, the heterogenous behavior of the disease among patients included in the same risk prognostic group negatively impacts not only our clinical decision-making but also oncological outcomes, irrespective of the treatment strategy. Several biomarkers, along with available tests, have been developed to help clinicians in difficult decision-making scenarios and guide management strategies. In this review article, we focus on the scientific evidence that supports the clinical use of several biomarkers considered by professional urological societies (and included in uro-oncological guidelines) in the diagnosis process and specific difficult management strategies for clinically localized or advanced prostate cancer.

A multi-institutional study of 1,111 men with 4K score, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and prostate biopsy

OBJECTIVE

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biomarkers are often used in conjunction to enhance the selection process for prostate biopsy. However, the optimal sequence of ordering these tests has not been established. A comprehensive evaluation was conducted on a large multi-institutional cohort of patients who underwent MRI, 4K score, and biopsy of the prostate to examine the impact of utilizing both tests vs. either test alone and to determine if the order in which these tests are administered affects the ability to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csCaP).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We evaluated men from 8 different institutions who were referred for prostate cancer evaluation and underwent MRI, 4K score test, and prostate biopsy. The primary outcome was the presence of csCaP, defined as grade group 2 or higher cancer on a biopsy of the prostate. We used logistic regression, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis to evaluate using a 4K score or MRI alone vs. both tests together for detecting csCaP. In addition, we evaluated several strategies using one or both tests for selecting men for biopsy and compared them based on the proportion of biopsies avoided and the csCaP's missed.

RESULTS

Among the 1,111 men who formed the final cohort, 553 (49.8%) had prostate cancer, and 353 (31.8%) had csCaP. We found that using MRI and 4K score together had better discrimination, calibration, and a higher clinical utility on decision curve analysis compared to using either test individually. Using both tests together resulted in fewer biopsies avoided and missed cancers compared to using either test alone. Strategies that sequence MRI and 4K score tests resulted in the largest biopsy reduction, with no appreciable difference between starting with an MRI vs. a biomarker.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that using both an MRI and 4K score together was superior to using either test alone but found no appreciable difference between starting with an MRI vs. starting with a 4K score. Prospective studies are needed to identify the best strategy to sequence MRI and biomarkers in the evaluation of csCaP.

Comparative Analysis of PSA Density and an MRI-Based Predictive Model to Improve the Selection of Candidates for Prostate Biopsy

This study is a head-to-head comparison between mPSAD and MRI-PMbdex. The MRI-PMbdex was created from 2432 men with suspected PCa; this cohort comprised the development and external validation cohorts of the Barcelona MRI predictive model. Pre-biopsy 3-Tesla multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and 2 to 4-core transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies for suspicious lesions and/or 12-core TRUS systematic biopsies were scheduled. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa), defined as Gleason-based Grade Group 2 or higher, was detected in 934 men (38.4%). The area under the curve was 0.893 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.880−0.906) for MRI-PMbdex and 0.764 (95% CI: 0.774−0.783) for mPSAD, with p < 0.001. MRI-PMbdex showed net benefit over biopsy in all men when the probability of csPCa was greater than 2%, while mPSAD did the same when the probability of csPCa was greater than 18%. Thresholds of 13.5% for MRI-PMbdex and 0.628 ng/mL2 for mPSAD had 95% sensitivity for csPCa and presented 51.1% specificity for MRI-PMbdex and 19.6% specificity for mPSAD, with p < 0.001. MRI-PMbdex exhibited net benefit over mPSAD in men with prostate imaging report and data system (PI-RADS) <4, while neither exhibited any benefit in men with PI-RADS 5. Hence, we can conclude that MRI-PMbdex is more accurate than mPSAD for the proper selection of candidates for prostate biopsy among men with suspected PCa, with the exception of men with a PI-RAD S 5 score, for whom neither tool exhibited clinical guidance to determine the need for biopsy.

Improving the Early Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men in the Challenging Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 3 Category

Background

Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 3 is a challenging scenario for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and some tools can improve the selection of appropriate candidates for prostate biopsy.

Objective

To assess the performance of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) model, the new Proclarix test, and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) in selecting candidates for prostate biopsy among men in the PI-RADS 3 category.

Design, setting, and participants

We conducted a head-to-head prospective analysis of 567 men suspected of having PCa for whom guided and systematic biopsies were scheduled between January 2018 and March 2020 in a single academic institution. A PI-RADS v.2 category 3 lesion was identified in 169 men (29.8%).

Outcome measurement and statistical analysis

csPCa, insignificant PCa (iPCa), and unnecessary biopsy rates were analysed. csPCa was defined as grade group ≥2. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, decision curve analysis curves, and clinical utility curves were plotted.

Results and limitations

PCa was detected in 53/169 men (31.4%) with a PI-RADS 3 lesion, identified as csPCa in 25 (14.8%) and iPCa in 28 (16.6%). The area under the ROC curve for csPCa detection was 0.703 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.621–0.768) for Proclarix, 0.657 (95% CI 0.547–0.766) for the ERSPC MRI model, and 0.612 (95% CI 0.497–0.727) for PSAD (p = 0.027). The threshold with the highest sensitivity was 10% for Proclarix, 1.5% for the ERSPC MRI model, and 0.07 ng/ml/cm³ for PSAD, which yielded sensitivity of 100%, 91%, and 84%, respectively. Some 21.3%, 26.2%, and 7.1% of biopsies would be avoided with Proclarix, PSAD, and the ERSPC MRI model, respectively. Proclarix showed a net benefit over PSAD and the ERSPC MRI model. Both Proclarix and PSAD reduced iPCa overdetection from 16.6% to 11.3%, while the ERSPC MRI model reduced iPCa overdetection to 15.4%.

Conclusions

Proclarix was more accurate in selecting appropriate candidates for prostate biopsy among men in the PI-RADS 3 category when compared to PSAD and the ERSPC MRI model. Proclarix detected 100% of csPCa cases and would reduce prostate biopsies by 21.3% and iPCa overdetection by 5.3%.

Patient summary

We compared three methods and found that the Proclarix test can optimise the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in men with a score of 3 on the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System for magnetic resonance imaging scans.

Prostate cancer biomarkers and multiparametric MRI: is there a role for both in prostate cancer management?

Several advancements have been made in recent years with regards to the detection and evaluation of prostate cancer (PCa). The low specificity of prostate specific antigen (PSA) has left much to be desired in a test, but a boom in novel biomarkers has made screening and surveillance more complicated. Several attempts at identifying a niche for these tests has helped somewhat, but much is still undetermined about the benefit that each test provides. In addition to laboratory tests, advancements in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and PIRADSv.2 scoring have provided significant benefit to the evaluation of PCa. With the widespread use of prostate imaging, it is important to re-evaluate the impact of novel biomarkers in the context of furthering PCa screening and management. In this review, we aim to assess the influence mpMRI has on the role of nine different novel biomarkers in the detection and evaluation of PCa. We performed a review of current peer-reviewed literature to assess this question. Much data has been published on the role of these tests, allowing for their placement into one of three best-fit categories: tests for biopsy-naïve men (Prostate Health Index, Mi Prostate Score, 4K Score); tests for men with prior negative biopsies (ConfirmMDx, Progensa PCA3); and men on active surveillance (OncotypeDx, Prolaris, Decipher). Data on the role of these tests with the use of mpMRI have not been comprehensive and excludes several of the markers. More research is needed to determine the combined impact mpMRI and the novel biomarkers on the evaluation and management of PCa.

Commercialized Blood-, Urinary- and Tissue-Based Biomarker Tests for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis

In the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer (PCa), the serum prostate-specific antigen test is widely used but is associated with low specificity. Therefore, blood-, urinary- and tissue-based biomarker tests have been developed, intended to be used in the diagnostic and prognostic setting of PCa. This review provides an overview of commercially available biomarker tests developed to be used in several clinical stages of PCa management. In the diagnostic setting, the following tests can help selecting the right patients for initial and/or repeat biopsy: PHI, 4K, MiPS, SelectMDx, ExoDx, Proclarix, ConfirmMDx, PCA3 and PCMT. In the prognostic setting, the Prolaris, OncotypeDx and Decipher test can help in risk-stratification of patients regarding treatment decisions. Following, an overview is provided of the studies available comparing the performance of biomarker tests. However, only a small number of recently published head-to-head comparison studies are available. In contrast, recent research has focused on the use of biomarker tests in relation to the (complementary) use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in PCa diagnosis.

PI-RADS: what is new and how to use it

The prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) has revolutionized the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the management of prostate cancer (PCa). The most recent version 2.1, PI-RADS v2.1, provides specific refinements in the performance, relaxing some recommendations which were not found to be helpful, while reinforcing and clarifying others. The interpretation of T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) in the transition zone (TZ), and the overall assessment of TZ nodules, now allows for a clearer distinction between those which are clearly benign and those which might warrant tissue sampling. Additional changes also resolve discrepancies in T2WI and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of the peripheral zone (PZ). PI-RADS v2.1 is a simpler, more straightforward, and more reproducible method to better communicate between physicians regarding findings on prostate MRI.

PSA Based Biomarkers, Imagistic Techniques and Combined Tests for a Better Diagnostic of Localized Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer represents the most encountered urinary malignancy in males over 50 years old, and the second most diagnosed after lung cancer globally. Digital rectal examination and prostatic specific antigen were the long-time standard tools for diagnosis but with a significant risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Magnetic resonance imaging recently entered the diagnosis process, but to this date, there is no specific biomarker that accurately indicates whether to proceed with the prostate biopsy. Research in this area has gone towards this direction, and recently, serum, urine, imagistic, tissue biomarkers, and Risk Calculators promise to help better diagnose and stratify prostate cancer. In order to eliminate the comorbidities that appear along with the diagnosis and treatment of this disease, there is a constant need to implement new diagnostic strategies. Important uro-oncology associations recommend the use of novel biomarkers in the grey area of prostate cancer, to better distinguish the next step in the diagnostic process. Although it is not that simple, they should be integrated according to the clinical policies, and it should be considered that statistical significance does not always equal clinical significance. In this review, we analyzed the contribution of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based biomarkers (PHI, PHID, 4Kscore, STHLM3), imagistic techniques (mp-MRI and mp-US), and combined tests in the early diagnosis process of localized prostate cancer.

Clinical utility and cost modelling of the phi test to triage referrals into image-based diagnostic services for suspected prostate cancer: the PRIM (Phi to RefIne Mri) study

BACKGROUND

The clinical pathway to detect and diagnose prostate cancer has been revolutionised by the use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI pre-biopsy). mpMRI however remains a resource-intensive test and is highly operator dependent with variable effectiveness with regard to its negative predictive value. Here we tested the use of the phi assay in standard clinical practice to pre-select men at the highest risk of harbouring significant cancer and hence refine the use of mpMRI and biopsies.

METHODS

A prospective five-centre study recruited men being investigated through an mpMRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Test statistics for PSA, PSA density (PSAd) and phi were assessed for detecting significant cancers using 2 definitions: ≥ Grade Group (GG2) and ≥ Cambridge Prognostic Groups (CPG) 3. Cost modelling and decision curve analysis (DCA) was simultaneously performed.

RESULTS

A total of 545 men were recruited and studied with a median age, PSA and phi of 66 years, 8.0 ng/ml and 44 respectively. Overall, ≥ GG2 and ≥ CPG3 cancer detection rates were 64% (349/545), 47% (256/545) and 32% (174/545) respectively. There was no difference across centres for patient demographics or cancer detection rates. The overall area under the curve (AUC) for predicting ≥ GG2 cancers was 0.70 for PSA and 0.82 for phi. AUCs for ≥ CPG3 cancers were 0.81 and 0.87 for PSA and phi respectively. AUC values for phi did not differ between centres suggesting reliability of the test in different diagnostic settings. Pre-referral phi cut-offs between 20 and 30 had NPVs of 0.85-0.90 for ≥ GG2 cancers and 0.94-1.0 for ≥ CPG3 cancers. A strategy of mpMRI in all and biopsy only positive lesions reduced unnecessary biopsies by 35% but missed 9% of ≥ GG2 and 5% of ≥ CPG3 cancers. Using PH ≥ 30 to rule out referrals missed 8% and 5% of ≥ GG2 and ≥ CPG3 cancers (and reduced unnecessary biopsies by 40%). This was achieved however with 25% fewer mpMRI. Pathways incorporating PSAd missed fewer cancers but necessitated more unnecessary biopsies. The phi strategy had the lowest mean costs with DCA demonstrating net clinical benefit over a range of thresholds.

CONCLUSION

phi as a triaging test may be an effective way to reduce mpMRI and biopsies without compromising detection of significant prostate cancers.