Biomarkers for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: contemporary clinical data and future directions

Study of the genomics and transcriptomics profiles of male-infertility genes in human prostate cancer: an in silico analysis

The World Health Organization has considered the infertility as an international public health problem. Infertility affect nearly 1 in 7 couples and male component contributes to 50% of infertility cases. There is a clear link between male infertility and some cancers such as testicular germ cell, prostate and colon cancers. Two possibilities support this finding: 1) Cancer treatments can affect the fertility factors 2) Genetic profile of infertility genes have been altered in cancer patients. Although the previously published researches have mostly focused on the first factor, no article has yet confirmed the role of genetic factors. In this in silico study, we collected the large number of genes (n = 17703) involved in infertility. These genes were collected from NGS panel tests of male infertility and comprehensive literature review or online data base. The Prostate Adenocarcinoma genomic and transcriptomics raw data were downloaded from the cBioPortal Cancer dataset. This included with 494 patients of Prostate Cancer with 494 mutation data, 489 with CNA and 493 with RNA seqV2 data. TCGA RNA-Seq raw data was extracted in R using the cgdsr extension package with a threshold of ±2 relative to normal samples. The observed data showed that male infertility genes have been distributed through the human genome. Among the 17703 analyzed genes of this study, the genomic profile of three genes including OR9Q1, H4C6 and PSG7 were changed approximately in 100% of (n = 493) patients. In most of patients (>98%), genetic alteration was related to change in gene expression. In conclusion, this study showed that the genomic and transcriptomics patterns of some male-infertility genes are notably altered in patients of prostate cancer and suggested a possible role of genetic factors in occurrence of infertility in cancer patients. Our information can be used as a source for the design of genetic database of male-infertility.

Prostate cancer biomarkers: from early diagnosis to precision treatment

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most prevalent cancer in men. In 2020, approximately 1,414,259 new cases were reported that accounted for 3,75,324 deaths (Sung et al. in CA 71:209-249, 2021). PCa is often asymptomatic at early stages; hence, routine screening and monitoring based on reliable biomarkers is crucial for early detection and assessment of cancer progression. Early diagnosis of disease is key step in reducing PCa-induced mortality. Biomarkers such as PSA have played vital role in reducing recent PCa deaths. Recent research has identified many other biomarkers and also refined PSA-based tests for non-invasive diagnosis of PCa in patients. Despite progress in screening methods, an important issue that influences treatment is heterogeneity of the cancer in different individuals, necessitating personalized treatment. Currently, focus is to identify biomarkers that can accurately diagnose PCa at early stage, indicate the stage of the disease, metastatic nature and chances of survival based on individual patient profile (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 Graphical abstract.

Association between Bisphenol A and Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) among U.S. Older Males: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2003-2012

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence indicating that environmental endocrine disruptors may influence the development of prostate cancer. Despite this, the connection between BPA and PSA levels is still not fully understood and appears intricate. In this study, we aimed to assess the link between BPA exposure and PSA levels using data from the NHANES database.

METHODS

We conducted a weighted linear regression, logistic regression analysis, natural cubic spline (NCS), subgroup analysis, and interaction analysis on 2768 participants. Urinary BPA was considered the independent variable, while PSA was the dependent variable.

RESULTS

In the study, the average age of the participants selected was 62.70 years (±12.93). Age was negatively correlated with BPA, while PSA and BMI were positively correlated with BPA concentration (all of the p-value < 0.05). In the fully adjusted model, the weighted linear and logistic regression results showed that BPA was positively correlated with PSA and prostate cancer. NCS analysis results show that BPA and PSA have a non-linear relationship. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results. In addition, there were interactions between BPA and age, PIR, education, HbA1c, high-density lipoprotein, smoking status, and Diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a positive correlation between urinary BPA and PSA in older American males, especially when the BPA concentration was higher than 4.46 ng/mL. In future practical applications of prostate cancer screening, it is crucial to focus on individuals aged 75 years and older, as well as those with a PIR between 0 and 1, non-Hispanic black, and other risk groups to provide reference values for the primary and secondary prevention of prostate cancer.

Management of Patients With a Negative Multiparametric Prostate MRI Examination: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate aids risk stratification of patients with elevated PSA levels. Although most clinically significant prostate cancers are detected by mpMRI, insignificant cancers are less evident. Thus, multiple international prostate cancer guidelines now endorse routine use of prostate MRI as a secondary screening test before prostate biopsy. Nonetheless, management of patients with negative mpMRI results (defined as PI-RADS category 1 or 2) remains unclear. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review summarizes the available literature on patients with an elevated screening PSA level and a negative prostate mpMRI result and provides guidance for these patients' management. Systematic biopsy should not be routinely performed after a negative mpMRI examination in patients at average risk but should be considered in patients at high risk. In patients who undergo PSA screening rather than systematic biopsy after negative mpMRI, clear triggers should be established for when to perform a repeat MRI examination. Patients with a negative MRI result followed by negative biopsy should follow their health care practitioners' preferred guidelines concerning subsequent PSA screening for the patient's risk level. Insufficient high-level data exist to support routine use of adjunctive serum or urine biomarkers, artificial intelligence, or PSMA PET to determine the need for prostate biopsy after a negative mpMRI examination.

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.

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.

Prostate tumor markers: diagnosis, prognosis and management

Prostate cancer (PCA) is the second most common type of cancer in the world. Nevertheless, diagnosis is still based on nonspecific methods, or invasive methods which makes clinical decision and diagnosis difficult, generating risk of both underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis. Given the high prevalence, morbidity and mortality of PCA, new strategies are needed for its diagnosis. A review of the literature on available biomarkers for PCA was performed, using the following terms: prostate cancer AND marker OR biomarker. The search was carried out in Pubmed, Science Direct, Web of Science and Clinical Trial. A total of 35 articles were used, and PHI (Prostate Health Index) and the 4Kscore tests were identified as the best well-established serum markers. These tests are based on the evaluation of expression levels of several molecules. For analysis of urine samples, Progensa, ExoDXProstate, and Mi Prostate Score Urine Test are available. All these tests have the potential to help diagnosis, avoiding unnecessary biopsies, but they are used only in association with digital rectal examination and PSA level data. The search for biomarkers that can help in the diagnosis and therapeutic management of PCA is still in its initial phase, requiring more efforts for an effective clinical application.

A meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx in prostate cancer

To overview the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and to review sources of methodologic variability. Four electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies investigating the diagnostic value of SelectMDx compared with the gold standard. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Included studies were assessed according to the Standards for Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. The review identified 14 relevant publications with 2579 patients. All reports constituted phase 1 biomarker studies. Pooled analysis of findings found an area under the receiver operating characteristic analysis curve of 70% [95% CI, 66%-74%], a sensitivity of 81% [95% CI, 69%-89%], and a specificity of 52% [95% CI, 41%-63%]. The positive likelihood ratio was 1.68, and the negative predictive value is 0.37. Factors that may influence variability in test results included the breath collection method, the patient's physiologic condition, the test environment, and the method of analysis. Considerable heterogeneity was observed among the studies owing to the difference in the sample size. SelectMDx appears to have moderate to good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating patients with clinically significant prostate cancer from people at high risk of developing prostate cancer. Higher-quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for clinically significant cancer are still needed.

Development and evaluation of the MiCheck® Prostate test for clinically significant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

There is a clinical need to identify patients with an elevated PSA who would benefit from prostate biopsy due to the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSCaP). We have previously reported the development of the MiCheck® Test for clinically significant prostate cancer. Here, we report MiCheck's further development and incorporation of the Roche Cobas standard clinical chemistry analyzer.

OBJECTIVES

To further develop and adapt the MiCheck® Prostate test so it can be performed using a standard clinical chemistry analyzer and characterize its performance using the MiCheck-01 clinical trial sample set.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

About 358 patient samples from the MiCheck-01 US clinical trial were used for the development of the MiCheck® Prostate test. These consisted of 46 controls, 137 non-CaP, 62 non-CSCaP, and 113 CSCaP.

METHODS

Serum analyte concentrations for cellular growth factors were determined using custom-made Luminex-based R&D Systems multi-analyte kits. Analytes that can also be measured using standard chemistry analyzers were examined for their ability to contribute to an algorithm with high sensitivity for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Samples were then re-measured using a Roche Cobas analyzer for development of the final algorithm.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Logistic regression modeling with Monte Carlo cross-validation was used to identify Human Epidydimal Protein 4 (HE4) as an analyte able to significantly improve the algorithm specificity at 95% sensitivity. A final model was developed using analyte measurements from the Cobas analzyer.

RESULTS

The MiCheck® logistic regression model was developed and consisted of PSA, %free PSA, DRE, and HE4. The model differentiated clinically significant cancer from no cancer or not-clinically significant cancer with AUC of 0.85, sensitivity of 95%, and specificity of 50%. Applying the MiCheck® test to all evaluable 358 patients from the MiCheck-01 study demonstrated that up to 50% of unnecessary biopsies could be avoided while delaying diagnosis of only 5.3% of Gleason Score (GS) ≥3+4 cancers, 1.8% of GS≥4+3 cancers and no cancers of GS 8 to 10.

CONCLUSIONS

The MiCheck® Prostate test identifies clinically significant prostate cancer with high sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV). It can be performed in a clinical laboratory using a Roche Cobas clinical chemistry analyzer. The MiCheck® Prostate test could assist in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies with a marginal number of patients experiencing a delayed diagnosis.

Genomic and Phenotypic Biomarkers for Precision Medicine Guidance in Advanced Prostate Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most diagnosed malignant neoplasm and is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death in men worldwide. Despite significant advances in screening and treatment of PCa, given the heterogeneity of this disease, optimal personalized therapeutic strategies remain limited. However, emerging predictive and prognostic biomarkers based on individual patient profiles in combination with computer-assisted diagnostics have the potential to guide precision medicine, where patients may benefit from therapeutic approaches optimally suited to their disease. Also, the integration of genotypic and phenotypic diagnostic methods is supporting better informed treatment decisions. Focusing on advanced PCa, this review discusses polygenic risk scores for screening of PCa and common genomic aberrations in androgen receptor (AR), PTEN-PI3K-AKT, and DNA damage response (DDR) pathways, considering clinical implications for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment prediction. Furthermore, we evaluate liquid biopsy, protein biomarkers such as serum testosterone levels, SLFN11 expression, total alkaline phosphatase (tALP), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), tissue biopsy, and advanced imaging tools, summarizing current phenotypic biomarkers and envisaging more effective utilization of diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in advanced PCa. We conclude that prognostic and treatment predictive biomarker discovery can improve the management of patients, especially in metastatic stages of advanced PCa. This will result in decreased mortality and enhanced quality of life and help design a personalized treatment regimen.

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.

Optimizing detection of clinically significant prostate cancer through nomograms incorporating mri, clinical features, and advanced serum biomarkers in biopsy naïve men

PURPOSE

To develop nomograms that predict the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, defined as ≥GG2 [Grade Group 2]) at diagnostic biopsy based on multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI), serum biomarkers, and patient clinicodemographic features.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nomograms were developed from a cohort of biopsy-naïve men presenting to our 11-hospital system with prostate specific antigen (PSA) of 2-20 ng/mL who underwent pre-biopsy mpMRI from March 2018-June 2021 (n = 1494). The outcomes were the presence of csPCa and high-grade prostate cancer (defined as ≥GG3 prostate cancer). Using significant variables on multivariable logistic regression, individual nomograms were developed for men with total PSA, % free PSA, or prostate health index (PHI) when available. The nomograms were both internally validated and evaluated in an independent cohort of 366 men presenting to our hospital system from July 2021-February 2022.

RESULTS

1031 of 1494 men (69%) underwent biopsy after initial evaluation with mpMRI, 493 (47.8%) of whom were found to have ≥GG2 PCa, and 271 (26.3%) were found to have ≥GG3 PCa. Age, race, highest PIRADS score, prostate health index when available, % free PSA when available, and PSA density were significant predictors of ≥GG2 and ≥GG3 PCa on multivariable analysis and were used for nomogram generation. Accuracy of nomograms in both the training cohort and independent cohort were high, with areas under the curves (AUC) of ≥0.885 in the training cohort and ≥0.896 in the independent validation cohort. In our independent validation cohort, our model for ≥GG2 prostate cancer with PHI saved 39.1% of biopsies (143/366) while only missing 0.8% of csPCa (1/124) with a biopsy threshold of 20% probability of csPCa.

CONCLUSIONS

Here we developed nomograms combining serum testing and mpMRI to help clinicians risk stratify patients with elevated PSA of 2-20 ng/mL who are being considered for biopsy. Our nomograms are available at https://rossnm1.shinyapps.io/MynMRIskCalculator/ to aid with biopsy decisions.

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part II: Considerations for a Prostate Biopsy

PURPOSE

The summary presented herein covers recommendations on the early detection of prostate cancer and provides a framework to facilitate clinical decision-making in the implementation of prostate cancer screening, biopsy, and follow-up. This is Part II of a two-part series focusing on initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. Please refer to Part I for discussion of initial prostate cancer screening recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. The systematic review was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1, 2000-November 21, 2022). Searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles.

RESULTS

The Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance in prostate cancer screening, initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of prostate cancer risk should be focused on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (Grade Group 2 or higher [GG2+]). The use of laboratory biomarkers, prostate MRI, and biopsy techniques described herein may improve detection and safety when a prostate biopsy is deemed necessary following prostate cancer screening.

The role of tumor density in predicting significant cancer on targeted biopsy of the prostate

OBJECTIVE

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is central to diagnosing prostate cancer; however, not all imaged lesions represent clinically significant tumors. We aimed to evaluate the association between the relative tumor volume on mpMRI and clinically significant prostate cancer on biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 340 patients who underwent combined transperineal targeted and systematic prostate biopsies between 2017 and 2021. Tumor volume was estimated based on the mpMRI diameter of suspected lesions. Relative tumor volume (tumor density) was calculated by dividing the tumor and prostate volumes. The study outcome was clinically significant cancer on biopsy. Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the association between tumor density and the outcome. The cutoff for tumor density was determined with ROC curves.

RESULTS

Median estimated prostate and peripheral zone tumor volumes were 55cm3 and 0.61cm3, respectively. Median PSA density was 0.13 and peripheral zone tumor density was 0.01. Overall, 231 patients (68%) had any cancer and 130 (38%) had clinically significant cancer. On multivariable logistic regression age, PSA, previous biopsy, maximal PI-RADS score, prostate volume, and peripheral zone tumor density were significant predictors of outcome. Using a threshold of 0.006, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of peripheral zone tumor density were 0.9, 0.51, 0.57, and 0.88, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Peripheral zone tumor density is associated with clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with PI-RADS 4 and 5 mpMRI lesions. Future studies are required to validate our findings and evaluate the role of tumor density in avoiding unnecessary biopsies.

Relationships between holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and prostate cancer

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a size-independent surgical option for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) with excellent, durable functional outcomes. The prevalence of LUTS secondary to BPH and prostate cancer both increase with age, although the two diseases develop independently. Urologists often face a diagnostic dilemma, as men with LUTS secondary to BPH might also present with an elevated PSA and, therefore, need a diagnostic work-up to exclude prostate cancer. Nevertheless, ~15% of men with a negative elevated PSA work-up will undergo HoLEP and will be diagnosed with incidental prostate cancer at the time of HoLEP. Indeed, prostate cancer is often found in men undergoing HoLEP, and this situation can be challenging to manage. Variables associated with the detection of incidental prostate cancer, strategies to reduce incidental prostate cancer, as well as the natural history and management of this condition have been extensively studied, but further work in this area is still needed.

The Swedish national guidelines on prostate cancer, part 1: early detection, diagnostics, staging, patient support and primary management of non-metastatic disease

OBJECTIVE

There is now an unprecedented amount of evidence to consider when revising prostate cancer guidelines. We believe that there is a value in publishing summaries of national clinical guidelines in English for others to read and comment on.

METHODS

This is part 1 of a summary of the Swedish prostate cancer guidelines that were published in June 2022. It covers the early detection, diagnostics, staging, patient support and management of the non-metastatic disease. Part 2 covers recurrence after local treatment and management of the metastatic disease.

RESULTS

The 2022 Swedish guidelines include several new recommendations: rectal iodine-povidone to reduce post-biopsy infections, external beam radiation with focal boost to the tumour, use of a pre-rectal spacer to reduce rectal side effects after external beam radiotherapy in some expert centres, 6 months' concomitant and adjuvant rather than neoadjuvant and concomitant hormonal treatment together with radiotherapy for unfavourable intermediate and high-risk disease, and adjuvant abiraterone plus prednisolone together with a GnRH agonist for a subgroup of men with very high-risk disease. The Swedish guidelines differ from the European by having more restrictive recommendations regarding genetic testing and pelvic lymph node dissection, the risk group classification, recommending ultra-hypofractionated (7 fractions) external radiotherapy for intermediate and selected high-risk cancers, by not recommending any hormonal treatment together with radiotherapy for favourable intermediate-risk disease, and by recommending bicalutamide monotherapy instead of a GnRH agonist for some patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2022 Swedish prostate cancer guidelines include several new recommendations and some that differ from the European guidelines.

Value of PHI and PHID in the detection of intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

PSA testing practice results in a large number of unnecessary prostate biopsies and the overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of our study was to evaluate the value of PHI and PHID for the detection of PCa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We measured tPSA, fPSA and p2PSA in 455 patients scheduled for biopsy, including 243 patients with PCa. D'Amico criteria were used to classify these patients in three groups related to risk of progression. Intermediate- and high-risk PCa were considered as aggressive PCa.

RESULTS

The best area under the curve (AUC) value obtained in the detection of aggressive PCa was achieved for PHI and PHID (0.766 and 0.760, respectively). We found a relationship of the performance of by these tests with the calculated prostate volume or the estimated prostate size by digital rectal exam, obtaining the higher AUC in patients with a small prostate. Thus, the AUC for PHI was 0,843 for patients with small calculated prostate volume and 0,817 for patients with small estimated prostate size.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results underline that PHI and PHID outperforms the efficacy obtained with tPSA and %fPSA. Substantial differences in their value in relation to prostate volume were found.

Differential Expression of E2F Transcription Factors and Their Functional and Prognostic Roles in Human Prostate Cancer

Given the tumor heterogeneity, most of the current prognostic indicators cannot accurately evaluate the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer, and thus, the best opportunity to intervene in the progression of this disease is missed. E2F transcription factors (E2Fs) have been reported to be involved in the growth of various cancers. Accumulating studies indicate that prostate cancer (PCa) carcinogenesis is attributed to aberrant E2F expression or E2F alteration. However, the expression patterns and prognostic value of the eight E2Fs in prostate cancer have yet to be explored. In this study, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), Kaplan–Meier Plotter, Metascape, the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG), CIBERSORT, and cBioPortal and bioinformatic analysis were used to investigate E2Fs in patients with PCa. Our results showed that the expression of E2F1–3, E2F5, and E2F6 was higher in prostate cancer tissues than in benign tissues. Furthermore, elevated E2F1–3 and E2F5 expression levels were associated with a higher Gleason score (GS), advanced tumor stage, and metastasis. Survival analysis suggested that high transcription levels of E2F1–3, E2F5, E2F6, and E2F8 were associated with a higher risk of biochemical recurrence. In addition, we developed a prognostic model combining E2F1, E2F6, Gleason score, and the clinical stage that may accurately predict a biochemical recurrence-free survival. Functional enrichment analysis revealed that the E2F family members and their neighboring genes were mainly enriched in cell cycle-related pathways. Somatic mutations in different subgroups were also investigated, and immune components were predicted. Further experiments are warranted to clarify the biological associations between Pca-related E2F family genes, which may influence prognosis via the cell cycle pathway.

Detecting disease associated biomarkers by luminescence modulating phages

Assessment of risk for a given disease and the diagnosis of diseases is often based on assays detecting biomarkers. Antibody-based biomarker-assays for diseases such as prostate cancer are often ambiguous and biomarker proteins are frequently also elevated for reasons that are unspecific. We have opted to use luminescence modulating phages for the analysis of known acute inflammatory response biomarker CRP (C-reactive protein) and biomarkers of prostate cancer in urine samples. Firstly, CRP was used to simulate the detection process in a controlled chemical environment. Secondly, we tried to classify more challenging lethal prostate cancer samples from control samples. Our unique method utilizes a special biopanning process in order to create special phages capable of capturing a dye necessary for detection and potential biomarkers. As the biomarker-molecules interfere with the phages, dye is repelled from the phage network resulting in an altered reporter luminescence. These changes can be observed with an absorbance reader and even with the naked eye. The simple method could present an alternative for screening of disease biomarkers. For prostate cancer urine samples, we achieved a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 75% to detect Grade Group (GG) 4 and 5 prostate cancer.

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.

On the Road to Accurate Protein Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis: Current Status and Future Advances

Prostate cancer (PC) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among men worldwide. Molecular biomarkers work in conjunction with existing clinicopathologic tools to help physicians decide who to biopsy, re-biopsy, treat, or re-treat. The past decade has witnessed the commercialization of multiple PC protein biomarkers with improved performance, remarkable progress in proteomic technologies for global discovery and targeted validation of novel protein biomarkers from clinical specimens, and the emergence of novel, promising PC protein biomarkers. In this review, we summarize these advances and discuss the challenges and potential solutions for identifying and validating clinically useful protein biomarkers in PC diagnosis and prognosis. The identification of multi-protein biomarkers with high sensitivity and specificity, as well as their integration with clinicopathologic parameters, imaging, and other molecular biomarkers, bodes well for optimal personalized management of PC patients.