Prostate cancer family history and eligibility for active surveillance: a systematic review of the literature

Impact of family history of prostate cancer on disease progression for prostatic cancer patients undergoing active surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate how a family history of prostate cancer influences the progression of the disease in individuals with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a thorough literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to June 2023. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023441853). The study evaluated the effects of family history of prostate cancer (intervention) on disease progression (outcome) in prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance (population) and compared them to those without a family history (comparators). For time to disease progression outcomes, the extracted data were synthesized using the inverse variance method on the log hazard ratios scale.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies were incorporated into this systematic review and meta-analysis. The combined hazard ratio for unadjusted disease progression was 1.06 (95% confidential interval [CI] 0.66-1.69; p=0.82). The combined hazard ratio for adjusted disease progression was 1.31 (95% CI 1.16-1.48; p<0.0001). All the enlisted studies demonstrated high quality based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The certainty of evidence for univariate and multivariate analysis of disease progression was very low and low, respectively. Publication bias for all studies was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with prostate cancer opting for active surveillance, a family history of prostate cancer may serve as an independent risk factor associated with an elevated risk of disease progression. Clinicians should be counseled about the increased risk of disease progression in patients with a family history of prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance.

Incorporating Genetic Risk Into Prostate Cancer Care: Implications for Early Detection and Precision Oncology

The availability and cost of germline and somatic genetic testing have dramatically improved over the past two decades, enabling precision medicine approaches in oncology, with significant implications for prostate cancer (PCa) care. Roughly 12% of individuals with advanced disease are carriers of rare pathogenic germline variants that predispose to particularly aggressive and earlier-onset disease. Several of these variants are already established as clinically actionable by modern precision oncology therapeutics, while others may come to aid the selection of active surveillance, definitive local therapies, and systemic therapies. Concurrently, the number of common variants (ie, incorporated into polygenic risk scores) associated with PCa risk has continued to grow, but with several important considerations both at the intersection of race and ancestry and for early detection of aggressive disease. Family history has historically been used as a proxy for this inherited genetic risk of PCa, but recently emerging evidence examining this relation has shifted our understanding of how best to leverage this tool in PCa care. This review seeks to clarify and contextualize the existing and emerging precision oncology paradigms that use inherited genetic risk in PCa care, for both early detection and localized disease management.

Germline mutations in prostate cancer: a systematic review of the evidence for personalized medicine

BACKGROUND

The goal of precision medicine in prostate cancer (PCa) is to individualize the treatment according to the patient's germline mutation status. PCa has a very high rate of genetic predisposition compared with other cancers in men, with an estimated rate of cancers ascribable to hereditary factors of 5-15%.

METHODS

A systematic search (PubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov) of English literature from 2000 to 2022, using the keywords "prostate cancer", "germline mutations", "family history", and "inheritance" was conducted, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

The search identified 980 publications. Of these, 200 papers were removed before screening (duplicates, non-English literature, and publication year before 2000) and 245 records were excluded after title/abstract screening. Finally, 50 articles were included in the final analysis. We analyze the latest evidence on the genetic basis of PCa predisposition and clinical implications for more personalized screening protocols and therapeutic management of this high-prevalent cancer.

DISCUSSION

Emerging data show that germline mutations in homologous recombination genes (BRCA1/2, ATM, CHECK2), in mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MLH2, MSH6), and other additional genes are associated with the development and aggressiveness of PCa. Germline testing and genetic counseling have increasingly important implications in cancer screening and therapeutic decisions making for patients affected by PCa. Patients with localized PCa and some gene mutations are more likely to develop aggressive cancer, so active treatment may be preferable to active surveillance for these patients. Moreover, in patients with metastatic PCa, these gene alterations may be useful biomarkers for predicting response to specific therapy such as PARP inhibitors, recently approved for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant PCa. The evidence supports recent guidelines and recommendations considering germline genetic testing for patients with a positive family history of PCa or men with high risk or metastatic disease.

Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer-A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?

This case-based discussion describes a 65-year-old man newly diagnosed with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 prostate cancer (PCa). According to the European Association of Urology classification system, the patient harbors an intermediate-risk cancer. In step-by step discussion, we elaborate guideline-based treatment modalities for intermediate-risk PCa focused on debating active surveillance versus active treatment. Thereby, we discuss the importance of patient characteristics, including age, hereditary factors, life expectancy and comorbidity status, findings of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, as well as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density and PSA kinetics, in predicting the clinical course of the disease. In addition, we focus on cribriform pathology as a predictor of adverse outcomes and critically discuss its relevance in patient management. Lastly, we outline genomic stratification in ISUP 2 cancer as a future tool to predict PCa aggressiveness. PATIENT SUMMARY: Based on current guidelines, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer are treated actively or can alternatively undergo an active surveillance approach when favorable risk factors are present. One major issue is to discriminate between patients who benefit from an active therapy approach and those who benefit from a deferred treatment. Therefore, reliable biomarkers and early predictors of disease progression are needed urgently.

Impact of the Number of Cores on the Prostate Cancer Detection Rate in Men Undergoing in-Bore Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Targeted Biopsies

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incremental detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) provided by sequential cores during in-bore magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided prostate biopsies.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective interpretation of prospectively acquired data in men without previous diagnosis of csPCa who underwent in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy between May 2017 and December 2019. Endpoints included detection of csPCa (grade group [GG] ≥ 2) and rate of GG upgrade provided by additional cores. Descriptive statistics presented as mean and standard deviation for the continuous variables, and frequency and percentage for the categorical variables.

RESULTS

Four hundred and forty-three men with 747 lesions met eligibility criteria. Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 43.1% (322/747) of the biopsied lesions and GG 2 PCa or greater was identified by the first core in 78.3% (252/322) of them. On a per-core basis, cores 2, 3, 4, and 5 found new csPCa in 6% (42/744), 4% (26/719), 1% (2/137), and 0% (0/11) of the cases. Core biopsy 2, 3, 4, and 5 resulted in GG upgrade in 12% (91/744), 7% (49/719), 7% (9/137), and 0% (0/11) of the lesions, respectively. Each additional core was associated with a mean increase of 5 minutes in the duration of the biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

In men undergoing in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsies, 3 targeted cores per lesion provide an optimal trade-off between detection of clinically significant tumors and biopsy duration.

Hereditary Prostate Cancer: Genes Related, Target Therapy and Prevention

Prostate cancer (PCa) is globally the second most diagnosed cancer type and the most common cause of cancer-related deaths in men. Family history of PCa, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndromes (LS), are among the most important risk factors compared to age, race, ethnicity and environmental factors for PCa development. Hereditary prostate cancer (HPCa) has the highest heritability of any major cancer in men. The proportion of PCa attributable to hereditary factors has been estimated in the range of 5–15%. To date, the genes more consistently associated to HPCa susceptibility include mismatch repair (MMR) genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) and homologous recombination genes (BRCA1/2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2). Additional genes are also recommended to be integrated into specific research, including HOXB13, BRP1 and NSB1. Importantly, BRCA1/BRCA2 and ATM mutated patients potentially benefit from Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase PARP inhibitors, through a mechanism of synthetic lethality, causing selective tumor cell cytotoxicity in cell lines. Moreover, the detection of germline alterations in MMR genes has therapeutic implications, as it may help to predict immunotherapy benefits. Here, we discuss the current knowledge of the genetic basis for inherited predisposition to PCa, the potential target therapy, and the role of active surveillance as a management strategy for patients with low-risk PCa. Finally, the current PCa guideline recommendations are reviewed.

[Familial prostate cancer and genetic predisposition]

BACKGROUND

Twenty percent of all prostate cancer patients have a positive family history (at least 1 first-degree relative with prostate cancer) and a part of these patients have a genetic predisposition.

OBJECTIVES

A literature search and analysis of studies investigating incidence, diagnosis, and clinical course of familial compared to sporadic prostate cancer as well as genetic predisposition was performed using PubMed and Embase.

RESULTS

Risk of prostate cancer depends on number, degree of relationship, and age of onset of affected men in the family. The incidence of familial prostate cancer is higher and the age of diagnosis lower compared to sporadic cases. The clinical course of the disease is comparable, but in individuals with a germline mutation, more intensive therapy is needed due to a more aggressive disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Crucial for risk assessment is a detailed family history, including creation of a pedigree with cancer family history if necessary. In high-risk families, genetic counselling and annual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening beginning at the age of 40 should be performed. Verification of a germline mutation requires more intensive therapy due to more aggressive disease.

Comparative study of immunohistochemical expression of ERG and MAGI2 in prostatic carcinoma

Diagnosis of Prostatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) is still a problematic issue. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic value of ERG immunohistochemical (IHC) expression compared to MAGI2.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted on 56 cases of PAC and 29 cases of nodular prostatic hyperplasia (NPH). IHC staining for ERG and MAGI2 was applied to archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded blocks. Semi-quantitative scoring was compared and correlated with clinicopathologic parameters and the Ki-67 index.

RESULTS

Revealed positive ERG in 51.8% of PAC while all NPH cases were negative. On the other hand, MAGI2 was detected in 91.1% of PAC versus 17.2% of NPH. Using ROC curve, the ERG showed 53.6% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 76.5% diagnostic accuracy (DA) and area under the ROC curve 0.768 in comparison to MAGI2 that showed (91.1%, 86.2%, 88.25% and 0.948 respectively). Analysis of the combined use of the two markers revealed 95% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 94% DA when tested synchronously. Moreover, a statistically significant inverse relationship could be detected between ERG expression and the Gleason grading group (P = 0.01) and Ki-67 index (P < 0.001). In addition, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) adjacent to carcinoma; showed positive expressions in (1/11 cases, 9.11%) for ERG and (6/11 cases, 54%) for MAGI2.

CONCLUSION

This study recommends using both ERG and MAGI2 in a cocktail for better diagnostic validity of PAC. Only ERG expression could be a good prognostic indicator.

Gleason Grade Group Concordance between Preoperative Targeted Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Histopathologic Analysis: A Comparison Between In-Bore MRI-guided and MRI-Transrectal US Fusion Prostate Biopsies

Purpose

To determine and compare rates of grade group (GG) discrepancies between different targeted biopsy techniques (in-bore vs fusion) after propensity score weighting using whole-mount radical prostatectomy (RP) histopathologic analysis as the reference standard.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study evaluated men who underwent targeted (fusion or in-bore) biopsy between April 2017 and January 2019 followed by prostatectomy. The primary endpoint of the study was a change in GG from biopsy to RP at a patient level. For downgrade and upgrade analysis, men with biopsy GG1 (downgrade not possible) and GG5 (upgrade not possible) were excluded, respectively. GG upgrade, downgrade, and concordance rates of each targeting approach were compared using propensity score weighting and logistic regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Significance level was set at .05. Index lesion GG on RP specimen served as the reference standard.

Results

A total of 191 men (90 in the in-bore [mean age, 63 years ± 7 (standard deviation)] and 101 in the fusion biopsy group [mean age, 65 years ± 7]) were eligible and included. Fewer GG upgrades were noted in the in-bore biopsy group (14%; 12 of 85) compared with the fusion plus systematic biopsy group (30%; 28 of 93) (P = .012). The incidence of GG downgrade in the in-bore group (25%; 21 of 84) was higher than in the fusion group (17%; 16 of 93); however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .2). Of the 77 men misclassified by both biopsy techniques, the majority (56%, n = 43) had a change in GG of 2 to 3 or 3 to 2.

Conclusion

Superior sampling accuracy with MRI-guided in-bore biopsies offers a lower incidence of GG upgrades compared with MRI-transrectal US fusion biopsies upon RP.Keywords: Biopsy/Needle Aspiration, MR-Imaging, Oncology, Pathology, Prostate Supplemental material is available for this article.© RSNA, 2021.

Prostate Cancer Screening Recommendations for General and Specific Populations in the Western Nations

There is a chaotic scenario that exists in the field of prostate cancer (PCa) screening. To balance goals, such as decreasing mortality, avoiding unnecessary procedures, and decreasing the cost of medical care, the pendulum seems to have swung to the side of more restricted screening. The decrease in PCa screening has led to a slowly creeping decline in the favourable outcomes that existed among patients with PCa. If a potential patient or a family member is trying to get clear guidance about PCa screening by searching the internet, they will end up confused by several recommendations from many organisations. It is even more challenging to obtain any clarity about PCa screening for special populations, such as those with a family history of PCa, those of African descent/African Americans, and the elderly. The advent of genomic medicine and precision medicine is an opportunity to identify those at a very high risk of developing aggressive PCa, so that PCa screening can be more actively undertaken among them. In this paper, the authors review the current recommendations by different entities and summarise emerging molecular markers that may help bring clarity to PCa screening. The authors predict that concrete, consensual guidelines will emerge in less than one decade. Meanwhile, this article suggests intermediary steps that will help save lives from PCa mortality, especially for under-represented populations. This paper is a catalyst to stimulate further discussion and serves as a guide to noncancer-specialists for the near future as precision medicine progresses to better understand risk–benefit and cost–benefit ratios in PCa screening.

Biomarkers in the setting of benign prostatic hyperplasia-induced lower urinary tract symptoms: what an interventional radiologist needs to know

With increasing evidence to support prostate artery embolization (PAE) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-induced lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), Interventional Radiologists have begun to play an important role in the management of these patients. One area of knowledge needed when developing a PAE practice is knowledge of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and other biomarkers utilized to detect prostate cancer in this population and what role they should play in the work up and follow-up of patients presenting with presumed BPH-induced LUTS. Furthermore, understanding how to evaluate presumed BPH-induced LUTS and stratify the risk of prostate cancer is an important skill to develop. The goal of this review is to provide Interventional Radiologists who have begun or aim to begin a PAE practice with the information they need to know regarding PSA levels and prostate cancer risk stratification for this patient population.

Personalized Decision Making for Biopsies in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Programs

Background. Low-risk prostate cancer patients enrolled in active surveillance programs commonly undergo biopsies for examination of cancer progression. Biopsies are conducted as per a fixed and frequent schedule (e.g., annual biopsies). Since biopsies are burdensome, patients do not always comply with the schedule, which increases the risk of delayed detection of cancer progression. Objective. Our aim is to better balance the number of biopsies (burden) and the delay in detection of cancer progression (less is beneficial) by personalizing the decision of conducting biopsies. Data Sources. We used patient data of the world’s largest active surveillance program (Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance; PRIAS). It enrolled 5270 patients, had 866 cancer progressions, and an average of 9 prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and 5 digital rectal examination (DRE) measurements per patient. Methods. Using joint models for time-to-event and longitudinal data, we model the historical DRE and PSA measurements and biopsy results of a patient at each follow-up visit. This results in a visit and patient-specific cumulative risk of cancer progression. If this risk is above a certain threshold, we schedule a biopsy. We compare this personalized approach with the currently practiced biopsy schedules via an extensive and realistic simulation study, based on a replica of the patients from the PRIAS program. Results. The personalized approach saved a median of 6 biopsies (median: 4, interquartile range [IQR]: 2–5) compared with the annual schedule (median: 10, IQR: 3–10). However, the delay in detection of progression (years) is similar for the personalized (median: 0.7, IQR: 0.3–1.0) and the annual schedule (median: 0.5, IQR: 0.3–0.8). Conclusions. We conclude that personalized schedules provide substantially better balance in the number of biopsies per detected progression for men with low-risk prostate cancer.

Germline Mutations in ATM and BRCA1/2 Are Associated with Grade Reclassification in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Mutations in DNA repair genes are associated with aggressive prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether germline mutations are associated with grade reclassification (GR) in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Two independent cohorts of PCa patients undergoing AS; 882 and 329 patients from Johns Hopkins and North Shore, respectively.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Germline DNA was sequenced for DNA repair genes, including BRCA1/2 and ATM (three-gene panel). Pathogenicity of mutations was defined according to the American College of Medical Genetics guidelines. Association of mutation carrier status and GR was evaluated by a competing risk analysis.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of 1211, 289 patients experienced GR; 11 of 26 with mutations in a three-gene panel and 278 of 1185 noncarriers; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=1.96 (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.004-3.84, p=0.04). Reclassification occurred in six of 11 carriers of BRCA2 mutations and 283 of 1200 noncarriers; adjusted HR=2.74 (95% CI=1.26-5.96, p=0.01). The carrier rates of pathogenic mutations in the three-gene panel, and BRCA2 alone, were significantly higher in those reclassified (3.8% and 2.1%, respectively) than in those not reclassified (1.6% and 0.5%, respectively; p=0.04 and 0.03, respectively). Carrier rates for BRCA2 were greater for those reclassified from Gleason score (GS) 3+3 at diagnosis to GS ≥4+3 (4.1% vs 0.7%, p=0.01) versus GS 3+4 (2.1% vs 0.6%; p=0.03). Results are limited by the small number of mutation carriers and an intermediate end point.

CONCLUSIONS

Mutation status of BRCA1/2 and ATM is associated with GR among men undergoing AS.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Men on active surveillance with inherited mutations in BRCA1/2 and ATM are more likely to harbor aggressive prostate cancer.

Outcomes of treatment in men with prostate cancer at the cancer centre Bahamas

PURPOSE

This is a first report from The Bahamas of management and long-term outcomes in men with non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy, with or without androgen deprivation therapy, from 2004 to 2016.

METHODS

Patients were characterized by baseline factors, stratified by risk groups using tumor stage (clinical T-stage), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test result and Gleason grade, and sorted by treatment combinations (by radiation volume and use of androgen deprivation).

RESULTS

Overall, 205/216 men were Afro-Caribbean. Median age was 66. There were 18 low-, 77 intermediate-, and 121 high-risk patients, treated with prostate-only versus pelvis plus prostate radiotherapy, many receiving 2 years of androgen suppression. Time to commence radiation was about 6 months from initial diagnosis. In those not relapsing, global PSA nadir was reached in 4 years and was under 1.0, reduced from a mean at baseline of 31. At 10 years, disease-free experience (32 relapses) was 68% and overall survival was 87%, although only 2/12 deaths were related to prostate cancer. This experience compares favorably with recently published outcomes from other countries using very similar treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes benchmark statistics from diagnosis to long-term follow-up. Outcomes in Bahamian men are consistent with expectations from risk-stratified guidelines followed in developed countries.