Should Gleason 6 be labeled as cancer?

Part I: prostate cancer detection, artificial intelligence for prostate cancer and how we measure diagnostic performance: a comprehensive review

MRI has firmly established itself as a mainstay for the detection, staging and surveillance of prostate cancer. Despite its success, prostate MRI continues to suffer from poor inter-reader variability and a low positive predictive value. The recent emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to potentially improve diagnostic performance shows great potential. Understanding and interpreting the AI landscape as well as ever-increasing research literature, however, is difficult. This is in part due to widely varying study design and reporting techniques. This paper aims to address this need by first outlining the different types of AI used for the detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer, next deciphering how data collection methods, statistical analysis metrics (such as ROC and FROC analysis) and end points/outcomes (lesion detection vs. case diagnosis) affect the performance and limit the ability to compare between studies. Finally, this work explores the need for appropriately enriched investigational datasets and proper ground truth, and provides guidance on how to best conduct AI prostate MRI studies. Published in parallel, a clinical study applying this suggested study design was applied to review and report a multiple-reader multiple-case clinical study of 150 bi-parametric prostate MRI studies across nine readers, measuring physician performance both with and without the use of a recently FDA cleared Artificial Intelligence software.1.

Impact of the diagnostic label for a low-risk prostate lesion: protocol for two online factorial randomised experiments

INTRODUCTION

Many types of prostate cancer present minimal risk to a man's lifespan or well-being, but existing terminology makes it difficult for men to distinguish these from high-risk prostate cancers. This study aims to explore whether using an alternative label for low-risk prostate cancer influences management choice and anxiety levels among Australian men and their partners.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will run two separate studies for Australian men and Australian women with a male partner. Both studies are between-subjects factorial (3×2) randomised online hypothetical experiments. Following consent, eligible participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to three labels: 'low-risk prostate cancer, Gleason Group 1', 'low-risk prostate neoplasm' or 'low-risk prostate lesion'. Participants will then undergo a second randomisation step with 1:1 allocation to the provision of detailed information on the benefits and harms of different management choices versus the provision of less detailed information about management choices. The required sample sizes are 1290 men and 1410 women. The primary outcome is the participant choice of their preferred management strategy: no immediate treatment (prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based monitoring or active surveillance using PSA, MRI, biopsy with delayed treatment for disease progression) versus immediate treatment (prostatectomy or radiation therapy). Secondary outcomes include preferred management choice (from the four options listed above), diagnosis anxiety, management choice anxiety and management choice at a later time point (for participants who initially choose a monitoring strategy).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been received from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/572). The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and a plain language summary of the findings will be shared on the Wiser Healthcare publications page http://www.wiserhealthcare.org.au/category/publications/ TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ID 386701 and 386889).

What is cancer? A focus on Grade Group 1 prostate cancer

Since the widespread adoption of prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer, the prevalence of Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer has risen. Historically, these patients were subjected to overtreatment of this otherwise indolent disease process, leading to significant quality-of-life detriments. Active surveillance as a primary management strategy has allowed for a focus on early detection while minimising morbidity from unnecessary intervention. Here we provide a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of GG1 prostatic adenocarcinoma, including its histological features, genomic differentiators, clinical progression, and implications for treatment guidelines, all supporting the movement to reclassify GG1 disease as a non-cancerous entity.

Gleason score 3+3=6 prostatic adenocarcinoma is not benign and the current debate is unhelpful to clinicians and patients

Prostate adenocarcinoma is a common malignancy associated with a significant morbidity and mortality. In both prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens Gleason scoring informs both treatment and outcome prediction. The current convention is that in needle biopsies, Gleason patterns 3, 4 and 5 are considered to be malignant. Despite this there is debate as to whether or not Gleason score (GS) 3+3=6 should be diagnosed as cancer due to potential over-treatment and the psychological impact on patients. It is apparent that GS 3+3=6 is indolent disease with a low risk of metastasis. However, it does have the histological features of malignancy and is capable of infiltrating the prostate gland, extraprostatic extension, and metastatic spread. Furthermore GS 3+3=6 carcinoma has immunohistochemical and molecular genetic features similar to those of higher grade prostatic carcinoma. If GS 3+3=6 tumour is considered benign, the question arises should a benign label be given to the Gleason pattern 3 component of tumour that includes Gleason patterns of higher grade? This would seem a logical step as GS 3+3=6 cancers and the pattern 3 component in cancers with multiple patterns are morphologically identical. If pattern 3 is considered to be benign, then Gleason scoring would be limited to 4+4=8, 4+5=9, 5+4=9 and 5+5=10 which is clearly inappropriate. The correct strategy to address potential over-treatment of patients with low-grade cancer is clinician and patient education, not the recalibration of Gleason grading to reclassify malignant tumours as benign.

Should grade group 1 prostate cancer be reclassified as "non-cancer"? A pathology community perspective

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of Grade Group 1 (GG 1) prostate cancer remains a significant health care problem despite of its improved risk assessment and uptake in conservative management. Removing the cancer label from these non-lethal cancers has been proposed as an expedient way to reduce potential physical, psychological and financial harm to patients. Such a nomenclatural change necessitates a multidisciplinary team effort by clinicians and pathologists. Genitourinary Pathology Society recently conducted a survey of its members, gauging their awareness of this controversy and their position on whether GG 1 prostate cancer should be reclassified. Most respondents (196, 81.7%) opposed removing the cancer label from GG 1 cancer, 33 (13.8%) supported a change in nomenclature, while 11 (4.6%) responded that they were uncertain. Of those who supported the reclassification, 17 (51.5%) supported the change for radical prostatectomy only, 4 (12.1%) for biopsy only, and 12 (36.4%) for both biopsy and radical prostatectomy. This survey results highlight the gap between pathologists and clinicians in whether GG 1 prostate cancer should be labeled as "non-cancer," and calls for continued debates and conversations between pathologists and clinicians, and further studies on the biology, diagnostic reproducibility, and ideal management of GG 1 prostate cancer in order to make a more evidence-based decision for patients.

Clonal relationships of adjacent Gleason pattern 3 and Gleason pattern 5 lesions in Gleason Scores 3+5=8 and 5+3=8

Genomic studies have demonstrated a high level of intra-tumoral heterogeneity in prostate cancer. There is strong evidence suggesting that individual tumor foci can arise as genetically distinct, clonally independent lesions. However, recent studies have also demonstrated that adjacent Gleason pattern (GP) 3 and GP4 lesions can originate from the same clone but follow divergent genetic and morphologic evolution. The clonal relationship of adjacent GP3 and GP5 lesions has thus far not been investigated. Here we analyzed a cohort of 14 cases-11 biopsy and 3 radical prostatectomy specimens-with a Gleason score of 3 + 5 = 8 or 5 + 3 = 8 present in the same biopsy or in a single dominant tumor nodule at radical prostatectomy. Clonal and subclonal relationships between GP3 and GP5 lesions were assessed using genetically validated immunohistochemical assays for ERG, PTEN, and P53. 9/14 (64%) cases showed ERG reactivity in both GP3 and GP5 lesions. Only 1/14 (7%) cases showed a discordant pattern with ERG staining present only in GP3. PTEN expression was lost in 2/14 (14%) cases with perfect concordance between GP5 and GP3. P53 nuclear reactivity was present in 1/14 (7%) case in both GP5 and GP3. This study provides first evidence that the majority of adjacent GP3 and GP5 lesions share driver alterations and are clonally related. In addition, we observed a lower-than-expected rate of PTEN loss in GP5 in the context of Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 or 5 + 3 = 8 tumors.

Radical or Not-So-Radical Prostatectomy: Do Surgical Margins Matter?

Simple Summary

Prostate cancer is the second most common noncutaneous malignancy in men. Prostatectomy is a commonly used treatment modality for selected patients. The prostate’s ill-defined borders and its vicinity with vital structures complicate the wide excision of the organ, resulting in positive margins of resection. Neoplastic infiltration of margins of resection in prostatectomy specimens affects patients’ prognosis. The surgical technique and surgeons’ expertise affect the incidence of margin positivity. The location and the extent of positive margins diversify the risk of recurrence, with basal infiltration and multifocal foci of positive margins behaving more aggressively. Pathologists are encouraged to thoroughly report the status of margins of resection, as they provide important information for patients’ prognosis and enable the clinician to decide upon the most appropriate subsequent therapeutic steps.

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy in men, and prostatectomy is the treatment of choice for most patients with at least low risk of progression. The presence of positive margins in the radical prostatectomy specimen is considered an adverse pathologic feature, and may prompt additional therapeutic intervention in the patients. The absence of a distinct capsule around the prostate and intraoperative manipulations that aim to minimize postoperative adverse effects, complicate its wide removal. Proper handling of the specimen during the gross processing is essential for accurate determination of the status of margins or resection. Positive margins, defined as the presence of neoplastic glands in the highlighted-with-ink margin of resection, range from 6–38%. The surgical technique, surgeon’s expertise and tumor (i.e., grade and stage) and patients’ (i.e., BMI) characteristics affect the rate of margin positivity. Extensive or multifocal and nonanterior/nonapical positive margins are linked with higher recurrence rates, especially in organ-confined disease, underscoring the need for treating these patients more aggressively. In summary, detailed description of the status of the margins should be performed in every pathology report to determine patients’ prognosis and the most appropriate therapeutic plan.

It's all in the name: Does nomenclature for indolent prostate cancer impact management and anxiety?

BACKGROUND

Despite consensus guidelines, many men with low-grade prostate cancer are not managed with active surveillance. Patient perception of the nomenclature used to describe low-grade prostate cancers may partly explain this discrepancy.

METHODS

A randomized online survey was administered to men without a history of prostate cancer, presenting a hypothetical clinical scenario in which they are given a new diagnosis of low-grade prostate cancer. The authors determined whether diagnosis nomenclature was associated with management preference and diagnosis-related anxiety using ratings given on a scale from 1 to 100, adjusting for participant characteristics through multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 718 men. Compared with Gleason 6 out of 10 prostate cancer, the term grade group 1 out of 5 prostate cancer was associated with lower preference for immediate treatment versus active surveillance (β = -9.3; 95% CI, -14.4, -4.2; P < .001), lower diagnosis-related anxiety (β = -8.3; 95% CI, -12.8, -3.8; P < .001), and lower perceived disease severity (β = -12.3; 95% CI, -16.5, -8.1; P < .001) at the time of initial diagnosis. Differences decreased as participants received more disease-specific education. Indolent lesion of epithelial origin, a suggested alternative term for indolent tumors, was not associated with differences in anxiety or preference for active surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Within a hypothetical clinical scenario, nomenclature for low-grade prostate cancer affects initial perception of the disease and may alter subsequent decision making, including preference for active surveillance. Disease-specific education reduces the differential impact of nomenclature use, reaffirming the importance of comprehensive counseling and clear communication between the clinician and patient.

How Much Reliable Is the Current Belief on Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer?

Objective: To evaluate the clinicopathological characteristics of grade group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer in Korean populations.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 492 consecutive radical prostatectomy specimens from our institution, which included those from 322 men with clinical GG1 and 170 with clinical GG2 tumors between years 2009 and 2018. The incidence of Gleason score (GS) upgrading, extraprostatic extension (EPE), and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) were evaluated in patients with clinical GG1. In pathological GG1 cases, the distribution of adverse pathological features including EPE, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), perineural invasion (PNI), and biochemical recurrence (BCR) was analyzed.

Results: Altogether, 78 (24.2%) out of 322 men in the clinical GG1 group demonstrated upgrading of GS, including 19 men with pathological Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 and 6 with ≥ pathological Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 cases. EPE was found in 37 (11.5%) and 22 (8.9%) men in clinical GG1 and pathological GG1 group, respectively. The incidence of LVI and PNI in the pathological GG1 cases was 2.8% (n = 7) and 28.6% (n = 71), respectively. BCR was observed in 4 men in pathological GG1 T2 (n = 226) and 2 men in GG1 T3 (n = 22) group. When we compared the pathological features between pathological GG1 T3 vs. GG2 T2, there was no statistical differences in the incidence of LVI and PNI between the two groups.

Conclusions: Contrary to the current concept that GG1 is almost always clinically insignificant, it seems that GG1 still possess its respectable position as a group of cancer with aggressiveness. These findings should be kept in mind when deciding on treatment options for prostate cancer patients in the Asian populations.

Identification of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer by Combined PCA3 and AMACR mRNA Detection in Urine Samples

Purpose

Preclinical evaluation of PCA3 and AMACR transcript simultaneous detection in urine to diagnose clinical significant prostate cancer (prostate cancer with Gleason score ≥7) in a Russian cohort.

Patients and Methods

We analyzed urine samples of patients with a total serum PSA ≥2 ng/mL: 31 men with prostate cancer scheduled for radical prostatectomy, 128 men scheduled for first diagnostic biopsy (prebiopsy cohort). PCA3, AMACR, PSA and GPI transcripts were detected by multiplex reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and the results were used for scores for calculation and statistical analysis.

Results

There was no significant difference between clinically significant and nonsignificant prostate cancer PCA3 scores. However, there was a significant difference in the AMACR score (patients scheduled for radical prostatectomy p=0.0088, prebiopsy cohort p=0.029). We estimated AUCs, optimal cutoffs, sensitivities and specificities for PCa and csPCa detection in the prebiopsy cohort by tPSA, PCA3 score, PCPT Risk Calculator and classification models based on tPSA, PCA3 score and AMACR score. In the clinically significant prostate cancer ROC analysis, the PCA3 score AUC was 0.632 (95%CI: 0.511–0.752), the AMACR score AUC was 0.711 (95%CI: 0.617–0.806) and AUC of classification model based on the PCA3 score, the AMACR score and total PSA was 0.72 (95%CI: 0.58–0.83). In addition, the correlation of the AMACR score with the ratio of total RNA and RNA of prostate cells in urine was shown (tau=0.347, p=6.542e–09). Significant amounts of nonprostate RNA in urine may be a limitation for the AMACR score use.

Conclusion

The AMACR score is a good predictor of clinically significant prostate cancer. Significant amounts of nonprostate RNA in urine may be a limitation for the AMACR score use. Evaluation of the AMACR score and classification models based on it for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with larger samples and a follow-up analysis is promising.

Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50-69 years.

DESIGN

A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up.

SETTING

Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50-69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring (n = 545), radical prostatectomy (n = 553) or radical radiotherapy (n = 545) and 997 chose a treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy.

TRIAL PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific (p = 0.48) and 169 all-cause (p = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring (n = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy (n = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy (n = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p < 0.001). Radical prostatectomy had the greatest impact on sexual function/urinary continence and remained worse than radical radiotherapy and active monitoring. Radical radiotherapy's impact on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but recovered somewhat in the majority of participants. Sexual and urinary function gradually declined in the active monitoring group. Bowel function was worse with radical radiotherapy at 6 months, but it recovered with the exception of bloody stools. Urinary voiding and nocturia worsened in the radical radiotherapy group at 6 months but recovered. Condition-specific quality-of-life effects mirrored functional changes. No differences in anxiety/depression or generic or cancer-related quality of life were found. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that each arm was the most cost-effective option were 58% (radical radiotherapy), 32% (active monitoring) and 10% (radical prostatectomy).

LIMITATIONS

A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 37. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that the baseline clinico-pathological features of the men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) included in the ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial who progressed (n = 198) at a 10-year median follow-up were different from those of men with stable disease (n = 1409).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We stratified the study participants at baseline according to risk of progression using clinical disease stage, pathological grade and PSA level, using Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

The findings showed that 34% of participants (n = 505) had intermediate- or high-risk PCa, and 66% (n = 973) had low-risk PCa. Of 198 participants who progressed, 101 (51%) had baseline International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 1, 59 (30%) Grade Group 2, and 38 (19%) Grade Group 3 PCa, compared with 79%, 17% and 5%, respectively, for 1409 participants without progression (P < 0.001). In participants with progression, 38% and 62% had baseline low- and intermediate-/high-risk disease, compared with 69% and 31% of participants with stable disease (P < 0.001). Treatment received, age (65-69 vs 50-64 years), PSA level, Grade Group, clinical stage, risk group, number of positive cores, tumour length and perineural invasion were associated with time to progression (P ≤ 0.005). Men progressing after surgery (n = 19) were more likely to have a higher Grade Group and pathological stage at surgery, larger tumours, lymph node involvement and positive margins.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that one-third of the ProtecT cohort consists of people with intermediate-/high-risk disease, and the outcomes data at an average of 10 years' follow-up are generalizable beyond men with low-risk PCa.

How to Pick Out the "Unreal" Gleason 3 + 3 Patients: A Nomogram for More Precise Active Surveillance Protocol in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer in a Chinese Population

OBJECTIVE

To develop a nomogram for selecting the "unreal" Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 patients in biopsy GS 3 + 3 prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

METHODS

Patients who were newly diagnosed with PCa by biopsy and underwent radical prostatectomy in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from January 2009 to October 2018 were enrolled. Comparisons were made between GS 3 + 3 and higher grade PCa patients. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the risk factors for the "unreal" GS 3 + 3 PCa in biopsy GS 3 + 3 patients. Then, a nomogram was developed to predict the probability of "unreal" GS 3 + 3 PCa according to the results of multivariate analysis. Finally, receiver operating characteristic and decision curve analysis (DCA) curves were structured to identify the efficiency of the predictive model.

RESULTS

Compared to higher GS grade, biopsy GS 3 + 3 had greater upgrade risk (P < 0.05) while a lower proportion of positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion, extra-prostatic extension, lymph node invasion, and nerve invasion (all P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that age, PSAD, prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and biopsy positive cores were significant risk factors for "unreal" GS 3 + 3. A nomogram was developed utilizing these factors with high prediction performance (area under curve = 0.924). Furthermore, DCA curve suggested that this predictive model was effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The nomogram identified the probability of "unreal" GS 3 + 3 PCa in biopsy GS 3 + 3 PCa patients, which was of great value for clinical guidance in low risk PCa therapy.

The Ability of Prostate Health Index (PHI) to Predict Gleason Score in Patients With Prostate Cancer and Discriminate Patients Between Gleason Score 6 and Gleason Score Higher Than 6-A Study on 320 Patients After Radical Prostatectomy

Aim:

The purpose of this study was to investigate the Prostate Health Index as a marker for tumor aggressiveness in prostate biopsy and the optimization of indication for treatment options.

Methods:

Our cohort consisted of 320 patients indicated for radical prostatectomy with preoperative measurements of total prostate-specific antigen, free prostate-specific antigen, [-2]proPSA, calculated %freePSA, and Prostate Health Index. The Gleason score was determined during biopsy and after radical prostatectomy. Using the Gleason score, we divided the group of patients into the 2 subgroups: Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6. This division was performed according to the biopsy Gleason score and according to the postoperative Gleason score. We compared total prostate-specific antigen, [-2]proPSA, %freePSA, and Prostate Health Index in the subgroups Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6 after biopsy and the definitive score.

Results:

On evaluation of the subgroups created by Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6, we observed agreement between biopsy Gleason score and definitive Gleason score in only 45.3% of cases. Of the calculated biopsy, Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6 subgroups, [-2]proPSA, and Prostate Health Index (P = .0003 and P = .0005) were statistically significant. Of the definitive Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6 subgroups, Prostate Health Index, [-2]proPSA, %freePSA, and PSA (P < .0001, P < .0001, P = .0003, and P = .0043) were statistically significant. The best area under the curve value (0.7496) was achieved by Prostate Health Index when the subgroups were established according to the postoperative Gleason score.

Conclusion:

Prostate Health Index is the best of the tested markers for the categorization of Gleason score 6 tumors and for facilitating the management of patients with prostate cancer. Prostate Health Index can be a helpful marker for indication of active surveillance or radical prostatectomy. Prostate health index can also simplify the decision of whether to perform nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.

Novel Biomarkers for Prostate Cancer Detection and Prognosis

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

Exosomal and Non-Exosomal Urinary miRNAs in Prostate Cancer Detection and Prognosis

BACKGROUND

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are non-coding small RNAs, involved in post-transcriptional regulation of many target genes.

METHODS

Five miRNAs that have been consistently found deregulated in PCa (miR-21, miR-141, miR-214, miR-375, and let-7c) were analyzed in urinary pellets from 60 prostate cancer (PCa) patients and 10 healthy subjects by qRT-PCR. Besides, urinary exosomes were isolated by differential centrifugation and analyzed for those miRNAs.

RESULTS

Significant upregulation of miR-21, miR-141, and miR-375 was found comparing PCa patients with healthy subjects in urinary pellets, while miR-214 was found significantly downregulated. Regarding urinary exosomes, miR-21 and miR-375 were also significantly upregulated in PCa but no differences were found for miR-141. Significant differences were found for let-7c in PCa in urinary exosomes while no differences were observed in urinary pellets. A panel combining miR-21 and miR-375 is suggested as the best combination to distinguish PCa patients and healthy subjects, with an AUC of 0.872. Furthermore, the association of miRNAs with clinicopathological characteristics was investigated. MiR-141 resulted significantly correlated with Gleason score in urinary pellets and let-7c with clinical stage in urinary exosomes. Additionally, miR-21, miR-141, and miR-214 were found significantly deregulated in intermediate/high-risk PCa versus low-risk/healthy subjects in urinary pellets. Significant differences between both groups were found in urinary exosomes for miR-21, miR-375, and let-7c.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the analysis of miRNAs-especially miRNA-21 and miR-375- in urine could be useful as biomarkers in PCa. Prostate 77: 573-583, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

High serum dihydrotestosterone examined by ultrasensitive LC-MS/MS as a predictor of benign prostatic hyperplasia or Gleason score 6 cancer in men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 3-10 ng/mL

There has been no consensus on the role of serum androgen concentrations in prostate cancer detection in men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 3-10 ng/mL. In this study, testosterone and dihydrotestosterone concentrations in blood were examined by a newly developed method using ultrasensitive liquid chromatography with two serially linked mass spectrometers (LC-MS/MS). We investigated the correlation between serum androgen levels and Gleason scores at biopsy. We analyzed data of 157 men with a total prostate-specific antigen range of 3-10 ng/mL who underwent initial systematic prostate needle biopsy for suspected prostate cancer between April 2000 and July 2003. Peripheral blood testosterone and dihydrotestosterone concentrations were determined by LC-MS/MS. Blood levels of testosterone and dihydrotestosterone were compared with pathological findings by multivariate analyses. Median values of prostate-specific antigen and prostate volume measured by ultrasound were 5.7 ng/mL and 31.4 cm³ , respectively. Benign prostatic hyperplasia was diagnosed in 97 patients (61.8%), and prostate cancer was diagnosed in 60 (38.2%) patients, including 31 (19.7%) patients with a Gleason score of 6 and 29 (18.5%) patients with a Gleason score of 7-10. Median values of testosterone and dihydrotestosterone in blood were 3798.7 and 371.7 pg/mL, respectively. There was a strong correlation between serum testosterone and dihydrotestosterone. In multivariate analysis, age, prostate volume, and serum dihydrotestosterone were significant predictors of benign prostatic hyperplasia or prostate cancer with a Gleason score of 6. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for age, prostate volume, and serum dihydrotestosterone were 0.67, 0.67, and 0.67, respectively . We confirmed that high dihydrotestosterone blood levels can predict benign prostatic hyperplasia or prostate cancer with a Gleason score of 6 in men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 3-10 ng/mL.

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

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

Two-dimensional neovascular complexity is significantly higher in nontumor prostate tissue than in low-risk prostate cancer

Purpose

Prostate cancer is the most frequent cancer in men in Europe. A major focus in urology is the identification of new biomarkers with improved accuracy in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Here, we evaluated two-dimensional neovascular complexity in prostate tumor and nontumor biopsy cores by use of a computer-aided image analysis system and assessed the correlations between the results and selected clinical and pathological parameters of prostate carcinoma.

Materials and Methods

A total of 280 prostate biopsy sections from a homogeneous series of 70 patients with low-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score 3+3, prostate-specific antigen [PSA]<10 ng/mL, and clinical stage T1c) who underwent systematic biopsy sampling and subsequent radical prostatectomy were analyzed. For each biopsy, 2-µm sections were treated with CD34 antibodies and were digitized by using an image analysis system that automatically estimates the surface fractal dimension.

Results

Our results showed that biopsy sections without cancer were significantly more vascularized than were tumors. No correlations were found between the vascular surface fractal dimension and patient's age, PSA and free-to-total PSA ratios, pathological stage, Gleason score, tumor volume, vascular invasion, capsular penetration, surgical margins, and biochemical recurrence.

Conclusions

The value of angiogenesis in prostate cancer is still controversial. Our findings suggest that low-risk prostate cancer tissues are less vascularized than are nontumor tissues. Further studies are necessary to understand whether angiogenesis is a hallmark of intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.