Purpose: Serum PSA (sPSA) testing has led to the identification of patients with indolent prostate cancer, and inevitably overtreatment has become a concern. Progensa PCA3 urine testing was shown to improve the diagnosis of prostate cancer, but its diagnostic value for aggressive prostate cancer is limited. Therefore, urinary biomarkers that can be used for prediction of Gleason score !7 prostate cancer in biopsies are urgently needed.Experimental Design: Using gene expression profiling data, 39 prostate cancer biomarkers were identified. After quantitative PCR analysis on tissue specimens and urinary sediments, eight promising biomarkers for the urinary detection of prostate cancer were selected (ONECUT2, HOXC4, HOXC6, DLX1, TDRD1, NKAIN1, MS4A8B, PPFIA2). The hypothesis that biomarker combinations improve the diagnostic value for aggressive prostate cancer was tested on 358 urinary sediments of an intention-to-treat cohort. Conclusions: The urinary three-gene panel (HOXC6, TDRD1, and DLX1) represents a promising tool to identify patients with aggressive prostate cancer, also in those with low sPSA values. The combination of the urinary three-gene panel with sPSA bears great potential for the early diagnosis of patients with clinically significant prostate cancer.
Background
Risk stratification in men with suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) requires reliable diagnostic tests, not only to identify high-grade PCa, also to minimize the overdetection of low-grade PCa, and reduction of “unnecessary” prostate MRIs and biopsies. This study aimed to evaluate the SelectMDx test to detect high-grade PCa in biopsy-naïve men. Subsequently, to assess combinations of SelectMDx test and multi-parametric (mp) MRI and its potential impact on patient selection for prostate biopsy.
Methods
This prospective multicenter diagnostic study included 599 biopsy-naïve patients with prostate-specific antigen level ≥3 ng/ml. All patients underwent a SelectMDx test and mpMRI before systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB). Patients with a suspicious mpMRI also had an in-bore MR-guided biopsy (MRGB). Histopathologic outcome of TRUSGB and MRGB was used as reference standard. High-grade PCa was defined as ISUP Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2. The primary outcome was the detection rates of low- and high-grade PCa and number of biopsies avoided in four strategies, i.e., (1) SelectMDx test-only, (2) mpMRI-only, (3) SelectMDx test followed by mpMRI when SelectMDx test was positive (conditional strategy), and (4) SelectMDx test and mpMRI in all (joint strategy). A positive SelectMDx test outcome was a risk score of ≥−2.8. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to assess clinical utility.
Results
Prevalence of high-grade PCa was 31% (183/599). Thirty-eight percent (227/599) of patients had negative SelectMDx test in whom biopsy could be avoided. Low-grade PCa was not detected in 35% (48/138) with missing 10% (18/183) high-grade PCa. Yet, mpMRI-only could avoid 49% of biopsies, not detecting 4.9% (9/183) of high-grade PCa. The conditional strategy reduces the number of mpMRIs by 38% (227/599), avoiding biopsy in 60% (357/599) and missing 13% (24/183) high-grade PCa. Low-grade PCa was not detected in 58% (80/138). DCA showed the highest net benefit for the mpMRI-only strategy, followed by the conditional strategy at-risk thresholds >10%.
Conclusions
SelectMDx test as a risk stratification tool for biopsy-naïve men avoids unnecessary biopsies in 38%, minimizes low-grade PCa detection, and misses only 10% high-grade PCa. Yet, using mpMRI in all patients had the highest net benefit, avoiding biopsy in 49% and missing 4.9% of high-risk PCa. However, if mpMRI availability is limited or expensive, using mpMRI-only in SelectMDx test positive patients is a good alternative strategy.
The feasibility of a highly sensitive modified nucleic acid amplification assay to assess KLK3, PCA3, and TMPRSS2-ERG mRNA in the PBMC fraction from CRPC patients was demonstrated. Moreover, response of these markers to systemic treatment was shown.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.