Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening: Time to Change the Dominant Forces on the Pendulum

Lectin-nanoparticle concept for free PSA glycovariant providing superior cancer specificity

BACKGROUND

Using lectins to target cancer-associated modifications of PSA glycostructure for identification of clinically significant prostate cancers, e.g., Gleason score (GS) ≥ 7, from benign and indolent cancers (GS 6), is highly promising yet technically challenging. From previous findings to quantify increased PSA fucosylation in urine, we set out to construct a robust, specific test concept suitable for plasma samples.

METHODS

Macrophage galactose-binding lectin (MGL) coupled to 100 nm Eu3 + -nanoparticles was used to probe PSA captured from cancer cell lines, seminal plasma, and plasma samples from 249 patients with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer onto 3 mm dense spots of free PSA antibody fab fragments. Results were compared to four kallikrein tests: tPSA, fPSA, iPSA and hK2.

RESULTS

The fPSAMGLglycovariant provided superior discrimination of the GS ≥ 7 and benign + GS 6 groups (p 0.0003) compared to fPSA (NS). The corresponding AUC in ROC analysis was 0.70 compared to 0.66 for tPSA. In contrast to all four kallikrein tests, the fPSAMGLGV was independent of prostate gland volume. Using a logistic regression analysis the fPSAMGLGV significantly improved on the four-kallikrein model.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to Eu-nanoparticles and a dense fPSA capture spot, the fPSAMGL glycovariant identifies an fPSA subform with the highest cancer specificity compared to the four conventional kallikreins.

Recent Advances in CRISPR/Cas-Based Biosensors for Protein Detection

CRISPR is an acquired immune system found in prokaryotes that can accurately recognize and cleave foreign nucleic acids, and has been widely explored for gene editing and biosensing. In the past, CRISPR/Cas-based biosensors were mainly applied to detect nucleic acids in the field of biosensing, and their applications for the detection of other types of analytes were usually overlooked such as small molecules and disease-related proteins. The recent work shows that CRISPR/Cas biosensors not only provide a new tool for protein analysis, but also improve the sensitivity and specificity of protein detections. However, it lacks the latest review to summarize CRISPR/Cas-based biosensors for protein detection and elucidate their mechanisms of action, hindering the development of superior biosensors for proteins. In this review, we summarized CRISPR/Cas-based biosensors for protein detection based on their mechanism of action in three aspects: antibody-assisted CRISPR/Cas-based protein detection, aptamer-assisted CRISPR/Cas-based protein detection, and miscellaneous CRISPR/Cas-based methods for protein detection, respectively. Moreover, the prospects and challenges for CRISPR/Cas-based biosensors for protein detection are also discussed.

Biomarkers for prostate cancer: prostate-specific antigen and beyond

In recent years, several new biomarkers supplementing the role of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) have become available for men with prostate cancer. Although widely used in an ad hoc manner, the role of PSA in screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer is controversial. Several expert panels, however, have recently recommended limited PSA screening following informed consent in average-risk men, aged 55-69 years. As a screening test for prostate cancer however, PSA has limited specificity and leads to overdiagnosis which in turn results in overtreatment. To increase specificity and reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies, biomarkers such as percent free PSA, prostate health index (PHI) or the 4K score may be used, while Progensa PCA3 may be measured to reduce the number of repeat biopsies in men with a previously negative biopsy. In addition to its role in screening, PSA is also widely used in the management of patients with diagnosed prostate cancer such as in surveillance following diagnosis, monitoring response to therapy and in combination with both clinical and histological criteria in risk stratification for recurrence. For determining aggressiveness and predicting outcome, especially in low- or intermediate-risk men, tissue-based multigene tests such as Decipher, Oncotype DX (Prostate), Prolaris and ProMark, may be used. Emerging therapy predictive biomarkers include AR-V7 for predicting lack of response to specific anti-androgens (enzalutamide, abiraterone), BRAC1/2 mutations for predicting benefit from PARP inhibitor and PORTOS for predicting benefit from radiotherapy. With the increased availability of multiple biomarkers, personalised treatment for men with prostate cancer is finally on the horizon.

Comparative Study of Blood-Based Biomarkers, α2,3-Sialic Acid PSA and PHI, for High-Risk Prostate Cancer Detection

Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) is the most commonly used serum marker for prostate cancer (PCa), although it is not specific and sensitive enough to allow the differential diagnosis of the more aggressive tumors. For that, new diagnostic methods are being developed, such as PCA-3, PSA isoforms that have resulted in the 4K score or the Prostate Health Index (PHI), and PSA glycoforms. In the present study, we have compared the PHI with our recently developed PSA glycoform assay, based on the determination of the α2,3-sialic acid percentage of serum PSA (% α2,3-SA), in a cohort of 79 patients, which include 50 PCa of different grades and 29 benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) patients. The % α2,3-SA could distinguish high-risk PCa patients from the rest of patients better than the PHI (area under the curve (AUC) of 0.971 vs. 0.840), although the PHI correlated better with the Gleason score than the % α2,3-SA. The combination of both markers increased the AUC up to 0.985 resulting in 100% sensitivity and 94.7% specificity to differentiate high-risk PCa from the other low and intermediate-risk PCa and BPH patients. These results suggest that both serum markers complement each other and offer an improved diagnostic tool to identify high-risk PCa, which is an important requirement for guiding treatment decisions.

Prostate Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVE

To review the current state of prostate cancer screening and future directions.

DATA SOURCES

Nursing, medical and scientific literature related to prostate cancer screening, and national and international professional recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Prostate cancer screening has been a topic of robust discussion for a number of years. Research continues to examine novel options for prostate cancer screening to either replace or compliment the prostate specific antigen test, but require additional validation before they will be widely accepted into clinical practice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

As new data emerges and professional organizations update their recommendations, it is important for oncology nurses to keep abreast of the latest developments to educate patients.