A four-kallikrein panel for the prediction of repeat prostate biopsy: data from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer screening in Rotterdam, Netherlands

Diagnostic Accuracy of Liquid Biomarkers for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis of Multiple Thresholds

CONTEXT

Many liquid biomarkers have entered clinical practice with the praise to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), helping avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of multianalyte biomarkers for csPCa detection using multiple thresholds.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive literature search was done through PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus in March 2023 for prospective and retrospective studies reporting the diagnostic performance of liquid biomarkers for detecting csPCa. The outcomes of interest were the diagnostic performance of liquid biomarkers for csPCa detection and identification of optimal thresholds for each biomarker.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 49 studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. Using each representative threshold based on the Youden Index, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting csPCa were 0.85 and 0.37 for prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3), 0.85 and 0.52 for prostate health index (PHI), 0.87 and 0.58 for four kallikrein (4K), 0.82 and 0.56 for SelectMDx, 0.85 and 0.54 for ExoDx, and 0.82 and 0.59 for mi prostate score (MPS), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio was highest for 4K (8.84), followed by MPS (7.0) and PHI (6.28). According to the meta-analysis incorporating multiple thresholds, the corresponding sensitivity was 0.77 for 4K, 0.69 for PHI, and 0.63 for PCA3; specificity was 0.72 for PHI, 0.70 for 4K, and 0.69 for PCA3.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding the detection of csPCa, 4K had the highest diagnostic performance among the commercial liquid biomarkers. Based on the optimal thresholds calculated by the present meta-analysis, 4K had the highest sensitivity and PHI had the highest specificity for detecting csPCa. Nevertheless, clinical decision-making requires combination strategies between liquid and imaging biomarkers.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Novel biomarkers for prostate cancer detection were useful for more accurate diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer to avoid unnecessary biopsies.

Predicting the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer with a Novel Blood-Based Biomarker: Comparison of Its Performance with Prostate-Specific Antigen

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy, specificity, and predictive value of a newly discovered biomarker, Zinc finger-like1 protein (referred to as neuroendocrine marker, NEM) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa). We retrospectively analyzed banked plasma samples from 508 men, with a median age of 67 years (range 48-97), to compare the performance of NEM and PSA in predicting subsequent histologic PCa. The cohort consisted of four groups of patients visiting a urology clinic: (1) patients not diagnosed with either benign prostatic disease or prostate cancer (PCa) were defined as normal; (2) patients diagnosed with benign hyperplasia (BPH) but not PCa; (3) patients with confirmed PCa; and (4) patients with cancer other than PCa. The normal men displayed a mean NEM plasma level of 0.948 ± 0.051 ng/mL, which increased to 1.813 ± 0.315 ng/mL in men with BPH, 86.49 ± 15.51 ng/mL in men with PCa, and 10.47 ± 1.029 ng/mL in men with other Ca. The corresponding concentrations of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in these subjects were 1.787 ± 0.135, 5.405 ± 0.699, 35.77 ± 11.48 ng/mL, and 8.036 ± 0.518, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to compare NEM and PSA performance, and the Jouden Index for each biomarker was calculated to determine cut-off points for each biomarker. The area under the ROC curve to predict PCa was 0.99 for NEM and 0.81 for PSA (p < 0.0001). The cut-off for NEM was at 1.9 ng/mL, with sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 97%. The corresponding PSA values were 4.4 ng/mL, with sensitivity of 76% and specificity of 95%. The predictive value of each biomarker in a patient was matched with his pathologic data to determine the accuracy of each biomarker. NEM was more accurate than PSA in differentiating cancer from benign conditions, such as BPH or prostatitis. In conclusion, NEM was a better predictor of PCa than PSA in patients visiting urology clinics. NEM tests, either alone or in conjunction with other biomarkers, provide a reliable, non-invasive, and inexpensive test to remarkably reduce false positives and thereby reduce the number of diagnostic biopsies and associated painful procedures and the loss of quality of life.

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.

Liquid Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Current Status and Emerging Prospects

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a major health concern that necessitates appropriate diagnostic approaches for timely intervention. This review critically evaluates the role of liquid biopsy techniques, focusing on blood- and urine-based biomarkers, in overcoming the limitations of conventional diagnostic methods. The 4Kscore test and Prostate Health Index have demonstrated efficacy in distinguishing PCa from benign conditions. Urinary biomarker tests such as PCa antigen 3, MyProstateScore, SelectMDx, and ExoDx Prostate IntelliScore test have revolutionized risk stratification and minimized unnecessary biopsies. Emerging biomarkers, including non-coding RNAs, circulating tumor DNA, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) glycosylation, offer valuable insights into PCa biology, enabling personalized treatment strategies. Advancements in non-invasive liquid biomarkers for PCa diagnosis may facilitate the stratification of patients and avoid unnecessary biopsies, particularly when PSA is in the gray area of 4 to 10 ng/mL.

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.

Biomarkers of Aggressive Prostate Cancer at Diagnosis

In the United States, prostate cancer (CaP) remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in men. CaP is predominantly indolent at diagnosis, with a small fraction (25-30%) representing an aggressive subtype (Gleason score 7-10) that is prone to metastatic progression. This fact, coupled with the criticism surrounding the role of prostate specific antigen in prostate cancer screening, demonstrates the current need for a biomarker(s) that can identify clinically significant CaP and avoid unnecessary biopsy procedures and psychological implications of being diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Although several diagnostic biomarkers are available to clinicians, very few comparative trials have been performed to assess the clinical effectiveness of these biomarkers. It is of note, however, that a majority of these clinical trials have been over-represented by men of Caucasian origin, despite the fact that African American men have a 1.7 times higher incidence and 2.1 times higher rate of mortality from prostate cancer. Biomarkers for CaP diagnosis based on the tissue of origin include urine-based gene expression assays (PCA3, Select MDx, ExoDx Prostate IntelliScore, Mi-Prostate Score, PCA3-PCGEM1 gene panel), blood-based protein biomarkers (4K, PHI), and tissue-based DNA biomarker (Confirm MDx). Another potential direction that has emerged to aid in the CaP diagnosis include multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI), which in conjunction with clinically validated biomarkers may provide a better approach to predict clinically significant CaP at diagnosis. In this review, we discuss some of the adjunctive biomarker tests along with newer imaging modalities that are currently available to help clinicians decide which patients are at risk of having high-grade CaP on prostate biopsy with the emphasis on clinical utility of the tests across African American (AA) and Caucasian (CA) men.

Progress in prostate cancer prevention

After lung, prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer and fourth in cancer-related mortality. The etiology is largely unknown and no clear risk factors have been identified. Primary prevention is therefore challenging. Also, secondary prevention, screening, in large populations is difficult. Germline mutations are implicated in hereditary prostate cancer, accounting for about 10% of screened men. Currently, only prostate-specific antigen test is adopted for early detection but is considered insufficient to further improve prevention and care. In this opinion article, we discuss novel diagnostic biomarkers and imaging tools, along with more promising targeted prostate biopsies.

Biomarkers for prostate cancer detection and risk stratification

Although prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men, most patients do not die from the disease. Prostate specific antigen (PSA), the most widely used oncologic biomarker, has revolutionized screening and early detection, resulting in reduced proportion of patients presenting with advanced disease. However, given the inherent limitations of PSA, additional diagnostic and prognostic tools are needed to facilitate early detection and accurate risk stratification of disease. Serum, urine, and tissue-based biomarkers are increasingly being incorporated into the clinical care paradigm, but there is still a limited understanding of how to use them most effectively. In the current article, we review test characteristics and clinical performance data for both serum [4 K score, prostate health index (phi)] and urine [SelectMDx, ExoDx Prostate Intelliscore, MyProstateScore (MPS), and PCa antigen 3 (PCA3)] biomarkers to aid decisions regarding initial or repeat biopsies as well as tissue-based biomarkers (Confirm MDx, Decipher, Oncotype Dx, and Polaris) aimed at risk stratifying patients and identifying those patients most likely to benefit from treatment versus surveillance or monotherapy versus multi-modal therapy.

Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Discrimination of the Four Kallikrein Panel Associated With the Inclusion of Prostate Volume

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether adding prostate volume to the kallikrein panel improves discrimination for ISUP Grade Group 2 or higher (GG2+) disease, as some men may have volume measurements available at the time of blood draw. While prostate volume predicts biopsy outcome, it requires an imaging procedure for measurement. The four kallikrein panel - commercially available as the 4Kscore - predicts risk of GG2+ disease and requires only a blood draw.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 9131 patients with available prostate volume and total PSA ≤25 ng/ml from 5 historical (sextant biopsy, pre-ISUP 2005 grading) and 4 contemporary cohorts (10+ cores, ISUP 2005 grading). Previously published kallikrein panel models were used to predict risk of GG2+. Volume was added to the model in each cohort and change in discrimination was meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Increased prostate volume was associated with decreased risk of GG2+ disease after controlling for the kallikrein panel in 7/9 cohorts. However, kallikrein panel discrimination (0.817, 95% CI 0.802, 0.831) was not improved after including volume (AUC difference 0.002, 95% CI -0.003, 0.006). Heterogeneity (P <.0001) was driven by an AUC increase in 1 cohort of academic cancer centers (0.044, 95% CI 0.025, 0.064), with no evidence of heterogeneity after excluding this cohort (P = .15).

CONCLUSION

The kallikrein panel provides a non-invasive approach to assess the risk of high-grade prostate cancer. Our results do not justify the inclusion of prostate volume in the four kallikrein panel. There is some evidence that the predictive value of prostate volume is provider dependent: further research is needed to address this question.

Angiogenesis and Anti-Angiogenic Treatment in Prostate Cancer: Mechanisms of Action and Molecular Targets

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common cancer in men and the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Many therapeutic advances over the last two decades have led to an improvement in the survival of patients with metastatic PC, yet the majority of these patients still succumb to their disease. Antiagiogenic therapies have shown substantial benefits for many types of cancer but only a marginal benefit for PC. Ongoing clinical trials investigate antiangiogenic monotherapies or combination therapies. Despite the important role of angiogenesis in PC, clinical trials in refractory castration-resistant PC (CRPC) have demonstrated increased toxicity with no clinical benefit. A better understanding of the mechanism of angiogenesis may help to understand the failure of trials, possibly leading to the development of new targeted anti-angiogenic therapies in PC. These could include the identification of specific subsets of patients who might benefit from these therapeutic strategies. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the pathways involved in the angiogenesis, the chemotherapeutic agents with antiangiogenic activity, the available studies on anti-angiogenic agents and the potential mechanisms of resistance.

Tissue- and Liquid-Based Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine

Worldwide, prostate cancer (PC) is the second-most-frequently diagnosed male cancer and the fifth-most-common cause of all cancer-related deaths. Suspicion of PC in a patient is largely based upon clinical signs and the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Although PSA levels have been criticised for a lack of specificity, leading to PC over-diagnosis, it is still the most commonly used biomarker in PC management. Unfortunately, PC is extremely heterogeneous, and it can be difficult to stratify patients whose tumours are unlikely to progress from those that are aggressive and require treatment intensification. Although PC-specific biomarker research has previously focused on disease diagnosis, there is an unmet clinical need for novel prognostic, predictive and treatment response biomarkers that can be used to provide a precision medicine approach to PC management. In particular, the identification of biomarkers at the time of screening/diagnosis that can provide an indication of disease aggressiveness is perhaps the greatest current unmet clinical need in PC management. Largely through advances in genomic and proteomic techniques, exciting pre-clinical and clinical research is continuing to identify potential tissue, blood and urine-based PC-specific biomarkers that may in the future supplement or replace current standard practices. In this review, we describe how PC-specific biomarker research is progressing, including the evolution of PSA-based tests and those novel assays that have gained clinical approval. We also describe alternative diagnostic biomarkers to PSA, in addition to biomarkers that can predict PC aggressiveness and biomarkers that can predict response to certain therapies. We believe that novel biomarker research has the potential to make significant improvements to the clinical management of this disease in the near future.

SelectMDx and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate for Men Undergoing Primary Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective Assessment in a Multi-Institutional Study

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing as the sole indication for prostate biopsy lacks specificity, resulting in overdiagnosis of indolent prostate cancer (PCa) and missing clinically significant PCa (csPCa). SelectMDx is a biomarker-based risk score to assess urinary HOXC6 and DLX1 mRNA expression combined with traditional clinical risk factors. The aim of this prospective multi-institutional study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx and its association with multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMRI) when predicting PCa in prostate biopsies. Overall, 310 consecutive subjects were included. All patients underwent mpMRI and SelectMDx prior to prostate biopsy. SelectMDx and mpMRI showed sensitivity and specificity of 86.5% vs. 51.9%, and 73.8% vs. 88.3%, respectively, in predicting PCa at biopsy, and 87.1% vs. 61.3%, and 63.7% vs. 83.9%, respectively, in predicting csPCa at biopsy. SelectMDx was revealed to be a good predictor of PCa, while with regards to csPCa detection, it was demonstrated to be less effective, showing results similar to mpMRI. With analysis of strategies assessed to define the best diagnostic strategy to avoid unnecessary biopsy, SelectMDx appeared to be a reliable pathway after an initial negative mpMRI. Thus, biopsy could be proposed for all cases of mpMRI PI-RADS 4-5 score, and to those with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 1-3 score followed by a positive SelectMDx.

Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: From Current Knowledge to the Role of Metabolomics and Exosomes

Early detection of prostate cancer (PC) is largely carried out using assessment of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level; yet it cannot reliably discriminate between benign pathologies and clinically significant forms of PC. To overcome the current limitations of PSA, new urinary and serum biomarkers have been developed in recent years. Although several biomarkers have been explored in various scenarios and patient settings, to date, specific guidelines with a high level of evidence on the use of these markers are lacking. Recent advances in metabolomic, genomics, and proteomics have made new potential biomarkers available. A number of studies focused on the characterization of the specific PC metabolic phenotype using different experimental approaches has been recently reported; yet, to date, research on metabolomic application for PC has focused on a small group of metabolites that have been known to be related to the prostate gland. Exosomes are extracellular vesicles that are secreted from all mammalian cells and virtually detected in all bio-fluids, thus allowing their use as tumor biomarkers. Thanks to a general improvement of the technical equipment to analyze exosomes, we are able to obtain reliable quantitative and qualitative information useful for clinical application. Although some pilot clinical investigations have proposed potential PC biomarkers, data are still preliminary and non-conclusive.

4Kscore diagnostic value in patients with high-grade prostate cancer using cutoff values of 7.5% to 10%: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Reported 4Kscore thresholds used to differentiate between patients with and without high-grade prostate cancer (CaP) were variable. Patients with 4Kscore results <7.5% have been proven to be at low risk of carrying high-grade CaP. This study employed a meta-analysis approach in order to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the 4Kscore as a means of detecting high-grade CaP in prostate biopsy samples using cutoff values of 7.5% to 10%.

METHODS

Relevant studies published as of December 2019 were identified via searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Data pertaining to 4Kscore diagnostic accuracy were then extracted from these studies and utilized for the calculation of pooled sensitivity , specificity , diagnostic odds ratio , and area under the curve values relating to high-grade CaP diagnosis.

RESULTS

In total, 9 studies incorporating 1,689 high-grade CaP patients were included in our meta-analysis. Following the exclusion of 1 outlier study, the pooled sensitivity, specificity , diagnostic odds ratio , and area under the curve values for 4Kscore diagnostic accuracy with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were 0.90 (95%CI: 0.86-0.92), 0.44 (95%CI: 0.36-0.52), 7 (95%CI: 5-8), and 0.81 (95%CI: 0.77-0.84), respectively.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate that 4Kscore can be used as a model for the diagnosis of high-grade CaP. However, we detected significant heterogeneity among studies that was not explained by subgroup or meta-regression analysis, thus lowering our confidence in these results. It is therefore essential that future large, well-designed studies be conducted so as to confirm whether the 4Kscore can be used with cutoff values of 7.5% to 10% to reliably detect high-grade CaP.

Precision Medicine Approach in Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent type of cancer and the second cause of death in men worldwide. Various diagnostic and treatment procedures are available for this type of malignancy, but High-grade or locally advanced prostate cancers showed the potential to develop to lethal phase that can be causing dead. Therefore, new approaches are needed to prolong patients' survival and to improve their quality of life. Precision medicine is a novel emerging field that plays an essential role in identifying new sub-classifications of diseases and in providing guidance in treatment that is based on individual multi-omics data. Multi-omics approaches include the use of genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, epigenomics and phenomics data to unravel the complexity of a disease-associated biological network, to predict prognostic biomarkers, and to identify new targeted drugs for individual cancer patients. We review the impact of multi-omics data in the framework of systems biology in the era of precision medicine, emphasising the combination of molecular imaging modalities with highthroughput techniques and the new treatments that target metabolic pathways involved in prostate cancer.

Clinical utility of current biomarkers for prostate cancer detection

Although prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains the most used test to detect prostate cancer (PCa), the limited specificity and an elevated rate of overdiagnosis are the main problems associated with PSA testing. Over the last three decades, a large body of evidence has indicated that PSA screening methods for PCa are problematic, although PSA screening significantly reduces PCa-specific mortality. A number of novel biomarkers have been introduced to overcome these limitations of PSA in the clinical setting. These biomarkers have demonstrated an increased ability to select patients for biopsy and identify men at risk for clinically significant PCa. Although a number of assays require further validation, initial data are promising. Forthcoming results will ultimately determine the clinical utility and commercial availability of these assays. 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 currently available clinical tools. This review highlights the role of existing and promising serum and urinary biomarkers for the detection and prognostication of PCa before prostate biopsy.

The role of prostate-specific antigen in light of new scientific evidence: An update in 2020

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the latest scientific evidence gathered in recent years regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for better implementation into routine clinical practice.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Analysis of the available evidence on the current role of PSA, based on the experience of an expert panel in the subject under analysis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Currently, PSA cannot be considered only as a guide for the presence or absence of prostate cancer. This determination can also help the urologist to decide on the most convenient treatment for a patient with benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) as a criterion for disease progression, and it can also suggest the suspicious existence of a prostatic tumor when there is PSA rise of>0.3 ng/ml over the level reached 6 months after having initiated treatment with 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor. However, the limits of this PSA rise with derivatives of alternative 5-alpha-reductase (5-ARI) inhibitors to dutasteride are controversial. Moreover, PSA is a key factor for the follow-up of patients with prostate adenocarcinoma at any stage who have received treatment (surgery, radiotherapy or focal therapies, hormone therapy), it acts as a guide to identify biochemical recurrence, to suspect the existence of local or distant recurrence, as well as to propose or discard adjuvant treatments. Finally, the role of PSA as a screening tool has been recently reinforced, demonstrating increased mortality rates or the existence of more aggressive cases of prostate cancer in those countries where the use of this tool has declined.

CONCLUSIONS

We present new data about the current role of PSA in the management of patients treated for BPH and/or prostate cancer that should be implemented into routine clinical practice, with special emphasis on the relevant role of this biomarker in the screening and follow-up of prostate cancer, as well as in the progression of BPH in dutasteride treatment.

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.

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.

Biomarkers in previous histologically negative prostate biopsies can be helpful in repeat biopsy decision-making processes

To evaluate whether the addition of biomarkers to traditional clinicopathological parameters may help to increase the accurate prediction of prostate re‐biopsy outcome. A training cohort with 98 patients and a validation cohort with 72 patients were retrospectively recruited into our study. Immunohistochemical analysis was used to evaluate the immunoreactivity of a group of biomarkers in the initial negative biopsy normal‐looking tissues of the training and validation cohorts. p‐STAT3, Mcm2, and/or MSR1 were selected out of 10 biomarkers to construct a biomarker index for predicting cancer and high‐grade prostate cancer (HGPCa) in the training cohort based on the stepwise logistic regression analysis; these biomarkers were then validated in the validation cohort. In the training cohort study, we found that the biomarker index was independently associated with the re‐biopsy outcomes of cancer and HGPCa. Moreover supplementing the biomarker index with traditional clinical‐pathological parameters can improve the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the model from 0.722 to 0.842 and from 0.735 to 0.842, respectively, for predicting cancer and HGPCa at re‐biopsy. In the decision‐making analysis, we found the model supplemented with the biomarker index can improve patients’ net benefit. The application of the model to clinical practice, at a 10% risk threshold, would reduce the number of biopsies by 34.7% while delaying the diagnosis of 7.8% cancers and would reduce the number of biopsies by 73.5% while delaying the diagnosis of 17.8% HGPCas. Taken together, supplementing the biomarker index with clinicopathological parameters may help urologists in re‐biopsy decision‐making processes.

The Four-Kallikrein Panel Is Effective in Identifying Aggressive Prostate Cancer in a Multiethnic Population

BACKGROUND

The four-kallikrein (4K) panel has been demonstrated to improve prediction of aggressive prostate cancer compared with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) among men with moderately elevated PSA levels. However, the development and testing of the 4K panel has been conducted primarily in White men, with limited data in African Americans and no studies in other racial and ethnic groups.

METHODS

We evaluated the 4K panel in a nested case-control study among African American, Latino, Japanese, Native Hawaiian, and White men in the Multiethnic Cohort. Prediagnostic blood levels of free, intact, and total PSA and human kallikrein-related peptidase 2 were measured among 1,667 incident prostate cancer cases and 691 controls with PSA ≥2 ng/mL. We evaluated the discriminative ability of the 4K panel within and across all racial/ethnic groups.

RESULTS

The 4K panel enhanced discrimination of overall prostate cancer compared with free plus total PSA and total PSA alone (AUC 0.748 vs. 0.711 and 0.669, respectively). Discrimination was further enhanced for Gleason 8+ prostate cancer, aggressive prostate cancer, and death due to prostate cancer, and to a lesser degree for nonaggressive prostate cancer. Improvement of the 4K panel over PSA was observed in each population. Adding a prostate cancer polygenic risk score slightly improved upon the discriminative ability of the 4K panel.

CONCLUSIONS

The superior discriminative ability of the 4K panel over PSA for overall and aggressive prostate cancer across multiethnic populations indicates the broad clinical applicability of the 4K panel.

IMPACT

Our multiethnic investigation suggests potential for the 4K panel to improve current prostate cancer screening practices.

Assessment of men's risk thresholds to proceed with prostate biopsy for the early detection of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To delineate the range of "risk thresholds" for prostate biopsy to determine how improved prostate cancer (CaP) risk prediction tools may impact shared decision-making (SDM).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey study involving men 45-75 years old attending a multispecialty urology clinic. Data included demographics, personal and family prostate cancer history, and prostate biopsy history. Respondents were presented with a summary of the details, risks, and benefits of prostate biopsy, then asked to indicate the specific risk threshold (% chance) of high-grade CaP at which they would proceed with prostate biopsy.

RESULTS

Of a total of 103 respondents, 18 men (17%) had a personal history of CaP, and 31 (30%) had undergone prostate biopsy. The median risk threshold to proceed with prostate biopsy was 25% (interquartile range 10-50%). Risk thresholds did not vary by race, education, or employment. Personal history of CaP or prostate biopsy was significantly associated with lower mean risk thresholds (19% vs. 32% [P = 0.02] and 23% vs. 33% [P = 0.04], respectively). In the lowest versus highest risk threshold quartiles, there were significantly higher rates of CaP (36% vs. 1%, P = 0.01) and prior prostate biopsy (46% vs. 17%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Men have a wide range of risk thresholds for high-grade CaP to proceed with prostate biopsy. Men with a prior history of CaP or biopsy reported lower risk thresholds, which may reflect their greater concern for this disease. The extent to which refined risk prediction tools will improve SDM warrants further study.

Investigation on core-fucosylated prostate-specific antigen as a refined biomarker for differentiation of benign prostate hyperplasia and prostate cancer of different aggressiveness

Prostate cancer represents a major cause of cancer death in men worldwide. Novel non-invasive methods are still required for differentiation of non-aggressive from aggressive tumors. Recently, changes in prostate-specific antigen glycosylation pattern, such as core-fucosylation, have been described in prostate cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the core-fucosylation determinant of serum prostate-specific antigen may serve as refined marker for differentiation between benign prostate hyperplasia and prostate cancer or identification of aggressive prostate cancer. A previously developed liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry-based strategy was used for multiplex analysis of core-fucosylated prostate-specific antigen (fuc-PSA) and total prostate-specific antigen levels in sera from 50 benign prostate hyperplasia and 100 prostate cancer patients of different aggressiveness (Gleason scores, 5-10) covering the critical gray area (2-10 ng/mL). For identification of aggressive prostate cancer, the ratio of fuc-PSA to total prostate-specific antigen (%-fuc-PSA) yielded a 5%-8% increase in the area under the curve (0.60) compared to the currently used total prostate-specific antigen (area under the curve = 0.52) and %-free prostate-specific antigen (area under the curve = 0.55) tests. However, our data showed that aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason score > 6) and non-aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) could not significantly (p-value = 0.08) be differentiated by usage of %-fuc-PSA. In addition, both non-standardized fuc-PSA and standardized %-fuc-PSA had no diagnostic value for differentiation of benign prostate hyperplasia from prostate cancer. The %-fuc-PSA serum levels could not improve the differentiation of non-aggressive and aggressive prostate cancer compared to conventional diagnostic prostate cancer markers. Still, it is unclear whether these limitations come from the biomarker, the used patient cohort, or the imprecision of the applied method itself. Therefore, %-fuc-PSA should be further investigated, especially by more precise methods whether it could be clinically used in prostate cancer diagnosis.

Circulating blood miRNAs for prostate cancer risk stratification: miRroring the underlying tumor biology with liquid biopsies

Current risk stratification methods for prostate cancer – although they have seen marked improvements over the past decades – are far from perfect. Despite the significant utility of prostate-specific antigen as a biomarker to monitor for disease recurrence, it cannot predict which tumors will recur or recommend the best treatment for patients. Similarly, although biopsies are imperative for diagnosis and staging, they are saddled with limitations and risks. We must move toward a noninvasive biomarker that has predictive and prognostic efficacy. We therefore review the current literature on circulating miRNA biomarkers, apply their use to two significant clinical problems (ie, how limitations of prostate biopsies can impact diagnosis and treatment management, and the need to tailor treatment for a clinically heterogeneous disease), and evaluate how circulating miRNAs have inherent properties that make them ideal liquid biomarkers. We also outline current gaps in knowledge that must be addressed before they can be implemented into routine clinical practice. With further research on their function and validation of their biomarker utility in large prospective cohorts, circulating miRNAs will likely prove to be the liquid biopsies of tomorrow.

Activation and activity of glycosylated KLKs 3, 4 and 11

Human kallikrein-related peptidases 3, 4, 11, and KLK2, the activator of KLK3/PSA, belong to the prostatic group of the KLKs, whose major physiological function is semen liquefaction during the fertilization process. Notably, these KLKs are upregulated in prostate cancer and are used as clinical biomarkers or have been proposed as therapeutic targets. However, this potential awaits a detailed characterization of these proteases. In order to study glycosylated prostatic KLKs resembling the natural proteases, we used Leishmania (LEXSY) and HEK293 cells for secretory expression. Both systems allowed the subsequent purification of soluble pro-KLK zymogens with correct propeptides and of the mature forms. Periodic acid-Schiff reaction, enzymatic deglycosylation assays, and mass spectrometry confirmed the glycosylation of these KLKs. Activation of glycosylated pro-KLKs 4 and 11 turned out to be most efficient by glycosylated KLK2 and KLK4, respectively. By comparing the glycosylated prostatic KLKs with their non-glycosylated counterparts from Escherichia coli, it was observed that the N-glycans stabilize the KLK proteases and change their activation profiles and their enzymatic activity to some extent. The functional role of glycosylation in prostate-specific KLKs could pave the way to a deeper understanding of their biology and to medical applications.

Are localized prostate cancer biomarkers useful in the clinical practice?

Prostate cancer presents itself in a heterogeneous way with both aggressive and indolent forms. Despite the controversy surrounding its use, prostate-specific antigen screening ultimately leads to a greater number of diagnosed patients. One of the biggest challenges in clinical practice is to select the right patients for biopsy and, among diagnosed patients, to differentiate tumors with an indolent course from those with an unfavorable prognosis, in order to determine the best therapeutic decision for each case, avoiding unnecessary interventions. Currently, several types of biomarkers are available for clinical use in patients with prostate cancer, which include blood-based (prostate-specific antigen, Prostate Health Index®, 4K score®); urine sample-based (PCA3, SelectMDx®, ExoDx Prostate IntelliScore®); and biopsy, transurethral resection, or radical prostatectomy tissue-based (ConfirmMDx®, Oncotype®, Prolaris®, Decipher®). The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current state of evidence and to highlight recent advances in the evaluation and diagnosis of prostate cancer, with emphasis on biomarkers related to diagnosis and to prognostic evaluation of localized prostate cancer.

Genome-Based Classification and Therapy of Prostate Cancer

In the past decade, multi-national and multi-center efforts were launched to sequence prostate cancer genomes, transcriptomes, and epigenomes with the aim of discovering the molecular underpinnings of tumorigenesis, cancer progression, and therapy resistance. Multiple biological markers and pathways have been discovered to be tumor drivers, and a molecular classification of prostate cancer is emerging. Here, we highlight crucial findings of these genome-sequencing projects in localized and advanced disease. We recapitulate the utility and limitations of current clinical practices to diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy, and we provide examples of insights generated by the molecular profiling of tumors. Novel treatment concepts based on these molecular alterations are currently being addressed in clinical trials and will lead to an enhanced implementation of precision medicine strategies.

Promise and Implementation of Proteomic Prostate Cancer Biomarkers

Prostate cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed malignancy and the fifth leading cause of cancer mortality in men. Despite the broad use of prostate-specific antigen test that resulted in an increase in number of diagnosed cases, disease management needs to be improved. Proteomic biomarkers alone and or in combination with clinical and pathological risk calculators are expected to improve on decreasing the unnecessary biopsies, stratify low risk patients, and predict response to treatment. To this end, significant efforts have been undertaken to identify novel biomarkers that can accurately discriminate between indolent and aggressive cancer forms and indicate those men at high risk for developing prostate cancer that require immediate treatment. In the era of “big data” and “personalized medicine” proteomics-based biomarkers hold great promise to provide clinically applicable tools, as proteins regulate all biological functions, and integrate genomic information with the environmental impact. In this review article, we aim to provide a critical assessment of the current proteomics-based biomarkers for prostate cancer and their actual clinical applicability. For that purpose, a systematic review of the literature published within the last 10 years was performed using the Web of Science Database. We specifically discuss the potential and prospects of use for diagnostic, prognostic and predictive proteomics-based biomarkers, including both body fluid- and tissue-based markers.

Improving the Specificity of PSA Screening with Serum and Urine Markers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate cancer remains a significant public health burden. In order to decrease the morbidity and mortality associated with prostate cancer, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has been used since the 1990s. However, there is concern for overdiagnosis of prostate cancer with widespread PSA screening, which could lead to overtreatment and its attendant morbidities.

RECENT FINDINGS

In order to avoid unnecessary biopsy and downstream effects including treatment of insignificant prostate cancer, a number of tests have been proposed to improve upon PSA screening. Increasing the specificity of prostate cancer screening above that of PSA testing should reduce the incidence of unnecessary prostate biopsy. However, an increase in specificity is associated with a decrease in sensitivity, so these tests must be balanced with the concern for missing the diagnosis of potentially significant disease. In this context, we present a review of six common biomarkers proposed to improve the specificity of prostate cancer screening-free PSA, prostate health index, 4Kscore, PCA3, Select MDx, and ExoDx Prostate(Intelliscore).

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.

The effect of digital rectal exam on the 4Kscore for aggressive prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The 4Kscore is a new commercially available blood-based diagnostic test which predicts risk for aggressive, clinically significant prostate cancer on prostate biopsy. The 4Kscore is currently restricted to patients who have not had a digital rectal exam (DRE) in the previous 96 h, owing to prior mixed data suggesting that prostate specific antigen (PSA) isoforms may increase by a statistically significant-if not necessarily clinically significant-amount shortly after DRE. Our primary objective was to determine if 4Kscore test results are affected by a preceding DRE.

METHODS

Participants at a Prostate Cancer Awareness Week screening event sponsored by the Prostate Conditions Education Council filled out clinical history questionnaires and had blood samples for 4Kscore testing drawn prior to DRE, then 15-45 min following DRE. Patients with prior cancer diagnosis, 5-alpha reductase inhibitor medication use, or lower urinary tract procedures in the prior 6 months were excluded, resulting in a population of 162 participants for analysis. Values were then compared to determine if there was a significant difference in 4Kscore following DRE.

RESULTS

A statistically significant increase was seen in levels of 3 kallikreins measured (total PSA, free PSA, and intact PSA; median <0.03 ng/mL for all). This resulted in a small but statistically significant decrease in post-DRE 4Kscore (median absolute score decrease 0.43%). Using a 4Kscore cutoff of 7.5% resulted in reclassification of 10 patients (6.2%), nine of whom were "downgraded" from above the cutoff to below.

CONCLUSIONS

If the blood draw for the 4 K score is performed after a screening DRE, there is a statistically significant difference in the 4 K score results, but in the vast majority of cases it would not affect clinical decision making.

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.

A Four-kallikrein Panel and β-Microseminoprotein in Predicting High-grade Prostate Cancer on Biopsy: An Independent Replication from the Finnish Section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

A panel of four kallikrein markers (total, free, and intact prostate-specific antigen [PSA] and human kallikrein-related peptidase 2 [hK2]) improves predictive accuracy for Gleason score ≥7 (high-grade) prostate cancer among men biopsied for elevated PSA. A four-kallikrein panel model was originally developed and validated by the Dutch center of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). The kallikrein panel is now commercially available as 4Kscore™.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether these findings could be replicated among participants in the Finnish section of ERSPC (FinRSPC) and whether β-microseminoprotein (MSP), a candidate prostate cancer biomarker, adds predictive value.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Among 4861 biopsied screening-positive participants in the first three screening rounds of FinRSPC, a case-control subset was selected that included 1632 biopsy-positive cases matched by age at biopsy to biopsy-negative controls.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The predictive accuracy of prespecified prediction models was compared with biopsy outcomes.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among men with PSA of 4.0-25ng/ml, 1111 had prostate cancer, 318 of whom had high-grade disease. Total PSA and age predicted high-grade cancer with an area under the curve of 0.648 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.614-0.681) and the four-kallikrein panel increased discrimination to 0.746 (95% CI 0.717-0.774). Adding MSP to the four-kallikrein panel led to a significant (Wald test; p=0.015) but small increase (0.003) in discrimination. Limitations include a risk of verification bias among men with PSA of 3.0-3.99ng/ml and the absence of digital rectal examination results.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide additional evidence that kallikrein markers can be used to inform biopsy decision-making. Further studies are needed to define the role of MSP.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Four kallikrein markers and β-microseminoprotein in blood improve discrimination of high-grade prostate cancer at biopsy in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen.

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.

The 4Kscore blood test accurately identifies men with aggressive prostate cancer prior to prostate biopsy with or without DRE information

INTRODUCTION

The 4Kscore Test is a prebiopsy blood test that incorporates four prostate protein biomarkers along with patient clinical information to determine a man's risk for high-grade, aggressive (Gleason ≥7) prostate cancer. However, some men likely to benefit from the test may be seen in primary care settings where the digital rectal examination (DRE) information is not always obtained. In this study, we assessed the clinical validity of the 4Kscore Test when the DRE information was not included in the algorithm.

METHODS

The Prospective 4Kscore Validation Study enrolled 1012 men scheduled for prostate biopsy across 26 urology practices in the United States. The 4Kscore was calculated for each patient with and without DRE information. The primary outcome was Gleason ≥7 prostate cancer on prostate biopsy. The contribution of DRE to the predictive accuracy of the test was evaluated by area under the receiver operating curve (AUC-ROC), risk calibration and clinical consequences.

RESULTS

High-grade, aggressive prostate cancer was found in 231 (23%) of the 1012 patients. Both versions of the 4Kscore Test, with and without DRE, showed excellent discrimination (AUC=0.821 with DRE and AUC=0.818 without DRE input) and excellent calibration. No clinically significant difference was found between the two versions of the 4Kscore.

CONCLUSIONS

The 4Kscore Test algorithm, whether DRE findings are available or not, performs well in predicting a man's risk of high-grade, aggressive prostate cancer. Patients who are suspected of having aggressive prostate cancer can safely have their risk better defined by 4Kscore even if a DRE has not been performed recently.

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.

Prostate cancer proteomics: Current trends and future perspectives for biomarker discovery

The clinical and fundamental research in prostate cancer - the most common urological cancer in men - is currently entering the proteomic and genomic era. The focus has switched from one single marker (PSA) to panels of biomarkers (including proteins involved in ribosomal function and heat shock proteins). Novel genetic markers (such as Transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2)-ERG fusion gene mRNA) or prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) had already entered the clinical practice, raising the question whether subsequent protein changes impact the evolution of the disease and the response to treatment. Proteomic technologies such as MALDI-MS, SELDI-MS, i-TRAQ allow a qualitative/quantitative analysis of the proteome variations, in both serum and tumor tissue. A new trend in prostate cancer research is proteomic analysis of prostasomes (prostate-specific exosomes), for the discovery of new biomarkers. This paper provides an update of novel clinical tests used in research and clinical diagnostic, as well as of potential tissue or fluid biomarkers provided by extensive proteomic research data.

Clinical performance of the 4Kscore Test to predict high-grade prostate cancer at biopsy: A meta-analysis of us and European clinical validation study results

The 4Kscore® Test (OPKO Diagnostics, Woburn, MA) is a blood test utilized prior to a prostate biopsy to determine a patient's risk of high-grade prostate cancer (PCa) should the biopsy be performed, thus providing critical information in the clinical management of men with a suspicious prostate-specific antigen value or digital rectal examination result. Multiple US and European clinical studies confirmed that a prebiopsy 4Kscore Test has a high degree of discrimination for a subsequent discovery of high-grade (Gleason score ≥7) PCa. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the 4Kscore Test to discriminate between patients with and without high-grade PCa based on published clinical validation studies. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the eligible 4Kscore Test clinical validation studies was conducted. The pooled area under the curve (AUC) of the 4Kscore Test as reported from all the studies, and the heterogeneity among these studies were analyzed and repeated for subgroups of the studies. Twelve clinical validation studies were included in the meta-analysis, comprising a total of 11,134 patients. The pooled AUC to discriminate for high-grade PCa for all 12 studies was 0.81 (fixed effects 95% CI, 0.80-0.83). Restricting the analysis to the six publications that used the contemporary 4Kscore Test algorithm led to very similar results (AUC 0.81; 95% CI, 0.79-0.83). Heterogeneity was high among all of the 12 studies, as well as among the six publications that used the contemporary 4Kscore Test (Cochrane's Q test, p = 0.001 for both); however, in both cases, after exclusion of a single outlying study with a much lower AUC, heterogeneity was no longer significant (p = 0.08 and p = 0.21). The pooled estimate of 4Kscore Test discrimination (AUC) for high-grade PCa is >0.80, and is consistent across multiple US and European clinical validation studies.