An overview of current and emerging diagnostic, staging and prognostic markers for prostate cancer

References

• EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU annual congress barcelona. The Netherlands: EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Gelfond J, Choate K, Ankerst DP, et al. Intermediate-term risk of prostate cancer is directly related to baseline prostate specific antigen: implications for reducing the burden of prostate specific antigen screening. J Urol. 2015. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.043
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Droz JP, Albrand G, Gillessen S, et al. Management of prostate cancer in elderly patients: recommendations of a task force of the international society of geriatric oncology. Eur Urol. 2017. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bensalah K, Montorsi F, Shariat SF. Challenges of cancer biomarker profiling. Eur Urol. 2007. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh H, Canto EI, Shariat SF, et al. Improved detection of clinically significant, curable prostate cancer with systematic 12-core biopsy. J Urol. 2004. DOI:10.1097/01.ju.0000112763.74119.d4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks RJ, Van Oort IM, Schalken JA. Blood-based and urinary prostate cancer biomarkers: A review and comparison of novel biomarkers for detection and treatment decisions. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017. DOI:10.1038/pcan.2016.59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the european randomised study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2014. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heijnsdijk EAM, Denham D, de Koning HJ. The cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer detection with the use of prostate health index. Value Heal J Int Soc Pharmaco econo Outcomes Res. 2016;19(2):153–157.
   Google Scholar
• Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG, et al. A multicenter study of [−2]pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1650–1655. May.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu PK-F, Ng C-F, Semjonow A, et al. A multicentre evaluation of the role of the prostate health index (PHI) in regions with differing prevalence of prostate cancer: adjustment of phi reference ranges is needed for European and Asian Settings. Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):558–561. Apr.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnanapragasam VJ, Burling K, George A, et al. The Prostate Health Index adds predictive value to multi-parametric MRI in detecting significant prostate cancers in a repeat biopsy population. Sci Rep. 2016;6:35364. Oct.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosoian JJ, Druskin SC, Andreas D, et al. Use of the prostate health index for detection of prostate cancer: results from a large academic practice. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017. DOI:10.1038/pcan.2016.72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druskin SC, Tosoian JJ, Young A, et al. Combining prostate health index density, magnetic resonance imaging and prior negative biopsy status to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;121(4):619–626. Apr.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voigt JD, Zappala SM, Vaughan ED, et al. The kallikrein panel for prostate cancer screening: its economic impact. Prostate [ Feb]. 2014;74(3):250–259..
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zappala SM, Scardino PT, Okrongly D, et al. Clinical performance of the 4Kscore Test to predict high-grade prostate cancer at biopsy: A meta-analysis of us and European clinical validation study results. Rev Urol. 2017;19(3):149–155.
   Google Scholar
• Nordström T, Vickers A, Assel M, et al. Comparison between the four-kallikrein panel and prostate health index for predicting prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Punnen S, Nahar B, Soodana-Prakash N, et al. Optimizing patient’s selection for prostate biopsy: A single institution experience with multi-parametric MRI and the 4Kscore test for the detection of aggressive prostate cancer. PLoS One. 2018. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0201384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrovics G, Liu A, Shaheduzzaman S, et al. Frequent overexpression of ETS-related gene-1 (ERG1) in prostate cancer transcriptome. Oncogene. 2005. DOI:10.1038/sj.onc.1208518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanguedolce F, Cormio A, Brunelli M, et al. Urine TMPRSS2: ERG fusion transcript as a biomarker for prostate cancer: literature review. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016. DOI:10.1016/j.clgc.2015.12.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice KR, Chen Y, Ali A, et al. Evaluation of the ETS-related gene mRNA in urine for the detection of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010. DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettersson A, Graff RE, Bauer SR, et al. The TMPRSS2:ERG rearrangement, ERG expression, and prostate cancer outcomes: A cohort study and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012. DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou CK, Young D, Yeboah ED, et al. TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusions in prostate cancer of west African men and a Meta-analysis of racial differences. Am J Epidemiol. 2017. DOI:10.1093/aje/kwx235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science. 2005(80–). doi:10.1126/science.1117679.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leyten GHJM, Hessels D, Jannink SA, et al. Prospective multicentre evaluation of PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusions as diagnostic and prognostic urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Neste L, Hendriks RJ, Dijkstra S, et al. Detection of high-grade prostate cancer using a urinary molecular biomarker–based risk score. Eur Urol. 2016. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.04.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haese A, Trooskens G, Steyaert S, et al. Multicenter optimization and validation of a 2-gene mRNA urine test for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer before initial prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2019;202(2):256–263. Aug.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks RJ, van der Leest MMG, Dijkstra S, et al. A urinary biomarker-based risk score correlates with multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection. Prostate. 2017. DOI:10.1002/pros.23401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang W-LW, Sorokin I, Aleksic I, et al. Expression of small non-coding RNAs in urinary exosomes classifies prostate cancer into indolent and aggressive disease. J Urol. 2020. [published online ahead of print, 2020 Mar 19.]
   Google Scholar
• Hessels D, JMT KG, van Oort I, et al. DD3(PCA3)-based molecular urine analysis for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2003;44(1):6–8. Jul.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen J, Auprich M, Ahyai SA, et al. Initial prostate biopsy: development and internal validation of a biopsy-specific nomogram based on the prostate cancer antigen 3 assay. Eur Urol. 2013. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.07.030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitman EJ, Groskopf J, Ali A, et al. PCA3 score before radical prostatectomy predicts extracapsular extension and tumor volume. J Urol. 2008. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2008.07.060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auprich M, Bjartell A, Chun FKH, et al. Contemporary role of prostate cancer antigen 3 in the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2011 Nov;60(5):1045–1054.
   Google Scholar
• Nakanishi H, Groskopf J, Fritsche HA, et al. PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate cancer tumor volume: implication in selecting candidates for active surveillance. J Urol. 2008. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Poppel H, Haese A, Graefen M, et al. The relationship between prostate CAncer gene 3 (PCA3) and prostate cancer significance. BJU Int. 2012;109(3):360–366. Feb.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seisen T, Rouprêt M, Brault D, et al. Accuracy of the prostate health index versus the urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 score to predict overall and significant prostate cancer at initial biopsy. Prostate. 2015. DOI:10.1002/pros.22898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cucchiara V, Cooperberg MR, Dall’Era M, et al. Genomic markers in prostate cancer decision making. Eur Urol. 2018. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.10.036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh H, Canto EI, Shariat SF, et al. Predictors of prostate cancer after initial negative systematic 12 core biopsy. J Urol. 2004. DOI:10.1097/01.ju.0000119667.86071.e7.
   Google Scholar
• Leyten GHJM, Wierenga EA, Sedelaar J, et al., Value of PCA3 to predict biopsy outcome and its potential role in selecting patients for multiparametric MRI. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14(6):11347–11355. 2013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufmann S, Bedke J, Gatidis S, et al. Prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) is of additional predictive value in patients with PI-RADS grade III (intermediate) lesions in the MR-guided re-biopsy setting for prostate cancer. World Journal of Urology. 2016. DOI:10.1007/s00345-015-1655-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Luca S, Passera R, Cattaneo G, et al. High prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) scores are associated with elevated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) grade and biopsy Gleason score, at magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion software-based targeted prostate biopsy after. BJU Int. 2016;118(5):723–730. Nov.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partin AW, Van Neste L, Klein EA, et al. Clinical validation of an epigenetic assay to predict negative histopathological results in repeat prostate biopsies. J Urol. 2014 Oct;192(4):1081–1087.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Neste L, Partin AW, Stewart GD, et al. Risk score predicts high-grade prostate cancer in DNA-methylation positive, histopathologically negative biopsies. Prostate. 2016. DOI:10.1002/pros.23191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E.A. K, M.R. C, C. M-G, et al. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol. 2014 Sep;66(3):550–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggener S, Karsh LI, Richardson T, et al. A 17-gene panel for prediction of adverse prostate cancer pathologic features: prospective clinical validation and utility. Urology. 2019. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2018.11.050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullen J, Rosner IL, Brand TC, et al. A biopsy-based 17-gene genomic prostate score predicts recurrence after radical prostatectomy and adverse surgical pathology in a racially diverse population of men with clinically low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuzick J, Berney DM, Fisher G, et al. Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer. 2012. DOI:10.1038/bjc.2012.39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishoff JT, Freedland SJ, Gerber L, et al. Prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression score generated from biopsy in men treated with prostatectomy. J Urol. 2014 Sep;66(3):550–560.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freedland SJ, Gerber L, Reid J, et al. Prognostic utility of cell cycle progression score in men with prostate cancer after primary external beam radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.04.043.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jeffrey Karnes R, Bergstralh EJ, Davicioni E, et al. Validation of a genomic classifier that predicts metastasis following radical prostatectomy in an at risk Patient population. J Urol. 2013 Dec;190(6):2047–2053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spratt DE, Zhang J, Santiago-Jimenez M, et al. Development and validation of a novel integrated clinical-genomic risk group classification for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(6):581–590. Feb.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross AE, Feng FY, Ghadessi M, et al. A genomic classifier predicting metastatic disease progression in men with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014. DOI:10.1038/pcan.2013.49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spratt DE, Yousefi K, Deheshi S, et al. Individual patient-level meta-Analysis of the performance of the decipher genomic classifier in high-risk men after prostatectomy to predict development of metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol. 2017. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2016.70.2811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Den RB, Santiago-Jimenez M, Alter J, et al. Decipher correlation patterns post prostatectomy: initial experience from 2 342 prospective patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016. DOI:10.1038/pcan.2016.38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michalopoulos SN, Kella N, Payne R, et al. Influence of a genomic classifier on post-operative treatment decisions in high-risk prostate cancer patients: results from the PRO-ACT study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014. DOI:10.1185/03007995.2014.919908.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badani KK, Thompson DJ, Brown G, et al. Effect of a genomic classifier test on clinical practice decisions for patients with high-risk prostate cancer after surgery. BJU Int. 2015. DOI:10.1111/bju.12789.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoven B, Yan Y, Ritter M, et al. Ki-67 is an independent predictor of metastasis and cause-specific mortality for prostate cancer patients treated on radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) 94-08. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.01.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li R, Heydon K, Hammond ME, et al. Ki-67 staining index predicts distant metastasis and survival in locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy: an analysis of patients in radiation therapy oncology group protocol 86-10. Clin Cancer Res. 2004. DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-1052-03.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollack A, Desilvio M, Khor LY, et al. Ki-67 staining is a strong predictor of distant metastasis and mortality for men with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation: radiation therapy oncology group trial 92-02. J Clin Oncol. 2004. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2004.09.150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathieu R, Shariat SF, Seitz C, et al. Multi-institutional validation of the prognostic value of Ki-67 labeling index in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2015. DOI:10.1007/s00345-014-1421-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chun FKH, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol. 2006 May;49(5):820–826.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chun FK-H, Briganti A, Shariat SF, et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int. 2006;98(2):329–334. Aug.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blume-Jensen P, Berman DM, Rimm DL, et al. Biology of human tumors development and clinical validation of an in situ biopsy-based multimarker assay for risk stratification in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2015. DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shariat SF, Kattan MW, Vickers AJ, et al. Critical review f prostate cancer predictive tools. Future Oncol. 2009;5(10):1555–1584. Dec.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shariat SF, Lotan Y, Vickers A, et al. Statistical consideration for clinical biomarker research in bladder cancer. J Urol Oncol. 2010;28(4):389–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar