1
|
Eickelschulte S, Riediger AL, Angeles AK, Janke F, Duensing S, Sültmann H, Görtz M. Biomarkers for the Detection and Risk Stratification of Aggressive Prostate Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14246094. [PMID: 36551580 PMCID: PMC9777028 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14246094] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2022] [Revised: 12/05/2022] [Accepted: 12/09/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Current strategies for the clinical management of prostate cancer are inadequate for a precise risk stratification between indolent and aggressive tumors. Recently developed tissue-based molecular biomarkers have refined the risk assessment of the disease. The characterization of tissue biopsy components and subsequent identification of relevant tissue-based molecular alterations have the potential to improve the clinical decision making and patient outcomes. However, tissue biopsies are invasive and spatially restricted due to tumor heterogeneity. Therefore, there is an urgent need for complementary diagnostic and prognostic options. Liquid biopsy approaches are minimally invasive with potential utility for the early detection, risk stratification, and monitoring of tumors. In this review, we focus on tissue and liquid biopsy biomarkers for early diagnosis and risk stratification of prostate cancer, including modifications on the genomic, epigenomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic levels. High-risk molecular alterations combined with orthogonal clinical parameters can improve the identification of aggressive tumors and increase patient survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samaneh Eickelschulte
- Junior Clinical Cooperation Unit, Multiparametric Methods for Early Detection of Prostate Cancer, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Cancer Genome Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Anja Lisa Riediger
- Junior Clinical Cooperation Unit, Multiparametric Methods for Early Detection of Prostate Cancer, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Cancer Genome Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Faculty of Biosciences, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Arlou Kristina Angeles
- Division of Cancer Genome Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Florian Janke
- Division of Cancer Genome Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stefan Duensing
- Molecular Urooncology, Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Holger Sültmann
- Division of Cancer Genome Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Magdalena Görtz
- Junior Clinical Cooperation Unit, Multiparametric Methods for Early Detection of Prostate Cancer, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +49-6221-42-2603
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zhao Y, Simpson BS, Morka N, Freeman A, Kirkham A, Kelly D, Whitaker HC, Emberton M, Norris JM. Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron-Emission Tomography Imaging in Primary Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14143497. [PMID: 35884558 PMCID: PMC9323375 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14143497] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2022] [Revised: 07/04/2022] [Accepted: 07/12/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Multiparametric magnetic-resonance imaging (mpMRI) has proven utility in diagnosing primary prostate cancer. However, the diagnostic potential of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron-emission tomography (PSMA PET) has yet to be established. This study aims to systematically review the current literature comparing the diagnostic performance of mpMRI and PSMA PET imaging to diagnose primary prostate cancer. A systematic literature search was performed up to December 2021. Quality analyses were conducted using the QUADAS-2 tool. The reference standard was whole-mount prostatectomy or prostate biopsy. Statistical analysis involved the pooling of the reported diagnostic performances of each modality, and differences in per-patient and per-lesion analysis were compared using a Fisher’s exact test. Ten articles were included in the meta-analysis. At a per-patient level, the pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83−0.91) vs. 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90−0.96, p < 0.01); 0.47 (95% CI: 0.23−0.71) vs. 0.54 (95% CI: 0.23−0.84, p > 0.05); and 0.84 vs. 0.91, respectively. At a per-lesion level, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC value for mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT were lower, at 0.63 (95% CI: 0.52−0.74) vs. 0.79 (95% CI: 0.62−0.92, p < 0.001); 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81−0.95) vs. 0.71 (95% CI: 0.47−0.90, p < 0.05); and 0.83 vs. 0.84, respectively. High heterogeneity was observed between studies. PSMA PET/CT may better confirm the presence of prostate cancer than mpMRI. However, both modalities appear comparable in determining the localisation of the lesions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yi Zhao
- School of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BX, UK
- Correspondence:
| | | | - Naomi Morka
- UCL Medical School, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London NW1 2PG, UK;
| | - Alex Kirkham
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London NW1 2PG, UK;
| | - Daniel Kelly
- School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK;
| | - Hayley C. Whitaker
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (H.C.W.); (M.E.); (J.M.N.)
| | - Mark Emberton
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (H.C.W.); (M.E.); (J.M.N.)
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London NW1 2PG, UK
| | - Joseph M. Norris
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (H.C.W.); (M.E.); (J.M.N.)
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London NW1 2PG, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zhao Y, Morka N, Simpson BSS, Freeman A, Kirkham A, Kelly D, Whitaker HC, Emberton M, Norris JM. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography compared to multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e052277. [PMID: 34893484 PMCID: PMC8666885 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052277] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The introduction of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has improved almost every aspect of the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. However, the novel imaging technique, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) may have demonstrable accuracy in detecting and staging prostate cancer. Here, we describe a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing mpMRI to PSMA PET for the diagnosis of suspected prostate cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane databases will be conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed for screening, data extraction, statistical analysis and reporting. Included papers will be full-text articles providing original data, written in English articles and comparing the use of PSMA PET with mpMRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. All studies published between July 1977 and March 2021 will be eligible for inclusion. Study bias and quality will be assessed using Quadas-2 score. To ensure the quality of the reporting of studies, this protocol is written following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethical approval will not be required for this systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at both national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42021239296.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yi Zhao
- Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Naomi Morka
- University College London Medical School, London, UK
| | | | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College Hospital London, London, UK
| | - Alex Kirkham
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Daniel Kelly
- School of Healthcare Sciences, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Hayley C Whitaker
- UCL Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Joseph M Norris
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Norris JM, Carmona Echeverria LM, Simpson BS, Ball R, Freeman A, Kelly D, Kirkham A, Whitaker HC, Emberton M. Histopathological features of prostate cancer conspicuity on multiparametric MRI: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e039735. [PMID: 33093035 PMCID: PMC7583062 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039735] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has improved risk stratification for men with suspected prostate cancer. Indeed, mpMRI-visible tumours tend to be larger and of higher pathological grade than mpMRI-invisible tumours; however, concern remains around significant cancer that is undetected by mpMRI. There has been considerable recent interest to investigate whether tumour conspicuity on mpMRI is associated with additional histopathological features (including cellular density, microvessel density and unusual prostate cancer subtypes), which may have important clinical implications in both diagnosis and prognosis. Furthermore, analysis of these features may help reveal the radiobiology that underpins the actual mechanisms of mpMRI visibility (and invisibility) of prostate tumours. Here, we describe a protocol for a systematic review of the histopathological basis of prostate cancer conspicuity on mpMRI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases will be conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines will be used to guide screening, thematic reporting and conclusions drawn from all eligible studies. Included papers will be full-text, English-language articles, comparing the histopathological characteristics of mpMRI-visible lesions and mpMRI-invisible tumours. All studies published between January 1950 and January 2020 will be eligible for inclusion. Studies using confirmatory immunohistochemistry for the identification of immune subsets or structural components will be included. Study bias and quality will be assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. To ensure methodological rigour, this protocol is written in accordance with the PRISMA Protocol 2015 checklist. If appropriate, a meta-analysis will be conducted comparing histopathological feature frequency between mpMRI-visible and mpMRI-invisible disease. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION No ethical approval will be required as this is an academic review of published literature. Findings will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42020176049.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph M Norris
- UCL Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Benjamin S Simpson
- UCL Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rhys Ball
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Daniel Kelly
- School of Healthcare Sciences, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, South Glamorgan, UK
| | - Alex Kirkham
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Hayley C Whitaker
- UCL Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- UCL Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Impact of radiomics on prostate cancer detection: a systematic review of clinical applications. Curr Opin Urol 2020; 30:754-781. [DOI: 10.1097/mou.0000000000000822] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
|
6
|
Norris JM, Simpson BS, Freeman A, Kirkham A, Whitaker HC, Emberton M. Conspicuity of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: A cross-disciplinary translational hypothesis. FASEB J 2020; 34:14150-14159. [PMID: 32920937 PMCID: PMC8436756 DOI: 10.1096/fj.202001466r] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2020] [Revised: 08/03/2020] [Accepted: 08/24/2020] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has transformed the risk stratification and diagnostic approach for suspected prostate cancer. The majority of clinically significant prostate cancers are visible on pre-biopsy mpMRI, however, there are a subset of significant tumors that are not detected by mpMRI. The radiobiological mechanisms underpinning mpMRI-visibility and invisibility of these cancers remain uncertain. Emerging evidence suggests that mpMRI-visible tumors are enriched with molecular features associated with increased disease aggressivity and poor clinical prognosis, which is supported by short-term endpoints, such as biochemical recurrence following surgery. Furthermore, at the histopathological level, mpMRI-visible tumors appear to exhibit increased architectural and vascular density compared to mpMRI-invisible disease. It seems probable that the genomic, pathological, radiological, and clinical features of mpMRI-visible and mpMRI-invisible prostate cancers are interrelated. Here, we propose a novel cross-disciplinary theory that links genomic and molecular evidence with cellular and histopathological appearances, elucidating both the mpMRI visibility and clinical status of significant prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph M Norris
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.,Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Benjamin S Simpson
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Alex Kirkham
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Hayley C Whitaker
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.,Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Norris JM, Simpson BS, Parry MA, Allen C, Ball R, Freeman A, Kelly D, Kim HL, Kirkham A, You S, Kasivisvanathan V, Whitaker HC, Emberton M. Genetic Landscape of Prostate Cancer Conspicuity on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Bioinformatic Analysis. EUR UROL SUPPL 2020; 20:37-47. [PMID: 33000006 PMCID: PMC7497895 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2020.06.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Context Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) detects most, but not all, clinically significant prostate cancer. The genetic basis of prostate cancer visibility and invisibility on mpMRI remains uncertain. Objective To systematically review the literature on differential gene expression between mpMRI-visible and mpMRI-invisible prostate cancer, and to use bioinformatic analysis to identify enriched processes or cellular components in genes validated in more than one study. Evidence acquisition We performed a systematic literature search of the Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases up to January 2020 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary endpoint was differential genetic features between mpMRI-visible and mpMRI-invisible tumours. Secondary endpoints were explanatory links between gene function and mpMRI conspicuity, and the prognostic value of differential gene enrichment. Evidence synthesis We retrieved 445 articles, of which 32 met the criteria for inclusion. Thematic synthesis from the included studies showed that mpMRI-visible cancer tended towards enrichment of molecular features associated with increased disease aggressivity, including phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN) loss and higher genomic classifier scores, such as Oncotype and Decipher. Three of the included studies had accompanying publicly available data suitable for further bioinformatic analysis. An over-representation analysis of these datasets revealed increased expression of genes associated with extracellular matrix components in mpMRI-visible tumours. Conclusions Prostate cancer that is visible on mpMRI is generally enriched with molecular features of tumour development and aggressivity, including activation of proliferative signalling, DNA damage, and inflammatory processes. Additionally, there appears to be concordant cellular components and biological processes associated with mpMRI conspicuity, as highlighted by bioinformatic analysis of large genetic datasets. Patient summary Prostate cancer that is detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tends to have genetic features that are associated with more aggressive disease. This suggests that MRI can be used to assess the likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, based on tumour visibility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph M Norris
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.,London Deanery of Urology, London, UK.,Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Benjamin S Simpson
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Marina A Parry
- UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - Clare Allen
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Rhys Ball
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Daniel Kelly
- School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Wales, UK
| | - Hyung L Kim
- Department of Urology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, West Hollywood, CA, USA
| | - Alex Kirkham
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Sungyong You
- Department of Urology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, West Hollywood, CA, USA.,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, West Hollywood, CA, USA
| | - Veeru Kasivisvanathan
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.,Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Hayley C Whitaker
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.,Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|