Use of the MyProstateScore Test to Rule Out Clinically Significant Cancer: Validation of a Straightforward Clinical Testing Approach

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.

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.

Prostate cancer reshapes the secreted and extracellular vesicle urinary proteomes

Urine is a complex biofluid that reflects both overall physiologic state and the state of the genitourinary tissues through which it passes. It contains both secreted proteins and proteins encapsulated in tissue-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs). To understand the population variability and clinical utility of urine, we quantified the secreted and EV proteomes from 190 men, including a subset with prostate cancer. We demonstrate that a simple protocol enriches prostatic proteins in urine. Secreted and EV proteins arise from different subcellular compartments. Urinary EVs are faithful surrogates of tissue proteomes, but secreted proteins in urine or cell line EVs are not. The urinary proteome is longitudinally stable over several years. It can accurately and non-invasively distinguish malignant from benign prostatic lesions and can risk-stratify prostate tumors. This resource quantifies the complexity of the urinary proteome and reveals the synergistic value of secreted and EV proteomes for translational and biomarker studies.

Evaluation of blood and urine based biomarkers for detection of clinically-significant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Recognizing the limitations of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and the morbidity of prostate biopsies, several blood- and urine-based biomarkers have been proposed for pre-biopsy risk stratification. These assays aim to reduce the frequency of unnecessary biopsies (i.e., negative or Grade Group 1 [GG1]) while maintaining highly sensitive detection of clinically significant cancer (GG ≥ 2) prostate cancer.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature describing the use of currently available blood- and urine-based biomarkers for detection of GG ≥ 2 cancer, including the Prostate Health Index (PHI), 4Kscore, MyProstateScore (MPS), SelectMDx, ExoDx Prostate Intelliscore (EPI), and IsoPSA. To facilitate clinical application, we focused on the use of biomarkers as a post-PSA secondary test prior to biopsy, as proposed in clinical guidelines. Our outcomes included test performance measures-sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV)-as well as clinical outcomes resulting from biomarker use (i.e., unnecessary biopsies avoided, GG ≥ 2 cancers missed).

RESULTS

Contemporary validation data (2015-2023) reveal that currently available biomarkers provide ~15-50% specificity at a sensitivity of 90-95% for GG ≥ 2 PCa. Clinically, this indicates that secondary use of biomarker testing in men with elevated PSA could allow for avoidance of up to 15-50% of unnecessary prostate biopsies, while preserving detection of 90-95% of GG ≥ 2 cancers that would be detected under the traditional "biopsy all" approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The contemporary literature further supports the proposed role of post-PSA biomarker testing to reduce the use of invasive biopsy while maintaining highly sensitive detection of GG ≥ 2 cancer. Questions remain regarding the optimal application of biomarkers in combination or in sequence with mpMRI.

Development and Validation of an 18-Gene Urine Test for High-Grade Prostate Cancer

Importance

Benefits of prostate cancer (PCa) screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) alone are largely offset by excess negative biopsies and overdetection of indolent cancers resulting from the poor specificity of PSA for high-grade PCa (ie, grade group [GG] 2 or greater).

Objective

To develop a multiplex urinary panel for high-grade PCa and validate its external performance relative to current guideline-endorsed biomarkers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

RNA sequencing analysis of 58 724 genes identified 54 markers of PCa, including 17 markers uniquely overexpressed by high-grade cancers. Gene expression and clinical factors were modeled in a new urinary test for high-grade PCa (MyProstateScore 2.0 [MPS2]). Optimal models were developed in parallel without prostate volume (MPS2) and with prostate volume (MPS2+). The locked models underwent blinded external validation in a prospective National Cancer Institute trial cohort. Data were collected from January 2008 to December 2020, and data were analyzed from November 2022 to November 2023.

Exposure

Protocolized blood and urine collection and transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic prostate biopsy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Multiple biomarker tests were assessed in the validation cohort, including serum PSA alone, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator, and the Prostate Health Index (PHI) as well as derived multiplex 2-gene and 3-gene models, the original 2-gene MPS test, and the 18-gene MPS2 models. Under a testing approach with 95% sensitivity for PCa of GG 2 or greater, measures of diagnostic accuracy and clinical consequences of testing were calculated. Cancers of GG 3 or greater were assessed secondarily.

Results

Of 761 men included in the development cohort, the median (IQR) age was 63 (58-68) years, and the median (IQR) PSA level was 5.6 (4.6-7.2) ng/mL; of 743 men included in the validation cohort, the median (IQR) age was 62 (57-68) years, and the median (IQR) PSA level was 5.6 (4.1-8.0) ng/mL. In the validation cohort, 151 (20.3%) had high-grade PCa on biopsy. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values were 0.60 using PSA alone, 0.66 using the risk calculator, 0.77 using PHI, 0.76 using the derived multiplex 2-gene model, 0.72 using the derived multiplex 3-gene model, and 0.74 using the original MPS model compared with 0.81 using the MPS2 model and 0.82 using the MPS2+ model. At 95% sensitivity, the MPS2 model would have reduced unnecessary biopsies performed in the initial biopsy population (range for other tests, 15% to 30%; range for MPS2, 35% to 42%) and repeat biopsy population (range for other tests, 9% to 21%; range for MPS2, 46% to 51%). Across pertinent subgroups, the MPS2 models had negative predictive values of 95% to 99% for cancers of GG 2 or greater and of 99% for cancers of GG 3 or greater.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, a new 18-gene PCa test had higher diagnostic accuracy for high-grade PCa relative to existing biomarker tests. Clinically, use of this test would have meaningfully reduced unnecessary biopsies performed while maintaining highly sensitive detection of high-grade cancers. These data support use of this new PCa biomarker test in patients with elevated PSA levels to reduce the potential harms of PCa screening while preserving its long-term benefits.

Clinical Biofluid Assays for Prostate Cancer

This mini review summarizes the currently available clinical biofluid assays for PCa. The second most prevalent cancer worldwide is PCa. PCa is a heterogeneous disease, with a large percentage of prostate tumors being indolent, and with a relatively slow metastatic potential. However, due to the high case numbers, the absolute number of PCa-related deaths is still high. In fact, it causes the second highest number of cancer deaths in American men. As a first step for the diagnosis of PCa, the PSA test has been widely used. However, it has low specificity, which results in a high number of false positives leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Newer derivatives of the original PSA test, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved 4K (four kallikreins) and the PHI (Prostate Health Index) blood tests, have higher specificities. Tissue-based PCa tests are problematic as biopsies are invasive and have limited accuracy due to prostate tumor heterogeneity. Liquid biopsies offer a minimally or non-invasive choice for the patients, while providing a more representative reflection of the spatial heterogeneity in the prostate. In addition to the abovementioned blood-based tests, urine is a promising source of PCa biomarkers, offering a supplementary avenue for early detection and improved tumor classification. Four urine-based PCa tests are either FDA- or CLIA-approved: PCA3 (PROGENSA), ExoDX Prostate Intelliscore, MiPS, and SelectMDx. We will discuss these urine-based, as well as the blood-based, clinical PCa tests in more detail. We also briefly discuss a few promising biofluid marker candidates (DNA methylation, micro-RNAs) which are not in clinical application. As no single assay is perfect, we envision that a combination of biomarkers, together with imaging, will become the preferred practice.

Development and evaluation of the MiCheck® Prostate test for clinically significant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

There is a clinical need to identify patients with an elevated PSA who would benefit from prostate biopsy due to the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSCaP). We have previously reported the development of the MiCheck® Test for clinically significant prostate cancer. Here, we report MiCheck's further development and incorporation of the Roche Cobas standard clinical chemistry analyzer.

OBJECTIVES

To further develop and adapt the MiCheck® Prostate test so it can be performed using a standard clinical chemistry analyzer and characterize its performance using the MiCheck-01 clinical trial sample set.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

About 358 patient samples from the MiCheck-01 US clinical trial were used for the development of the MiCheck® Prostate test. These consisted of 46 controls, 137 non-CaP, 62 non-CSCaP, and 113 CSCaP.

METHODS

Serum analyte concentrations for cellular growth factors were determined using custom-made Luminex-based R&D Systems multi-analyte kits. Analytes that can also be measured using standard chemistry analyzers were examined for their ability to contribute to an algorithm with high sensitivity for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Samples were then re-measured using a Roche Cobas analyzer for development of the final algorithm.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Logistic regression modeling with Monte Carlo cross-validation was used to identify Human Epidydimal Protein 4 (HE4) as an analyte able to significantly improve the algorithm specificity at 95% sensitivity. A final model was developed using analyte measurements from the Cobas analzyer.

RESULTS

The MiCheck® logistic regression model was developed and consisted of PSA, %free PSA, DRE, and HE4. The model differentiated clinically significant cancer from no cancer or not-clinically significant cancer with AUC of 0.85, sensitivity of 95%, and specificity of 50%. Applying the MiCheck® test to all evaluable 358 patients from the MiCheck-01 study demonstrated that up to 50% of unnecessary biopsies could be avoided while delaying diagnosis of only 5.3% of Gleason Score (GS) ≥3+4 cancers, 1.8% of GS≥4+3 cancers and no cancers of GS 8 to 10.

CONCLUSIONS

The MiCheck® Prostate test identifies clinically significant prostate cancer with high sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV). It can be performed in a clinical laboratory using a Roche Cobas clinical chemistry analyzer. The MiCheck® Prostate test could assist in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies with a marginal number of patients experiencing a delayed diagnosis.

MyProstateScore in men considering repeat biopsy: validation of a simple testing approach

BACKGROUND

Men with persistent risk of Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2 cancer after a negative biopsy present a unique clinical challenge. The validated MyProstateScore test is clinically-available for pre-biopsy risk stratification. In biopsy-naïve patients, we recently validated a straightforward testing approach to rule-out GG ≥ 2 cancer with 98% negative predictive value (NPV) and 97% sensitivity. In the current study, we established a practical MPS-based testing approach in men with a previous negative biopsy being considered for repeat biopsy.

METHODS

Patients provided post-digital rectal examination urine prior to repeat biopsy. MyProstateScore was calculated using the validated, locked model including urinary PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG scores with serum PSA. In a clinically-appropriate primary (i.e., training) cohort, we identified a lower (rule-out) threshold approximating 90% sensitivity and an upper (rule-in) threshold approximating 80% specificity for GG ≥ 2 cancer. These thresholds were applied to an external validation cohort, and performance measures and clinical outcomes associated with their use were calculated.

RESULTS

MyProstateScore thresholds of 15 and 40 met pre-defined performance criteria in the primary cohort (422 patients; median PSA 6.4, IQR 4.3-9.1). In the 268-patient validation cohort, 25 men (9.3%) had GG ≥ 2 cancer on repeat biopsy. The rule-out threshold of 15 provided 100% NPV and sensitivity for GG ≥ 2 cancer and would have prevented 23% of unnecessary biopsies. Use of MyProstateScore >40 to rule-in biopsy would have prevented 67% of biopsies while maintaining 95% NPV. In the validation cohort, the prevalence of GG ≥ 2 cancer was 0% for MyProstateScore 0-15, 6.5% for MyProstateScore 15-40, and 19% for MyProstateScore >40.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who previously underwent a negative prostate biopsy, the MyProstateScore values of 15 and 40 yielded clinically-actionable rule-in and rule-out risk groups. Using this straightforward testing approach, MyProstateScore can meaningfully inform patients and physicians weighing the need for repeat biopsy.

Prostate Cancer Reshapes the Secreted and Extracellular Vesicle Urinary Proteomes

Urine is a complex biofluid that reflects both overall physiologic state and the state of the genitourinary tissues through which it passes. It contains both secreted proteins and proteins encapsulated in tissue-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs). To understand the population variability and clinical utility of urine, we quantified the secreted and EV proteomes from 190 men, including a subset with prostate cancer. We demonstrate that a simple protocol enriches prostatic proteins in urine. Secreted and EV proteins arise from different subcellular compartments. Urinary EVs are faithful surrogates of tissue proteomes, but secreted proteins in urine or cell line EVs are not. The urinary proteome is longitudinally stable over several years. It can accurately and non-invasively distinguish malignant from benign prostatic lesions, and can risk-stratify prostate tumors. This resource quantifies the complexity of the urinary proteome, and reveals the synergistic value of secreted and EV proteomes for translational and biomarker studies.

Recent Advances in Blood-Based Liquid Biopsy Approaches in Prostate Cancer

ABSTRACT

The advent of high-throughput technologies has enabled the analysis of minute amounts of tumor-derived material purified from body fluids, termed "liquid biopsies." Prostate cancer (PCa) management, like in many other cancer types, has benefited from liquid biopsies at several stages of the disease. Although initially describing circulating tumor cells in blood, the term "liquid biopsy" has come to more prominently include cell-free, circulating tumor DNA, as well as RNA, proteins, and other molecules. They provide tumor molecular information representing the entire, often-heterogeneous disease, relatively noninvasively and longitudinally. Blood has been the main liquid biopsy specimen in PCa, and urine has also proven beneficial. Technological advances have allowed clinical implementation of some liquid biopsies in PCa, in disease monitoring and precision oncology. This narrative review introduces the main types of blood-based PCa liquid biopsies focusing on advances in the past 5 years. Clinical adoption of liquid biopsies to detect and monitor the evolving PCa tumor biology promises to deepen our understanding of the disease and improve patient outcomes.

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.

A survey of open questions in adaptive therapy: Bridging mathematics and clinical translation

Adaptive therapy is a dynamic cancer treatment protocol that updates (or 'adapts') treatment decisions in anticipation of evolving tumor dynamics. This broad term encompasses many possible dynamic treatment protocols of patient-specific dose modulation or dose timing. Adaptive therapy maintains high levels of tumor burden to benefit from the competitive suppression of treatment-sensitive subpopulations on treatment-resistant subpopulations. This evolution-based approach to cancer treatment has been integrated into several ongoing or planned clinical trials, including treatment of metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and BRAF-mutant melanoma. In the previous few decades, experimental and clinical investigation of adaptive therapy has progressed synergistically with mathematical and computational modeling. In this work, we discuss 11 open questions in cancer adaptive therapy mathematical modeling. The questions are split into three sections: (1) integrating the appropriate components into mathematical models (2) design and validation of dosing protocols, and (3) challenges and opportunities in clinical translation.

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.

Molecular Biomarkers for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Context

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common type of cancer in men. Individualized risk stratification is crucial to adjust decision-making. A variety of molecular biomarkers have been developed in order to identify patients at risk of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined by the most common PCa risk stratification systems.

Objective

The present study aims to examine the effectiveness (diagnostic accuracy) of blood or urine-based PCa biomarkers to identify patients at high risk of csPCa.

Evidence acquisition

A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Medline and EMBASE were searched from inception to March 2021. Randomized or nonrandomized clinical trials, and cohort and case-control studies were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve were obtained.

Evidence synthesis

Sixty-five studies (N = 34 287) were included. Not all studies included prostate-specific antigen-selected patients. The pooled data showed that the Prostate Health Index (PHI), with any cutoff point between 15 and 30, had sensitivity of 0.95-1.00 and specificity of 0.14-0.33 for csPCa detection. The pooled estimates for SelectMDx test sensitivity and specificity were 0.84 and 0.49, respectively.

Conclusions

The PHI test has a high diagnostic accuracy rate for csPCa detection, and its incorporation in the diagnostic process could reduce unnecessary biopsies. However, there is a lack of evidence on patient-important outcomes and thus more research is needed.

Patient summary

It has been possible to verify that the application of biomarkers could help detect prostate cancer (PCa) patients with a higher risk of poorer evolution. The Prostate Health Index shows an ability to identify 95-100 for every 100 patients suffering from clinically significant PCa who take the test, preventing unnecessary biopsies in 14-33% of men without PCa or insignificant PCa.

Screening for prostate cancer: protocol for updating multiple systematic reviews to inform a Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline update

PURPOSE

To inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for prostate cancer in adults aged 18 years and older in primary care. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a series of systematic reviews.

METHODS

Updates of two systematic reviews and a de novo review will be conducted to synthesize the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or digital rectal examination (DRE) (with or without additional information) and patient values and preferences. Outcomes for the benefits of screening include reduced prostate cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, and incidence of metastatic prostate cancer. Outcomes for the harms of screening include false-positive screening tests, overdiagnosis, complications due to biopsy, and complications of treatment including incontinence (urinary or bowel), and erectile dysfunction. The quality of life or functioning (overall and disease-specific) and psychological effects outcomes are considered as a possible benefit or harm. Outcomes for the values and preferences review include quantitative or qualitative information regarding the choice to screen or intention to undergo screening. For the reviews on benefits or harms, we will search for randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized, and controlled studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. For the review on values and preferences, we will search for experimental or observational studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo. For all reviews, we will also search websites of relevant organizations, gray literature, and reference lists of included studies. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments will be completed independently by pairs of reviewers with any disagreements resolved by consensus or by consulting with a third reviewer. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

DISCUSSION

The series of systematic reviews will be used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to update their 2014 guideline on screening for prostate cancer in adults aged 18 years and older. Systematic review registration This review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022314407) and is available on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/dm32k).

Liquid biomarkers for early detection of prostate cancer and summary of available data for their use in African-American men

BACKGROUND

Several liquid biomarker tests have been developed to account for the limitations of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening prior to prostate biopsy. African ancestry is an established risk factor for prostate cancer (PCa) and must be particularly considered when evaluating patients with liquid biomarkers. While multiple tests have been developed over decades of exploration, recent advances can help patients and physicians incorporate data into a broader clinical context.

METHODS

We sought to review currently available liquid biomarker tests in a practical, clinically directed fashion with particular focus on performance in men with African ancestry. We reviewed discovery and validation studies and highlight important considerations for each test.

RESULTS

We discuss the advantages and limitations of percent free PSA, Prostate Health Index, Progensa® PCA3, ExoDx® Prostate Test, SelectMDx®, 4Kscore® Test, and Mi-Prostate Score and summarize salient studies on their use. A literature review of evidence specifically for men with African ancestry was conducted and available studies were summarized.

CONCLUSIONS

Liquid biomarkers can be useful tools for aiding in risk stratification prior to prostate biopsy. Use of such tests should be individualized based on a thorough knowledge of supporting evidence and the goals of the patient and physician. Further study should prioritize evaluation of such biomarkers in men with African ancestry.

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.

Association of MyProstateScore (MPS) with prostate cancer grade in the radical prostatectomy specimen

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the association between urinary MyProstateScore (MPS) and pathologic grade group (GG) at surgery in men diagnosed with GG1 prostate cancer (PCa) on biopsy.

METHODS

Using an institutional biospecimen protocol, we identified men with GG1 PCa on biopsy and PSA ≤10 ng/ml who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at the University of Michigan. MPS was retrospectively calculated using prospectively collected, post-DRE urine samples. The primary outcome was upgrading on RP pathology, defined as GG ≥ 2. The associations of MPS, PSA, and PSA density (PSAD) with upgrading were assessed on univariable logistic regression, and the predictive accuracy of each marker was estimated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS

There were 52 men with urinary specimens available that met study criteria, based on biopsy Gleason Grade and specimen collection. At RP, 17 men (33%) had GG1 cancer and 35 (67%) had GG ≥ 2 cancer. Preoperative MPS was significantly higher in patients with GG ≥ 2 cancer at surgery (median 37.8 [IQR, 22.2-52.4]) as compared to GG1 (19.3 [IQR, 9.2-29.4]; P = 0.001). On univariable logistic regression, increasing MPS values were significantly associated with upgrading (odds ratio 1.07 per one-unit MPS increase, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.12, P = 0.004), while PSA and PSAD were not significantly associated with upgrading. Similarly, the discriminative ability of the MPS model (AUC 0.78) for upgrading at RP was higher compared to models based on PSA (AUC 0.52) and PSAD (AUC 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

In men diagnosed with GG1 PCa who underwent surgery, MPS was significantly associated with RP cancer grade. In this limited cohort of men, these findings suggest that MPS could help identify patients with undetected high-grade cancer. Additional studies are needed to better characterize this association.

Biomarkers for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: contemporary clinical data and future directions

Use of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for early detection of prostate cancer appears to reduce cancer-specific mortality. Due to the limited specificity of PSA for clinically significant [Grade Group (GG) ≥2] cancer, however, screening carries substantial risks, including frequent unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdetection of non-aggressive cancers. To that end, serum and urine biomarkers with improved specificity for GG ≥2 cancer have been proposed for clinical use following PSA. In the current article, we present clinical validation data for five such biomarkers: PHI, 4Kscore, SelectMDx, ExoDx, and MPS. For all studies, we specify the study population (overall biopsy referral vs. pre-specified PSA ranges), previous biopsy status (biopsy-naïve vs. previous negative biopsy), and the proportion of subjects diagnosed with GG ≥2 cancer. Outcomes include test performance characteristics: sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV). Published data were used to compute the number of unnecessary biopsies avoided and number of GG ≥2 cancers missed if the biomarker had been used clinically to select for prostate biopsy. The evidence review is preceded by a primer on these and other clinically-relevant summary statistics.

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.

Tissue-Based Biomarkers for the Risk Stratification of Men With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

Risk stratification of men with clinically localized prostate cancer has historically relied on basic clinicopathologic parameters such as prostate specific antigen level, grade group, and clinical stage. However, prostate cancer often behaves in ways that cannot be accurately predicted by these parameters. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing tissue-based genomic tests that provide greater insights into the risk of a given patient's disease. Multiple tests are now commercially available and provide additional prognostic information at various stages of the care pathway for prostate cancer. Indeed, early evidence suggests that these assays may have a significant impact on patient and physician decision-making. However, the impact of these tests on oncologic outcomes remains less clear. In this review, we highlight recent advances in the use of tissue-based biomarkers in the treatment of prostate cancer and identify the existing evidence supporting their clinical use.

Association of Urinary MyProstateScore, Age, and Prostate Volume in a Longitudinal Cohort of Healthy Men: Long-term Findings from the Olmsted County Study

Background

Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), used in prostate cancer screening, is nonspecific for cancer and is affected by age and prostate volume. More specific biomarkers could be more accurate for early detection of prostate cancer and reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies.

Objective

To evaluate the association of age and prostate volume with urinary MyProstateScore (MPS) in a screened, longitudinal cohort without evidence of prostate cancer.

Design setting and participants

The Olmsted County Study included men aged 40-79 yr who underwent biennial prostate cancer screening. PSA ≥4.0 ng/ml or abnormal rectal examination triggered prostate biopsy, and patients with cancer were excluded. The remaining men submitted urinary specimens for PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG testing.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

MPS was calculated using the validated, locked model for grade group ≥2 cancer that includes serum PSA, urinary PCA3, and urinary TMPRSS2:ERG. The associations of age and volume with biomarkers were assessed in multivariable regression models. The t statistic was used to quantify the strength of associations independent of the unit of measurement, and R ² values were used to estimate the proportion of biomarker variance explained by each factor.

Results and limitations

The study included 314 screened men without evidence of cancer. In multivariable models including age and volume, PCA3 score was significantly associated with age (t = 7.51; p < 0.001), while T2:ERG score was not associated with age or volume. MPS was significantly associated with both age (t = 7.45; p < 0.001) and volume (t = 3.56; p < 0.001), but accounting for age alone explained the variability observed (R ² = 0.29) in a similar way to the model including age and volume (R ² = 0.31). The variability of PCA3, T2:ERG, and MPS was less dependent on age and volume than the variability for PSA (R ² = 0.45).

Conclusions

In a cohort of longitudinally screened men without evidence of cancer, we found that MPS demonstrated less variability with noncancer factors (age, prostate volume) than PSA did. These findings support the biology of these markers as more cancer-specific than PSA and highlight their promise in reducing the morbidity associated with PSA-based screening.

Patient summary

In a group of men with no evidence of prostate cancer, we found that each of three urine-based markers of cancer-PCA3, T2:ERG, and the commercially available MyProstateScore test-showed less variability with noncancer factors (age and prostate volume) than serum PSA (prostate-specific antigen) did. These findings support their proposed use as noninvasive markers of prostate cancer that could improve the accuracy of early detection.