Intérêt du test PCA3 avant une première série de biopsies prostatiques négatives : 5 ans de suivi

miRNA Expression Patterns in Early- and Late-Stage Prostate Cancer Patients: High-Throughput Analysis

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common types of cancer among men. To date, there have been no specific markers identified for the diagnosis and prognosis or response to treatment of this disease. Thus, there is an urgent need for promising markers, which may be fulfilled by small non-coding RNAs known as microRNAs (miRNAs). Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the miRNA profile in tissue samples obtained from patients with PCa using microarrays, followed by reverse transcriptase quantitative PCRs (RT-qPCRs). In the discovery phase, 754 miRNAs were screened in tissues obtained from patients (n = 46) with PCa in early and late stages. Expression levels of miRNA-324-3p, miRNA-429, miRNA-570, and miRNA-616 were found to be downregulated, and miRNA-423-5p expression was upregulated in patients with early-stage cancer compared to the late-stage ones. These five miRNAs were further validated in an independent cohort of samples (n = 39) collected from patients with PCa using RT-qPCR-based assays. MiRNA-324-3p, miRNA-429, miRNA-570, and miRNA-616 expression levels remained significantly downregulated in early-stage cancer tissues compared to late-stage tissues. Remarkably, for a combination of three miRNAs, PSA levels and Gleason scores were able to discriminate between patients with early-stage PCa and late-stage PCa, with an AUC of 95%, a sensitivity of 86%, and a specificity close to 94%. Thus, the data obtained in this study suggest a possible involvement of the identified miRNAs in the pathogenesis of PCa, and they may also have the potential to be developed into diagnostic and prognostic tools for PCa. However, further studies with a larger cohort are needed.

Diagnostic performance of prostate cancer antigen 3 and the Prostate Health Index in detecting overall and clinically significant prostate cancer in men at first biopsy: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic value of prostate cancer antigen 3 and the Prostate Health Index for the detection of overall and clinically significant prostate cancer at initial biopsy.

METHODS

A search was conducted in the online databases PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane database, and relevant articles published up to 23 February 2020 were extracted.

RESULTS

Twenty studies including 10 376 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.55 (95% confidence interval 0.53-0.57) and 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.75) for prostate cancer antigen 3 and 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.86-0.90) and 0.36 (95% confidence interval 0.34-0.38) for the Prostate Health Index. The area under the curve was 0.72 for prostate cancer antigen 3 and 0.76 for the Prostate Health Index. The combination of prostate cancer antigen 3 and the Prostate Health Index had a higher area under the curve (0.79) and diagnostic odds ratio (5.83) than the use of Prostate Health Index (area under the curve 0.75, diagnostic odds ratio 4.69) or prostate cancer antigen 3 (area under the curve 0.77, diagnostic odds ratio 4.84) alone. For clinically significant prostate cancer detection, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.76-0.84) and 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.50-0.55), respectively, for prostate cancer antigen 3, and 0.77 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.82) and 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.67), respectively, for the Prostate Health Index. The area under the curve was 0.71 for prostate cancer antigen 3 and 0.77 for the Prostate Health Index.

CONCLUSION

Both the Prostate Health Index and prostate cancer antigen 3 showed acceptable and similar results for the detection of overall and clinically significant prostate cancer at first biopsy. A combination of these two diagnostic tests may be more helpful than the use of either test alone in prostate cancer management.

Active surveillance in prostate cancer management: where do we stand now?

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men, with a steadily rising incidence, affecting on average one in six men during their lifetime. The increase in morbidity is related to the increasing overall life expectancy, prostate-specific antigen testing, implementation of new molecular markers for cancer detection and the more frequent application of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. There is growing evidence demonstrating that active surveillance (AS) is an alternative to immediate intervention in patients with very low- and low-risk prostate cancer. Ongoing reports from multiple studies have consistently demonstrated a very low rate of metastases and prostate cancer specific mortality in selected cohorts of patients. As a matter of fact, AS has been adopted by many institutions as a safe and effective management strategy. The aim of our review is to summarize the contemporary data on AS in patients affected with PCa with the intention to present the most clinically useful and pertinent AS protocols.

Diagnosis accuracy of PCA3 level in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic value and suitability of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) have been inconsistent in previous studies. Thus, the aim of the present meta-analysis was performed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of PCA3 for PCa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed to search relevant studies using online databases EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science published until February 1st, 2019. Ultimately, 65 studies met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis with 8.139 cases and 14.116 controls. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (LR+), negative likelihood ratios (LR-), and other measures of PCA3 were pooled and determined to evaluate the diagnostic rate of PCa by the random-effect model.

RESULTS

With PCA3, the pooled overall diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR-, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for predicting significant PCa were 0.68 (0.64-0.72), 0.72 (0.68-0.75), 2.41 (2.16-2.69), 0.44 (0.40-0.49), respectively. Besides, the summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and 95% CIs for PCA3 was 5.44 (4.53-6.53). In addition, the area under summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves and 95% CIs was 0.76 (0.72-0.79). The major design deficiencies of included studies were differential verification bias, and a lack of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis suggested that PCA3 was a non-invasive method with the acceptable sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of PCa, to distinguish between patients and healthy individuals. To validate the potential applicability of PCA3 in the diagnosis of PCa, more rigorous studies were needed to confirm these conclusions.

A narrative review and update on management following negative prostate biopsy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate cancer has traditionally been diagnosed using systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. However, given the inherent nature of sampling, a negative biopsy does not exclude clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), and continued controversy exists in the optimal management following initial biopsy. Numerous avenues for evaluation include multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), use of molecular biomarkers, repeat biopsy, and observation.

RECENT FINDINGS

mpMRI has shown promise in guiding further biopsy management: for individuals with identified target lesions, increased accuracy and detection using combination targeted and systematic sampling has been repeatedly demonstrated in the literature as an effective strategy. For those with negative MRIs and/or negative biomarker (blood, urinary, tissue) studies, increasing evidence has suggested that these individuals may be able to avoid biopsy altogether, albeit at a small risk of missing csPCa. Observation should be based on an individual's risk of csPCa versus their competing health risks, and saturation biopsy reserved for rare cases with high clinical suspicion.

SUMMARY

Management following an initial negative prostate biopsy requires careful discussion with the patient, their risk tolerance, and threshold for intervention. Although subject to availability, mpMRI and molecular biomarkers may better risk stratify patients, identify target lesions, and in certain cases, spare biopsy altogether.