A urine-based Exosomal gene expression test stratifies risk of high-grade prostate Cancer in men with prior negative prostate biopsy undergoing repeat biopsy

Extracellular vesicles in cancer: challenges and opportunities for clinical laboratories

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are nano-sized particles secreted by most cells. They transport different types of biomolecules (nucleic acids, proteins, and lipids) characteristic of their tissue or cellular origin that can mediate long-distance intercellular communication. In the case of cancer, EVs participate in tumor progression by modifying the tumor microenvironment, favoring immune tolerance and metastasis development. Consequently, EVs have great potential in liquid biopsy for cancer diagnosis, prognosis and follow-up. In addition, EVs could have a role in cancer treatment as a targeted drug delivery system. The intense research in the EV field has resulted in hundreds of patents and the creation of biomedical companies. However, methodological issues and heterogeneity in EV composition have hampered the advancement of EV validation trials and the development of EV-based diagnostic and therapeutic products. Consequently, only a few EV biomarkers have moved from research to clinical laboratories, such as the ExoDx Prostate IntelliScore (EPI) test, a CLIA/FDA-approved EV prostate cancer diagnostic test. In addition, the number of large-scale multicenter studies that would clearly define biomarker performance is limited. In this review, we will critically describe the different types of EVs, the methods for their enrichment and characterization, and their biological role in cancer. Then, we will specially focus on the parameters to be considered for the translation of EV biology to the clinic laboratory, the advances already made in the field of EVs related to cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the issues still pending to be solved before EVs could be used as a routine tool in oncology.

Optimized workflow of EV enrichment from human plasma samples for downstream mass spectrometry analysis

To improve the prognosis of bladder and prostate cancer, highly specific and sensitive biomarkers are needed for early detection, prognosis prediction, and therapeutic stratification. Extracellular vesicles (EV) from plasma could fill this gap due to their potential to serve as cancer biomarkers. However, the enrichment of EV is a major challenge, because the highly abundant plasma proteins are interfering with analytical downstream applications like mass spectrometry (MS). Therefore, the purity requirements of the EV samples must be carefully considered when selecting or developing a suitable EV enrichment method. The aim of this study was to compare a self-designed EV enrichment method based on density cushion centrifugation (DCC) combined with size exclusion chromatography (SEC) and concentration (method 1) with the exoRNeasy midi kit from Qiagen (method 2) and with unprocessed plasma. Furthermore, the single steps of method 1 were evaluated for their effectiveness to enrich EV from plasma. The results showed that the EV samples enriched with method 1 contained the highest levels of EV and exosome markers with simultaneously low levels of highly abundant plasma proteins. In summary, the combination of DCC, SEC and concentration proved to be a promising approach to discover EV-based biomarkers from plasma of cancer patients.

Urinary extracellular vesicles in childhood kidney diseases

Most biological fluids contain extracellular vesicles (EVs). EVs are surrounded by a lipid bilayer and contain biological macromolecules such as proteins, lipids, RNA, and DNA. They lack a functioning nucleus and are incapable of replicating. The physiological characteristics and molecular composition of EVs in body fluids provide valuable information about the status of originating cells. Consequently, they could be effectively utilized for diagnostic and prognostic applications. Urine contains a heterogeneous population of EVs. To date, these urinary extracellular vesicles (uEVs) have been ignored in the standard urinalysis. In recent years, knowledge has accumulated on how uEVs should be separated and analyzed. It has become clear how uEVs reflect the expression of each molecule in cells in nephron segments and how they are altered in disease states such as glomerular/tubular disorders, rare congenital diseases, acute kidney injury (AKI), and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Significant promise exists for the molecular expression signature of uEVs detected by simple techniques such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), making them more applicable in clinical settings. This review presents the current understanding regarding uEVs, emphasizing the potential for non-invasive diagnostics, especially for childhood kidney diseases.

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.

Evolution of European prostate cancer screening protocols and summary of ongoing trials

Population-based organised repeated screening for prostate cancer has been found to reduce disease-specific mortality, but with substantial overdiagnosis leading to overtreatment. Although only very few countries have implemented a screening programme on a national level, individual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is common. This opportunistic testing may have little favourable impact, while stressing the side-effects. The classic early detection protocols as were state-of-the-art in the 1990s applied a PSA and digital rectal examination threshold for sextant systematic prostate biopsy, with a fixed interval for re-testing, and limited indication for expectant management. In the three decades since these trials were started, different important improvements have become available in the cascade of screening, indication for biopsy, and treatment. The main developed aspects include: better identification of individuals at risk (using early/baseline PSA, family history, and/or genetic profile), individualised re-testing interval, optimised and individualised starting and stopping age, with gradual invitation at a fixed age rather than invitation of a wider range of age groups, risk stratification for biopsy (using PSA density, risk calculator, magnetic resonance imaging, serum and urine biomarkers, or combinations/sequences), targeted biopsy, transperineal biopsy approach, active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, and improved staging of disease. All these developments are suggested to decrease the side-effects of screening, while at least maintaining the advantages, but Level 1 evidence is lacking. The knowledge gained and new developments on early detection are being tested in different prospective screening trials throughout Europe. In addition, the European Union-funded PRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (PRAISE-U) project will compare and evaluate different screening pilots throughout Europe. Implementation and sustainability will also be addressed. Modern screening approaches may reduce the burden of the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death in European males, while minimising side-effects. Also, less efficacious opportunistic early detection may be indirectly reduced.

Consensus statement on extracellular vesicles in liquid biopsy for advancing laboratory medicine

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) represent a diverse class of nanoscale membrane vesicles actively released by cells. These EVs can be further subdivided into categories like exosomes and microvesicles, based on their origins, sizes, and physical attributes. Significantly, disease-derived EVs have been detected in virtually all types of body fluids, providing a comprehensive molecular profile of their cellular origins. As a result, EVs are emerging as a valuable addition to liquid biopsy techniques. In this collective statement, the authors share their current perspectives on EV-related research and product development, with a shared commitment to translating this newfound knowledge into clinical applications for cancer and other diseases, particularly as disease biomarkers. The consensus within this document revolves around the overarching recognition of the merits, unresolved questions, and existing challenges surrounding EVs. This consensus manuscript is a collaborative effort led by the Committee of Exosomes, Society of Tumor Markers, Chinese anti-Cancer Association, aimed at expediting the cultivation of robust scientific and clinically applicable breakthroughs and propelling the field forward with greater swiftness and efficacy.

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.

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.

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

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

How to Integrate Prostate Cancer Biomarkers in Urology Clinical Practice: An Update

Nowadays, the management of prostate cancer has become more and more challenging due to the increasing number of available treatment options, therapeutic agents, and our understanding of its carcinogenesis and disease progression. Moreover, currently available risk stratification systems used to facilitate clinical decision-making have limitations, particularly in providing a personalized and patient-centered management strategy. Although prognosis and prostate cancer-specific survival have improved in recent years, the heterogenous behavior of the disease among patients included in the same risk prognostic group negatively impacts not only our clinical decision-making but also oncological outcomes, irrespective of the treatment strategy. Several biomarkers, along with available tests, have been developed to help clinicians in difficult decision-making scenarios and guide management strategies. In this review article, we focus on the scientific evidence that supports the clinical use of several biomarkers considered by professional urological societies (and included in uro-oncological guidelines) in the diagnosis process and specific difficult management strategies for clinically localized or advanced prostate cancer.

Current advances of liquid biopsies in prostate cancer: Molecular biomarkers

Prostate cancer (PCa) incidence is increasing and endangers men's lives. Early detection of PCa could improve overall survival (OS) by preventing metastasis. The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is a popular screening method. Several advisory groups, however, warn against using the PSA test due to its high false positive rate, unsupported outcome, and limited benefit. The number of disease-related biopsies performed annually far outweighs the number of diagnoses. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop accurate diagnostic biomarkers to detect PCa and distinguish between aggressive and indolent cancers. Recently, non-coding RNA (ncRNA), circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)/ctRNA, exosomes, and metabolomic biomarkers in the liquid biopsies (LBs) of patients with PCa showed significant differences and clinical benefits in diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring response to therapy. The analysis of urinary exosomal ncRNA presented a substantial correlation among Exos-miR-375 downregulation, clinical T stage, and bone metastases of PCa. Furthermore, the expression of miR-532-5p in urine samples was a vital predictive biomarker of PCa progression. Thus, this review focuses on promising molecular and metabolomic biomarkers in LBs from patients with PCa. We thoroughly addressed the most recent clinical findings of LB biomarker use in diagnosing and monitoring PCa in early and advanced stages.

ExoDx prostate test as a predictor of outcomes of high-grade prostate cancer - an interim analysis

BACKGROUND

Patient outcomes were assessed based on a pre-biopsy ExoDx Prostate (EPI) score at 2.5 years of the 5-year follow-up of ongoing prostate biopsy Decision Impact Trial of the ExoDx Prostate (IntelliScore).

METHODS

Prospective, blinded, randomized, multisite clinical utility study was conducted from June 2017 to May 2018 (NCT03235687). Urine samples were collected from 1049 men (≥50 years old) with a PSA 2-10 ng/mL being considered for a prostate biopsy. Patients were randomized to EPI vs. standard of care (SOC). All had an EPI test, but only EPI arm received results during biopsy decision process. Clinical outcomes, time to biopsy and pathology were assessed among low (<15.6) or high (≥15.6) EPI scores.

RESULTS

At 2.5 years, 833 patients had follow-up data. In the EPI arm, biopsy rates remained lower for low-risk EPI scores than high-risk EPI scores (44.6% vs 79.0%, p < 0.001), whereas biopsy rates were identical in SOC arm regardless of EPI score (59.6% vs 58.8%, p = 0.99). Also in the EPI arm, the average time from EPI testing to first biopsy was longer for low-risk EPI scores compared to high-risk EPI scores (216 vs. 69 days; p < 0.001). Similarly, the time to first biopsy was longer with EPI low-risk scores in EPI arm compared to EPI low-risk scores in SOC arm (216 vs 80 days; p < 0.001). At 2.5 years, patients with low-risk EPI scores from both arms had less HGPC than high-risk EPI score patients (7.9% vs 26.8%, p < 0.001) and the EPI arm found 21.8% more HGPC than the SOC arm.

CONCLUSIONS

This follow-up analysis captures subsequent biopsy outcomes and demonstrates that men receiving EPI low-risk scores (<15.6) significantly defer the time to first biopsy and remain at a very low pathologic risk by 2.5-years after the initial study. The EPI test risk stratification identified low-risk patients that were not found with the SOC.

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.

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.

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.

Prostate cancer screening: Continued controversies and novel biomarker advancements

Prostate cancer (PCa) screening remains one of the most controversial topics in clinical and public health. Despite being the second most common cancer in men worldwide, recommendations for screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are unclear. Early detection and the resulting postscreening treatment lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of otherwise indolent cases. In addition, several unwanted harms are associated with PCa screening process. This literature review focuses on the limitations of PSA-specific PCa screening, reasons behind the screening controversy, and the novel biomarkers and advanced innovative methodologies that improve the limitations of traditional screening using PSA. With the verdict of whether or not to screen not yet unanimous, we hope to aid in resolution of the long-standing debate.

Accuracy of novel urinary biomarker tests in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective

The purpose of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic value of different urinary markers for prostate cancer.

Methods

As of June 2022, the literature was retrieved by searching Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science databases and other databases. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values ​​was used to determine the most effective diagnostic method and the data were analyzed accordingly using data analysis software.

Results

A total of 16 articles was included including 9952 patients. The ranking results of network meta-analysis showed that the diagnostic performance of the four urine markers Selectmdx, MIPS, PCA3 and EPI was better than that of PSA. Among them, the specificity, positive predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of Selectmdx ranked first in the SUCRA ranking (SUCRA values: 85.2%, 88.3%, 97.1%), and the sensitivity ranked second in the SUCRA ranking (SUCRA value: 54.4%), and the negative predictive value ranked fourth in SUCRA (SUCRA value: 51.6%). The most sensitive screening tool was MIPS (SUCRA value: 67.1%), and it was also the second screening tool ranked higher in specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy (SUCRA value: 56.5%, respectively)., 57.1%, 67.9%, 74.3%). The high negative predictive value SUCRA ranking is EPI (SUCRA value: 68.0%), its sensitivity ranks third (SUCRA value: 45.6%), and its specificity, positive predictive value and diagnostic accuracy are ranked fourth (SUCRA values are: 45%, 38.2%, 35.8%).

Conclusion

According to the network ranking diagram, we finally concluded that Selectmdx and MIPS can be used as the most suitable urine markers for prostate cancer screening and diagnosis. To further explore the diagnostic value of different urinary markers in the screening of PCa patients.

Systematic Review Registration

https://inplasy.com/, identifier INPLASY202290094.

Small extracellular vesicles as a multicomponent biomarker platform in urinary tract carcinomas

Extracellular vesicles are a large group of nano-sized vesicles released by all cells. The variety of possible cargo (mRNAs, miRNAs, lncRNAs, proteins, and lipids) and the presence of surface proteins, signaling molecules, and receptor ligands make them a rich source of biomarkers for malignancy diagnosis. One of the groups gathering the most interest in cancer diagnostic applications is small extracellular vesicles (sEVs), with ≤200 nm diameter, mainly composed of exosomes. Many studies were conducted recently, evaluating the diagnostic potential of sEVs in urinary tract carcinomas (UTCs), discovering and clinically evaluating various classes of biomarkers. The amount of research concerning different types of UTCs understandably reflects their incidence. sEV cargos getting the most interest are non-coding RNAs (miRNA and lncRNA). However, implementation of other approaches such as metabolomic and proteomic analysis is also evaluated. The results of many studies indicate that sEVs have an essential role in the cancer process and possess many possible diagnostic and prognostic applications for UTC. The relative ease of obtaining biofluids rich in sEVs (urine and blood) confirms that sEVs are essential for UTC detection in the liquid biopsy approach. A noticeable rise in research quality is observed as more researchers are aware of the research standardization necessity, which is essential for considering the clinical application of their findings.

Exosomes from prostate cancer cell lines: Isolation optimisation and characterisation

Exosomes are considered to be a rich source of biomarkers, hence in this article we examine the best procedure for their isolation. We examine several isolation procedures, exosome storage conditions and other conditions affecting exosome production by prostate cell lines. We selected four different commercially available kits based on different principles to achieve exosome isolation, the best being magnetic-based. In addition, we found storage at - 20 °C to be good for storing isolated exosomes and that exosomes were produced from the cancerous prostate cell line 22Rv1 in much greater amounts than the non-cancerous prostate cell line RWPE1. We also found differences in the response of both cell lines in the production of exosomes as a result of stress, i.e. exposure to hydrogen peroxide and starvation. The effect of Triton X-100 on exosome lysis was examined using two different surfactant concentrations by analysis of the exosome count and change in the exosome size. The final part of the article details the advantages of the use of a 2D biochip prepared in-house over a commercially available 3D biochip for monitoring the interaction of exosomes via its surface receptors (CD63) with an immobilised ligand (anti-CD63 antibodies) using surface plasmon resonance. The final experiment shows the potential of lectin fluorescent microarrays for the analysis of glycans present in lysed exosomes.

Isolation and Characterization of Urinary Extracellular Vesicles for MicroRNA Biomarker Signature Development with Reference to MISEV Compliance

Urine bears high potential for serving as biomarker repository for renal and urinary tract associated disorders. Besides various metabolites and salts, urine carries extracellular vesicles (EVs)-a heterogeneous group of cell-derived mediators comprising proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids such as microRNAs (miRNAs). Particularly, EV-derived miRNA biomarkers have already been identified for numerous disorders such as sepsis, various blood and solid cancer entities, respiratory and renal diseases. However, study results are often incomparable due to poorly reported EV separation and miRNA isolation protocols and emphasize the need for standardization and reproducibility. To ensure valid EV-derived miRNA biomarker findings from urine, a step-by-step protocol compliant with the "Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles" (MISEV) is outlined in the following paragraphs. Actually, an immunoaffinity-based EV separation method followed by EV characterization, quantification, and normalization, as well as consecutive miRNA isolation and miRNA profiling by small RNA sequencing, are described.

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.

Technological Approaches in the Analysis of Extracellular Vesicle Nucleotide Sequences

Together with metabolites, proteins, and lipid components, the EV cargo consists of DNA and RNA nucleotide sequence species, which are part of the intracellular communication network regulating specific cellular processes and provoking distinct target cell responses. The extracellular vesicle (EV) nucleotide sequence cargo molecules are often investigated in association with a particular pathology and may provide an insight into the physiological and pathological processes in hard-to-access organs and tissues. The diversity and biological function of EV nucleotide sequences are distinct regarding EV subgroups and differ in tissue- and cell-released EVs. EV DNA is present mainly in apoptotic bodies, while there are different species of EV RNAs in all subgroups of EVs. A limited sample volume of unique human liquid biopsy provides a small amount of EVs with limited isolated DNA and RNA, which can be a challenging factor for EV nucleotide sequence analysis, while the additional difficulty is technical variability of molecular nucleotide detection. Every EV study is challenged with its first step of the EV isolation procedure, which determines the EV's purity, yield, and diameter range and has an impact on the EV's downstream analysis with a significant impact on the final result. The gold standard EV isolation procedure with ultracentrifugation provides a low output and not highly pure isolated EVs, while modern techniques increase EV's yield and purity. Different EV DNA and RNA detection techniques include the PCR procedure for nucleotide sequence replication of the molecules of interest, which can undergo a small-input EV DNA or RNA material. The nucleotide sequence detection approaches with their advantages and disadvantages should be considered to appropriately address the study problem and to extract specific EV nucleotide sequence information with the detection using qPCR or next-generation sequencing. Advanced next-generation sequencing techniques allow the detection of total EV genomic or transcriptomic data even at the single-molecule resolution and thus, offering a sensitive and accurate EV DNA or RNA biomarker detection. Additionally, with the processes where the EV genomic or transcriptomic data profiles are compared to identify characteristic EV differences in specific conditions, novel biomarkers could be discovered. Therefore, a suitable differential expression analysis is crucial to define the EV DNA or RNA differences between conditions under investigation. Further bioinformatics analysis can predict molecular cell targets and identify targeted and affected cellular pathways. The prediction target tools with functional studies are essential to help specify the role of the investigated EV-targeted nucleotide sequences in health and disease and support further development of EV-related therapeutics. This review will discuss the biological diversity of human liquid biopsy-obtained EV nucleotide sequences DNA and RNA species reported as potential biomarkers in health and disease and methodological principles of their detection, from human liquid biopsy EV isolation, EV nucleotide sequence extraction, techniques for their detection, and their cell target prediction.

Molecular insights and clinical impacts of extracellular vesicles in cancer

Cell-to-cell communication is a pivotal aspect of cancer biology. Recently, extracellular vesicles (EVs)have been shown to play essential roles in intercellular communications between cancer cells and the surrounding microenvironment owing to cancer development. EVs are small membrane-bound vesicles secreted by various cells containing proteins, lipids, mRNAs, and non-coding RNAs (microRNAs and long non-coding RNAs), which contribute to cancer cell development and progression. Here, we provide an overview of current research direction on EVs, especially biomolecules in EVs, and also point out the novel diagnostics, monitoring, predicting, and therapeutic aspects using EVs against cancer.

Exosomes and prostate cancer management

Exosomes (and other extracellular vesicles) are now part of the cancer research landscape, involved both as players in pathophysiological mechanisms, as biomarkers of the cancer process and as therapeutic tools. One step they have yet to take is to move into routine clinical practice and management of prostate cancer is an example of this necessary maturation. More than for many other cancers and because a possible alternative is active surveillance (neither removal nor destruction), the diagnosis of prostate cancer does not only involve the detection of cancerous cells but also the determination of its true aggressiveness. By measuring TRMPRSS2:ERG fusion and PCA3 transcripts in urine exosomes, the EPI assay seems able to help prostate biopsy decision. Results from clinical studies showed that it can reduce the proportion of unnecessary biopsies while missing only a minimal proportion of clinically significant cancers. In metastatic prostate cancer, after failure of a first step androgen deprivation therapy, when a choice has to be made between a second-generation androgen receptor (AR) signaling inhibitor and taxane-based chemotherapy, detection of the AR splicing variant AR-V7 in circulating tumor cells (CTCs) has appeared promising. Whether exosomes could be a better material (simpler to isolate from the bloodstream than CTCs?) to detect AR-V7 has been suggested by some studies and remains to be confirmed. At last, a couple of exploratory studies either targeted or used exosomes to treat prostate cancer, by respectively inhibiting their secretion (to prevent exosome-mediated transfer of biologically active oncogenic actors), or loading them with immunogenic cancer-specific proteins (to generate anticancer vaccine) or with pharmacologic agents. Overall efforts are however still needed to confirm these results and generalize exosome-based diagnostic, prognostic or therapeutic strategies in prostate cancer management.

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

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

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.

Commercialized Blood-, Urinary- and Tissue-Based Biomarker Tests for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis

In the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer (PCa), the serum prostate-specific antigen test is widely used but is associated with low specificity. Therefore, blood-, urinary- and tissue-based biomarker tests have been developed, intended to be used in the diagnostic and prognostic setting of PCa. This review provides an overview of commercially available biomarker tests developed to be used in several clinical stages of PCa management. In the diagnostic setting, the following tests can help selecting the right patients for initial and/or repeat biopsy: PHI, 4K, MiPS, SelectMDx, ExoDx, Proclarix, ConfirmMDx, PCA3 and PCMT. In the prognostic setting, the Prolaris, OncotypeDx and Decipher test can help in risk-stratification of patients regarding treatment decisions. Following, an overview is provided of the studies available comparing the performance of biomarker tests. However, only a small number of recently published head-to-head comparison studies are available. In contrast, recent research has focused on the use of biomarker tests in relation to the (complementary) use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in PCa diagnosis.