Cost-effectiveness of SelectMDx for prostate cancer in four European countries: a comparative modeling study

Established and emerging liquid biomarkers for prostate cancer detection: A review

Prostate cancer remains one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers among men in the world today. Since its introduction in 1987 and FDA approval in 1994, prostate specific antigen (PSA) has reduced prostate cancer specific mortality considerably. However, the positive and negative predictive value of PSA is less than ideal and can lead to the over-detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. In the search for better screening measures to identify this cohort, liquid biomarkers for prostate cancer have emerged. In this review we will explore the commonly used urine and blood based prostate cancer liquid biomarkers. We detail the mechanism of each test and the validation studies that underscore their efficacy. Additionally, we will examine each test's effect on shared decision making as well as their cost efficacy in clinical practice.

Liquid Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Current Status and Emerging Prospects

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a major health concern that necessitates appropriate diagnostic approaches for timely intervention. This review critically evaluates the role of liquid biopsy techniques, focusing on blood- and urine-based biomarkers, in overcoming the limitations of conventional diagnostic methods. The 4Kscore test and Prostate Health Index have demonstrated efficacy in distinguishing PCa from benign conditions. Urinary biomarker tests such as PCa antigen 3, MyProstateScore, SelectMDx, and ExoDx Prostate IntelliScore test have revolutionized risk stratification and minimized unnecessary biopsies. Emerging biomarkers, including non-coding RNAs, circulating tumor DNA, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) glycosylation, offer valuable insights into PCa biology, enabling personalized treatment strategies. Advancements in non-invasive liquid biomarkers for PCa diagnosis may facilitate the stratification of patients and avoid unnecessary biopsies, particularly when PSA is in the gray area of 4 to 10 ng/mL.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Biopsy Findings in Suspected Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Multiple strategies integrating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical data have been proposed to determine the need for a prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (Gleason score ≥3 + 4). However, inconsistencies across different strategies create challenges for drawing a definitive conclusion.

Objective

To determine the optimal prostate biopsy decision-making strategy for avoiding unnecessary biopsies and minimizing the risk of missing csPCa by combining MRI Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) and clinical data.

Data Sources

PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 1, 2022.

Study Selection

English-language studies that evaluated men with suspected but not confirmed csPCa who underwent MRI PI-RADS followed by prostate biopsy were included. Each study had proposed a biopsy plan by combining PI-RADS and clinical data.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Studies were independently assessed for eligibility for inclusion. Quality of studies was appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Mixed-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression models with multimodel inference were performed. Reporting of this study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Independent risk factors of csPCa were determined by performing meta-regression between the rate of csPCa and PI-RADS and clinical parameters. Yields of different biopsy strategies were assessed by performing diagnostic meta-analysis.

Results

The analyses included 72 studies comprising 36 366 patients. Univariable meta-regression showed that PI-RADS 4 (β-coefficient [SE], 7.82 [3.85]; P = .045) and PI-RADS 5 (β-coefficient [SE], 23.18 [4.46]; P < .001) lesions, but not PI-RADS 3 lesions (β-coefficient [SE], -4.08 [3.06]; P = .19), were significantly associated with a higher risk of csPCa. When considered jointly in a multivariable model, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) was the only clinical variable significantly associated with csPCa (β-coefficient [SE], 15.50 [5.14]; P < .001) besides PI-RADS 5 (β-coefficient [SE], 9.19 [3.33]; P < .001). Avoiding biopsy in patients with lesions with PI-RADS category of 3 or less and PSAD less than 0.10 (vs <0.15) ng/mL2 resulted in reducing 30% (vs 48%) of unnecessary biopsies (compared with performing biopsy in all suspected patients), with an estimated sensitivity of 97% (vs 95%) and number needed to harm of 17 (vs 15).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that in patients with suspected csPCa, patient-tailored prostate biopsy decisions based on PI-RADS and PSAD could prevent unnecessary procedures while maintaining high sensitivity.

Clinical and Radiological Factors for Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Patients With PI-RADS 3 Lesions

OBJECTIVE

This study intends to examine the anticipatory power of clinical and radiological parameters in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients demonstrating Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. The study included participation from 453 patients at the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, sampled between September 2017 through August 2022. Each patient underwent a routine 12-core prostate biopsy followed by a 2 to 5 core fusion-targeted biopsy. We utilized both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to identify the parameters that have a correlation with clinically significant prostate cancer. The predictive ability of these parameters was assessed using the receiver operating characteristic curve, leading to the creation of a nomogram.

RESULTS

Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 68 out of 453 patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions (15.01%). Among Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3a and 3b patients, 4.78% (3.09% of the total) and 33.75% (11.92% of the total), respectively, had clinically significant prostate cancer. Systematic biopsy improved prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates by 7.72% and 3.09%, respectively, compared to targeted biopsy. Without systematic biopsy, there would be an undetected rate of 15% for prostate cancer and 8.13% for clinically significant prostate cancer in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3b patients. Several clinical parameters, including age, prostate-specific antigen density, lesion volume, apparent diffusion coefficient, and digital rectal examination, were statistically significant in the logistic regression analysis for clinically significant prostate cancer. The individual diagnostic accuracies of these parameters for clinically significant prostate cancer were 0.648, 0.645, 0.75, 0.763, and 0.7, respectively, but their combined accuracy improved to 0.866. A well-fit nomogram based on the identified risk factors was constructed (χ2 = 10.254, P = .248).

CONCLUSION

The combination of age, prostate-specific antigen density, lesion volume, apparent diffusion coefficient, and digital rectal examination presented a higher diagnostic value for clinically significant prostate cancer than any single parameter in patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions. Systematic biopsy proved crucial for biopsy-naive patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions and should not be omitted.

Economic evaluation of prostate cancer risk assessment methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis using population data

BACKGROUND

The current prostate cancer (PCa) screening standard of care (SOC) leads to unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment because decisions are guided by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, which have low specificity in the gray zone (3-10 ng/mL). New risk assessment tools (RATs) aim to improve biopsy decision-making. We constructed a modeling framework to assess new RATs in men with gray zone PSA from the British Columbia healthcare system's perspective.

METHODS

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a new RAT used in biopsy-naïve men aged 50+ with a PSA of 3-10 ng/mL using a time-dependent state-transition model. The model was informed by engaging patient partners and using linked administrative health data, supplemented with published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the probability of the RAT being cost-effective were calculated. Probabilistic analysis was used to assess parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

In the base case, a RAT based on an existing biomarker's characteristics was a dominant strategy associated with a cost savings of $44 and a quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain of 0.00253 over 18 years of follow-up. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, the probability that using a RAT is cost-effective relative to the SOC was 73%. Outcomes were sensitive to RAT costs and accuracy, especially the detection rate of high-grade PCa. Results were also impacted by PCa prevalence and assumptions about undetected PCa survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings showed that a more accurate RAT to guide biopsy can be cost-effective. Our proposed general model can be used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of any novel RAT.

The Circular RNA Circ_0085494 Regulates Prostate Cancer Progression Through NRBP1/miR-497-5p Axis

Aberrant expression of circular RNA (circRNA) is closely linked to the progression of various human cancers, including prostate cancer (PCa). In this research, we aimed to investigate the biological role of and mechanisms of circ_0085494 in PCa. The quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) assay was used to detect circ_0085494, miR-497-5p, and nuclear receptor binding protein 1 (NRBP1) mRNA expression in PCa tissues and cell lines. Subsequently, colony formation, cell counting kit-8 (CCK-8), 5-ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine (EdU), and transwell assays were performed to evaluate PCa cell proliferation, migration, and invasion. Western blot assay was applied for assessing the protein levels. Dual-luciferase reporter and RNA pull-down assays were implemented for verifying the association between miR-497-5p and circ_0085494 or NRBP1. The role of circ_0085494 in vivo was measured by establishing a mice xenograft model. Circ_0085494 was highly expressed in PCa tissues and cells, and its absence suppressed PCa cell proliferation, migration, and invasion. Circ_0085494 impacts NRBP1 content by adsorbing miR-497-5p. Meanwhile, the repression of circ_0085494 absence on tumor growth in vivo was validated. Our finding revealed that circ_0085494 downregulation might repress PCa tumor progression through in part regulating the miR-497-5p/NRBP1 pathway.

Recent advances and future perspectives in the therapeutics of prostate cancer

Prostate cancer (PC) is one of the most common cancers in males and the fifth leading reason of death. Age, ethnicity, family history, and genetic defects are major factors that determine the aggressiveness and lethality of PC. The African population is at the highest risk of developing high-grade PC. It can be challenging to distinguish between low-risk and high-risk patients due to the slow progression of PC. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a revolutionary discovery for the identification of PC. However, it has led to an increase in over diagnosis and over treatment of PC in the past few decades. Even if modifications are made to the standard PSA testing, the specificity has not been found to be significant. Our understanding of PC genetics and proteomics has improved due to advances in different fields. New serum, urine, and tissue biomarkers, such as PC antigen 3 (PCA3), have led to various new diagnostic tests, such as the prostate health index, 4K score, and PCA3. These tests significantly reduce the number of unnecessary and repeat biopsies performed. Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and prostatectomy are standard treatment options. However, newer novel hormone therapy drugs with a better response have been identified. Androgen deprivation and hormonal therapy are evolving as new and better options for managing hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant PC. This review aimed to highlight and discuss epidemiology, various risk factors, and developments in PC diagnosis and treatment regimens.

Health Care Costs Attributable to Prostate Cancer in British Columbia, Canada: A Population-Based Cohort Study

We aimed to estimate the total health care costs attributable to prostate cancer (PCa) during care phases by age, cancer stage, tumor grade, and primary treatment in the first year in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Using linked administrative health data, we followed a cohort of men aged ≥ 50 years at diagnosis with PCa between 2010 and 2017 (Cohort 1) from the diagnosis date until the date of death, the last date of observation, or 31 December 2019. Patients who died from PCa after 1 January 2010, were selected for Cohort 2. PCa attributable costs were estimated by comparing costs in patients to matched controls. Cohort 1 (n = 22,672) had a mean age of 69.9 years (SD = 8.9) and a median follow-up time of 5.2 years. Cohort 2 included 6942 patients. Mean PCa attributable costs were the highest during the first year after diagnosis ($14,307.9 [95% CI: $13,970.0, $14,645.8]) and the year before death ($9959.7 [$8738.8, $11,181.0]). Primary treatment with radiation therapy had significantly higher costs each year after diagnosis than a radical prostatectomy or other surgeries in advanced-stage PCa. Androgen deprivation therapy (and/or chemotherapy) had the highest cost for high-grade and early-stage cancer during the three years after diagnosis. No treatment group had the lowest cost. Updated cost estimates could inform economic evaluations and decision-making.

Prostate cancer-associated urinary proteomes differ before and after prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

A wide range of disorders can be detected in the urine. Tumor-modifying proteins in the urine may serve as a diagnostic tool for cancer patients and the alterations in their profiles may indicate efficacies of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery.

METHODS

We focused on urinary proteomes of patients with prostate cancer and identified tumor-modifying proteins in the samples before and after prostatectomy. Protein array analysis was conducted to evaluate a differential profile of tumor-promoting cytokines, while mass spectrometry-based global proteomics was conducted to identify tumor-suppressing proteins.

RESULTS

The result revealed striking differences by prostatectomy. Notably, the urine from the post-prostatectomy significantly decreased the tumorigenic behaviors of prostate tumor cells as well as breast cancer cells. We observed that angiogenin, a stimulator of blood vessel formation, was reduced in the post-prostatectomy urine. By contrast, the levels of three cell-membrane proteins such as prostasin (PRSS8), nectin 2 (PVRL2), and nidogen 1 (NID1) were elevated and they acted as extracellular tumor-suppressing proteins. These three proteins, given extracellularly, downregulated tumorigenic genes such as Runx2, Snail, and transforming growth factor beta and induced apoptosis of tumor cells. However, the role of NID1 differed depending on the location, and intracellular NID1 was tumorigenic and reduced the percent survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that prostatectomy remarkably altered the profile of urinary proteomes, and the post-prostatectomy urine provided tumor-suppressive proteomes. The result sheds novel light on the dynamic nature of the urinary proteomes and a unique strategy for predicting tumor suppressors.

A Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Predictive Model Using Digital Rectal Examination Prostate Volume Category to Stratify Initial Prostate Cancer Suspicion and Reduce Magnetic Resonance Imaging Demand

A predictive model including age, PCa family history, biopsy status (initial vs repeat), DRE (normal vs abnormal), serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and DRE prostate volume ca-tegory was developed to stratify initial PCa suspicion in 1486 men with PSA > 3 ng/mL and/or abnormal DRE, in whom mpMRI followed; 2- to 4-core TRUS-guided biopsies where Prostate Imaging Report and Data System (PI-RADS) > 3 lesions and/or 12-core TRUS systematic biopsies were performed in one academic institution between 1 January 2016−31 December 2019. The csPCa detection rate, defined as International Society of Uro-Pathology grade group 2 or higher, was 36.9%. An external validation of designed BCN-RC 1 was carried out on 946 men from two other institutions in the same metropolitan area, using the same criteria of PCa suspicion and diagnostic approach, yielded a csPCa detection rate of 40.8%. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of BCN-RC 1 were 0.823 (95% CI: 0.800−0.846) in the development cohort and 0.837 (95% CI: 0.811−0.863) in the validation cohort (p = 0.447). In both cohorts, BCN-RC 1 exhibited net benefit over performing mpMRI in all men from 8 and 12% risk thresholds, respectively. At 0.95 sensitivity of csPCa, the specificities of BCN-RC 1 were 0.24 (95% CI: 0.22−0.26) in the development cohort and 0.34 (95% CI: 0.31−0.37) in the validation cohort (p < 0.001). The percentages of avoided mpMRI scans were 17.2% in the development cohort and 22.3% in the validation cohort, missing between 1.8% and 2% of csPCa among men at risk of PCa. In summary, BCN-RC 1 can stratify initial PCa suspicion, reducing the demand of mpMRI, with an acceptable loss of csPCa.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on screening and diagnosis of patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

With the exponential progress of patients with COVID-19, unexpected restrictions were directed to limit SARS-CoV-2 dissemination and imposed health-system an entire reformation to diminish transmission risk. These changes likely have caused the full range of cancer screenings and diagnosis gaps. Regardless of the recommendations, prostate cancer (PCa) screening/diagnosis programmes were momentarily postponed. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing has been an inexpensive, low-invasive and relatively precise means of detection for PCa screening that would improve the uncovering of any type of PCa. Unfortunately, a decrease in PSA screening would significantly decrease PCa detection, with non-negligible growth in PCa-specific death. This review is designed to improve our understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the screening and diagnosis of patients with PCa.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This systematic review will be reported in accordant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. A comprehensive search has been executed through five main electronic databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase and ProQuest until 1 March 2022. Besides, grey literature, preprint studies and references of included studies will be searched. The main keywords have been used to perform the search strategy: COVID-19, prostatic neoplasms. All the relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria will be screened, selected and then extracted data by two independent authors. The quality assessment of the included studies will be performed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. In case of any disagreement between the two authors in selecting, extracting data and assessing the quality of included studies, it will be resolved via consensus and checked by the third author.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As this study will be a systematic review without human participants' involvement, there will be no requirement for ethics approval. Findings will be presented at conferences and in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021291656.

Combination of PI-RADS score and mRNA urine test—A novel scoring system for improved detection of prostate cancer

Available tests to detect clinically significant prostate cancer frequently lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Our study assessed the feasibility of combining a urinary biomarker-based risk score (SelectMDx^®) and multiparametric MRI outcomes in order to identify patients with prostate cancer on prostate biopsy with increased accuracy and reliability. Samples of 74 men with suspicion of prostate cancer and available multiparametric MRI were analysed in a prospective cross-sectional study design. First-voided urine for determination of HOXC6 and DLX1 mRNA levels was collected after digital rectal examination and prior to MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. All multiparametric MRI images were centrally reviewed by two experienced radiologists blinded for urine test results and biopsy outcome. The PI-RADS v2 was used. SelectMDx^® score, PI-RADS and Gleason Sore were obtained. Associations between Gleason Score, PI-RADS scores and SelectMDx^® were assessed using ANOVA and t-test. Sensitivity and specificity were assessed and evaluated as area-under-the-curve of the receiver operating characteristic. Upon biopsy, 59.5% of patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer, whereby 40.6% had high-grade prostate cancer (GS ≥ 7a). SelectMDx^® scores were significantly higher for patients with positive biopsy findings (49.07 ± 25.99% vs. 22.00 ± 26.43%; p < 0.001). SelectMDx^® scores increased with higher PI-RADS scores. Combining SelectMDx^®, history of prior biopsy with benign histology and PI-RADS scores into a novel scoring system led to significant prostate cancer detection rates with tiered detection rate of 39%, 58%, 81% and 100% for Gleason grade group II, III, IV, and V, respectively. The area-under-the-curve for our novel sum score in receiver operating characteristic analysis was 0.84. The synergistic combination of two non-invasive tests into a sum score with increased sensitivity may help avoiding unnecessary biopsies for initial prostate cancer diagnosis. For confirmation, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes and univariate and multivariate regression analyses and decision curve analyses are required.

Characterization of the Tumor Microenvironment and the Biological Processes with a Role in Prostatic Tumorigenesis

Prostate intratumoral heterogeneity, driven by epithelial−mesenchymal plasticity, contributes to the limited treatment response, and it is therefore necessary to use the biomarkers to improve patient prognostic survival. We aimed to characterize the tumor microenvironment (T lymphocyte infiltration, intratumoral CD34, and KI-67 expressions) by immunohistochemistry methods and to study the biological mechanisms (cell cycle, cell proliferation by adhesion glycoproteins, cell apoptosis) involved in the evolution of the prostate tumor process by flow-cytometry techniques. Our results showed that proliferative activity (S-phase) revealed statistically significant lower values of prostate adenocarcinoma (PCa) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) reported at non-malignant adjacent cell samples (PCa 4.32 ± 4.91; BPH 2.35 ± 1.37 vs. C 10.23 ± 0.43, p < 0.01). Furthermore, 68% of BPH cases and 88% of patients with PCa had aneuploidy. Statistically increased values of cell proliferation (CD34+ CD61+) were observed in prostate adenocarcinoma and hyperplasia cases reported to non-malignant adjacent cell samples (PCa 28.79 ± 10.14; BPH 40.65 ± 11.88 vs. C 16.15 ± 2.58, p < 0.05). The CD42b+ cell population with a role in cell adhesion, and metastasis had a significantly increased value in PCa cases (38.39 ± 11.23) reported to controls (C 26.24 ± 0.62, p < 0.01). The intratumoral expression of CD34 showed a significantly increased pattern of PCa tissue samples reported to controls (PCa 26.12 ± 6.84 vs. C 1.50 ± 0.70, p < 0.01). Flow cytometric analysis of the cell cycle, apoptosis, and adhesion glycoproteins with a critical role in tumoral cell proliferation, T cell infiltrations, Ki-67, and CD 34 expressions by IHC methods are recommended as techniques for the efficient means of measurement for adenocarcinoma and hyperplasia prostate tissue samples and should be explored in the future.

Improving the Early Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men in the Challenging Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 3 Category

Background

Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 3 is a challenging scenario for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and some tools can improve the selection of appropriate candidates for prostate biopsy.

Objective

To assess the performance of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) model, the new Proclarix test, and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) in selecting candidates for prostate biopsy among men in the PI-RADS 3 category.

Design, setting, and participants

We conducted a head-to-head prospective analysis of 567 men suspected of having PCa for whom guided and systematic biopsies were scheduled between January 2018 and March 2020 in a single academic institution. A PI-RADS v.2 category 3 lesion was identified in 169 men (29.8%).

Outcome measurement and statistical analysis

csPCa, insignificant PCa (iPCa), and unnecessary biopsy rates were analysed. csPCa was defined as grade group ≥2. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, decision curve analysis curves, and clinical utility curves were plotted.

Results and limitations

PCa was detected in 53/169 men (31.4%) with a PI-RADS 3 lesion, identified as csPCa in 25 (14.8%) and iPCa in 28 (16.6%). The area under the ROC curve for csPCa detection was 0.703 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.621–0.768) for Proclarix, 0.657 (95% CI 0.547–0.766) for the ERSPC MRI model, and 0.612 (95% CI 0.497–0.727) for PSAD (p = 0.027). The threshold with the highest sensitivity was 10% for Proclarix, 1.5% for the ERSPC MRI model, and 0.07 ng/ml/cm³ for PSAD, which yielded sensitivity of 100%, 91%, and 84%, respectively. Some 21.3%, 26.2%, and 7.1% of biopsies would be avoided with Proclarix, PSAD, and the ERSPC MRI model, respectively. Proclarix showed a net benefit over PSAD and the ERSPC MRI model. Both Proclarix and PSAD reduced iPCa overdetection from 16.6% to 11.3%, while the ERSPC MRI model reduced iPCa overdetection to 15.4%.

Conclusions

Proclarix was more accurate in selecting appropriate candidates for prostate biopsy among men in the PI-RADS 3 category when compared to PSAD and the ERSPC MRI model. Proclarix detected 100% of csPCa cases and would reduce prostate biopsies by 21.3% and iPCa overdetection by 5.3%.

Patient summary

We compared three methods and found that the Proclarix test can optimise the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in men with a score of 3 on the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System for magnetic resonance imaging scans.

Who with suspected prostate cancer can benefit from Proclarix after multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging?

Proclarix is a new blood-based test to assess the likelihood of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) defined as >2 grade group. In this study, we analyzed whether Proclarix and PSA density (PSAD) could improve the selection of candidates for prostate biopsy after multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Proclarix and PSAD were assessed in 567 consecutive men with suspected PCa in whom pre-biopsy 3 Tesla mpMRI, scoring with Prostate Imaging-Report and Data System (PI-RADS) v.2, and guided and/or systematic biopsies were performed. Proclarix and PSAD thresholds having csPCa sensitivity over 90% were found at 10% and 0.07 ng/(mL*cm³), respectively. Among 100 men with negative mpMRI (PI-RADS <3), csPCa was detected in 6 cases, which would have been undetected if systematic biopsies were avoided. However, Proclarix suggested performing a biopsy on 70% of men with negative mpMRI. In contrast, PSAD only detected 50% of csPCa and required 71% of prostate biopsies. In 169 men with PI-RADS 3, Proclarix avoided 21.3% of prostate biopsies and detected all 25 cases of csPCa, while PSAD avoided 26.3% of biopsies, but missed 16% of csPCa. In 190 men with PI-RADS 4 and 108 with PI-RADS 5, Proclarix avoided 12.1% and 5.6% of prostate biopsies, but missed 4.8% and 1% of csPCa, respectively. PSAD avoided 18.4% and 9.3% of biopsies, but missed 11.4% and 4.2% csPCa, respectively. We conclude that Proclarix outperformed PSAD in the selection of candidates for prostate biopsy, especially in men with PI-RADS <3.

Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Models in Prostate Cancer: Exploring New Developments in Testing and Diagnosis

OBJECTIVES

Recent innovations in prostate cancer diagnosis include new biomarkers and more accurate biopsy methods. This study assesses the evidence base on cost-effectiveness of these developments (eg, Prostate Health Index and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]-guided biopsy) and identifies areas of improvement for future cost-effectiveness models.

METHODS

A systematic review using the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Health Technology Assessment databases, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and United Kingdom National Screening Committee guidance was performed, between 2009 and 2021. Relevant data were extracted on study type, model inputs, modeling methods and cost-effectiveness conclusions, and results narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 22 model-based economic evaluations were included. A total of 11 compared the cost-effectiveness of new biomarkers to prostate-specific antigen testing alone and all found biomarkers to be cost saving. A total of 8 compared MRI-guided biopsy methods to transrectal ultrasound-guided methods and found MRI-guided methods to be most cost-effective. Newer detection methods showed a reduction in unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment. The most cost-effective follow-up strategy in men with a negative initial biopsy was uncertain. Many studies did not model for stage or grade of cancer, cancer progression, or the entire testing and treatment pathway. Few fully accounted for uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

This review brings together the cost-effectiveness literature for novel diagnostic methods in prostate cancer, showing that most studies have found new methods to be more cost-effective than standard of care. Several limitations of the models were identified, however, limiting the reliability of the results. Areas for further development include accurately modeling the impact of early diagnostic tests on long-term outcomes of prostate cancer and fully accounting for uncertainty.

The Efficacy of Proclarix to Select Appropriate Candidates for Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Derived Prostate Biopsies in Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To analyze how Proclarix is valuable to appropriately select candidates for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and derived biopsies, among men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). Proclarix is a new marker computing the clinically significant PCa (csPCa) risk, based on serum thosmbospondin-1, cathepsin D, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and percent free PSA, in addition to age, that has been developed in men with serum PSA 2 to 10 ng/mL, prostate volume ≥35 mL, and normal digital rectal examination (DRE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Proclarix score (0%-100%) is analyzed in a prospective frozen serum collection of 517 correlative men scheduled for guided and/or systematic biopsies after mpMRI. Outcome variables were csPCa detection (grade group ≥2), insignificant PCa (iPCa) overdetection and avoided mpMRIs.

RESULTS

The area under the curve of Proclarix was 0.701 (95% CI 0.637-0.765) among 281 men with serum PSA 2 to 10 ng/mL, prostate volume ≥35 mL, and -normal DRE, and 0.754 (95% CI 0.701-0.807) in the others, p=0.038. Net benefit of Proclarix existed in all men. After selecting 10% threshold, Proclarix was integrated in an algorithm which also used the serum PSA level and DRE. A reduction of 25.4% of mpMRIs request was observed and 17.7% of prostate biopsies. Overdetection of iPCa was reduced in 18.2% and 2.6% of csPCa were misdiagnosed.

CONCLUSIONS

Proclarix is valuable in all men with suspected PCa. An algorithm integrating Proclarix score, serum PSA, and DRE can avoid mpMRI requests, unnecessary prostate biopsies and iPCa overdetection, with minimal loss of csPCa detection.

Economic Evaluation of Transperineal versus Transrectal Devices for Local Anaesthetic Prostate Biopsies

BACKGROUND

Biopsy of the prostate for suspected cancer is usually performed transrectally under local anaesthesia in the outpatient clinic setting. As this involves piercing the bowel wall, the procedure is associated with a risk of infection. Recently, devices that facilitate transperineal biopsy approaches have been developed that avoid piercing the bowel and so should reduce the risk of infection.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of transperineal versus transrectal ultrasound-guided local anaesthesia procedures for prostate biopsy from the perspective of the UK NHS and to estimate the value of further research in the area.

METHODS

a) Decision tree and Markov model synthesising all relevant evidence estimating the life-time costs and QALYs accrued from each biopsy mode. b) Value of information analysis to predict the return from further research and thus guide future research efforts.

RESULTS

Transperineal biopsy yields an ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained at a per-procedure device acquisition cost below £81, or £41 for cost-neutrality. These results are driven by differences in consumables cost, reduced cost of treating infections, and QALY gains associated with reduced infections. There is value in future research on the diagnostic accuracy of transperineal versus transrectal biopsies and the incidence of iatrogenic infection and sepsis; consideration should be given to enriching the patient population with men with intermediate-risk disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Transperineal biopsy devices may be cost effective compared with transrectal biopsy at per-procedure acquisition costs below £81 and cost-neutral if under £41. Future research is required to confirm or refute these findings, particularly randomised comparisons of the diagnostic accuracy and infection risks between the methods.

Future perspective of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer

Objective

To summarize the recent literature discussing focal therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Methods

A thorough literature review was performed using PubMed to identify recent studies involving focal therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Results

In an effort to decrease the morbidity associated with prostate cancer treatment, many urologists are turning to focal therapy as an alternative treatment option. With this approach, the cancer bearing portion of the prostate is targeted while leaving the benign tissue untouched. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging remains the gold standard for visualization during focal therapy, but new imaging modalities such as prostate specific membrane antigen/positron emission tomography and contrast enhanced ultrasound are being investigated. Furthermore, several biomarkers, such as prostate cancer antigen 3 and prostate health index, are used in conjunction with imaging to improve risk stratification prior to focal therapy. Lastly, there are several novel technologies such as nanoparticles and transurethral devices that are under investigation for use in focal therapy.

Conclusion

Focal therapy is proving to be a promising option for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. However, further study is needed to determine the true efficacy of these exciting new technologies.

Fascin-1 and its role as a serological marker in prostate cancer: a prospective case-control study

Aim:

This study aims to investigate any modification of serological FSCN1 in prostate cancer patients compared with patients without neoplasia.

Material & methods:

Clinical data and blood specimens from patients with and without prostate cancer were obtained. A quantitative sandwich ELISA method was used to determine serological values of FSCN1.

Results:

Although serum values of FSCN1 were dissimilar in the two cohorts of patients (6.90 vs 7.33 ng/ml), the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.20). Serum values of FSCN1 stratified for Gleason score groups were not significantly distinguishable (p = 0.65). A negative correlation (rho = -0.331; p = 0.009) was reported between FSCN1 and age.

Conclusion:

Further studies are required to evaluate a possible diagnostic role of FSCN1 in prostate cancer.

FSCN1 is a potential novel biomarker that we investigated in patients with prostate cancer and evaluated in serum through a quantitative assay. Although FSCN1 serum values were dissimilar between patients with and without prostate cancer (with lower values in the first group), data are currently inconclusive. A negative correlation between FSCN1 and age was instead reported. Further studies are required to investigate a possible diagnostic role of FSCN1.

Cancer nanotechnology: current status and perspectives

Modern medicine has been waging a war on cancer for nearly a century with no tangible end in sight. Cancer treatments have significantly progressed, but the need to increase specificity and decrease systemic toxicities remains. Early diagnosis holds a key to improving prognostic outlook and patient quality of life, and diagnostic tools are on the cusp of a technological revolution. Nanotechnology has steadily expanded into the reaches of cancer chemotherapy, radiotherapy, diagnostics, and imaging, demonstrating the capacity to augment each and advance patient care. Nanomaterials provide an abundance of versatility, functionality, and applications to engineer specifically targeted cancer medicine, accurate early-detection devices, robust imaging modalities, and enhanced radiotherapy adjuvants. This review provides insights into the current clinical and pre-clinical nanotechnological applications for cancer drug therapy, diagnostics, imaging, and radiation therapy.

PMP(Porphyrin-Micelle-PSMA) Nanoparticles for Photoacoustic and Ultrasound Signal Amplification in Mouse Prostate Cancer Xenografts

Photoacoustic (PA) imaging is used widely in cancer diagnosis. However, the availability of PA agents has not made great progress due to the limitations of the one currently in use, porphyrin. Porphyrin-Micelle (PM), developed by synthesizing porphyrin and PEG-3.5k, confirmed the amplification of the PA agent signal, and added binding affinity in an LNCaP model by attaching prostate-specific membrane antigen PSMA. Compared to the previously used porphyrin, a superior signal was confirmed, and the potential of PMP was confirmed when it showed a signal superior to that of hemoglobin at the same concentration. In addition, in the in vivo mouse experiment, it was confirmed that the signal in the LNCaP xenograft model was stronger than that in the PC-3 xenograft model, and the PMP signal was about three times higher than that of PM and porphyrin.

Tumour markers of prostate cancer: The post-PSA era

Although PSA-based prostate cancer (PCa) screening had a positive impact in reducing PCa mortality, it also led to overdiagnosis, overtreatment and to a significant number of unnecessary biopsies. In the post-PSA era, new biomarkers have emerged that can complement the information given by PSA, towards a better cancer diagnostic specificity, and also allow a better estimate of the aggressiveness of the disease and its clinical outcome. That means those markers have the potential to assist the clinician in the decision-making processes, such as whether or not to perform a biopsy, and to make the best treatment choice among the new therapeutic options available, including active surveillance (AS) in lower risk disease. In this article, we will review several of those more recent diagnostic markers (4Kscore®, [-2]proPSA and Prostate Health Index (PHI), SelectMDx®, ConfirmMDx®, Progensa® Prostate Cancer Antigen 3, Mi-Prostate Score, ExoDx™ Prostate Test, the Stockholm-3 test and ERSPC risk calculators) and prognostic markers (OncotypeDX® Genomic Prostate Score, Prolaris®, Decipher® and ProMark®). We will also address some new liquid biopsy approaches - circulating tumour cells and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) - with a potential role in metastatic castration-resistant PCa and will briefly give some future perspectives, mostly outlooking epigenetic markers.

The use of molecular biomarker tests: an interview study with healthcare providers about a molecular biomarker test for prostate cancer

Aim: Investigate why healthcare providers are not always willing to use molecular biomarker tests, even though they promise to personalize disease diagnosis and treatment. Materials & methods: We interviewed 20 Dutch urological healthcare providers to ascertain why they used or did not use SelectMDx, a biomarker test for prostate cancer. Results: Whether and how it was used differed from the developers' expectations, because users and nonusers disagreed about its perceived advantages; the scientific and clinical evidence; the advantages of MRI; and the value of PCA3 testing. Financial issues and the absence of SelectMDx in professional guidelines and hospital care pathways also hampered its use. Conclusion: Eliciting users' and nonusers' views is important to better understand how biomarker tests can be embedded in clinical practice.

Tissue- and Liquid-Based Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine

Worldwide, prostate cancer (PC) is the second-most-frequently diagnosed male cancer and the fifth-most-common cause of all cancer-related deaths. Suspicion of PC in a patient is largely based upon clinical signs and the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Although PSA levels have been criticised for a lack of specificity, leading to PC over-diagnosis, it is still the most commonly used biomarker in PC management. Unfortunately, PC is extremely heterogeneous, and it can be difficult to stratify patients whose tumours are unlikely to progress from those that are aggressive and require treatment intensification. Although PC-specific biomarker research has previously focused on disease diagnosis, there is an unmet clinical need for novel prognostic, predictive and treatment response biomarkers that can be used to provide a precision medicine approach to PC management. In particular, the identification of biomarkers at the time of screening/diagnosis that can provide an indication of disease aggressiveness is perhaps the greatest current unmet clinical need in PC management. Largely through advances in genomic and proteomic techniques, exciting pre-clinical and clinical research is continuing to identify potential tissue, blood and urine-based PC-specific biomarkers that may in the future supplement or replace current standard practices. In this review, we describe how PC-specific biomarker research is progressing, including the evolution of PSA-based tests and those novel assays that have gained clinical approval. We also describe alternative diagnostic biomarkers to PSA, in addition to biomarkers that can predict PC aggressiveness and biomarkers that can predict response to certain therapies. We believe that novel biomarker research has the potential to make significant improvements to the clinical management of this disease in the near future.

Prostate Cancer Liquid Biopsy Biomarkers' Clinical Utility in Diagnosis and Prognosis

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men worldwide. The current gold standard for diagnosing PCa relies on a transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic core needle biopsy indicated after detection changes in a digital rectal examination (DRE) and elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level in the blood serum. PSA is a marker produced by prostate cells, not just cancer cells. Therefore, an elevated PSA level may be associated with other symptoms such as benign prostatic hyperplasia or inflammation of the prostate gland. Due to this marker's low specificity, a common problem is overdiagnosis, which leads to unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment. This is associated with various treatment complications (such as bleeding or infection) and generates unnecessary costs. Therefore, there is no doubt that the improvement of the current procedure by applying effective, sensitive and specific markers is an urgent need. Several non-invasive, cost-effective, high-accuracy liquid biopsy diagnostic biomarkers such as Progensa PCA3, MyProstateScore ExoDx, SelectMDx, PHI, 4K, Stockholm3 and ConfirmMDx have been developed in recent years. This article compares current knowledge about them and their potential application in clinical practice.

Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: Role of Available Biomarkers in Daily Practice

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. The diagnosis is currently based on PSA levels, which are associated with overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Moreover, most PCas are localized tumours; hence, many patients with low-/very low-risk PCa could benefit from active surveillance (AS) programs instead of more aggressive, active treatments. Heterogeneity within inclusion criteria and follow-up strategies are the main controversial issues that AS presently faces. Many biomarkers are currently under investigation in this setting; however, none has yet demonstrated enough diagnostic ability as an independent predictor of pathological or clinical progression. This work aims to review the currently available literature on tissue, blood and urine biomarkers validated in clinical practice for the management of AS patients.

Prospective assessment of two-gene urinary test with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate for men undergoing primary prostate biopsy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx and its association with multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMRI) in predicting prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) on prostate biopsies among men scheduled for initial prostate biopsy.

METHODS

In this single-center prospective study, 52 men scheduled for initial prostate biopsy, based on elevated total PSA level (> 3 ng/ml) or abnormal digital rectal examination, were consecutively included. All subjects underwent SelectMDx, PSA determination and mpMRI.

RESULTS

SelectMDx score was positive in 94.1 and 100% of PCa and csPCa, respectively, and in only 8.6% of negative cases at biopsy. The probability for a csPCa at the SelectMDx score was significantly (p = 0.002) higher in csPCa (median value 52.0%) than in all PCa (median value 30.0%). SelectMDx showed slightly lower sensitivity (94.1 versus 100.0%) but higher specificity (91.4%) than total PSA (17.1%), and the same sensitivity but higher specificity than mpMRI (80.0%) in predicting PCa at biopsy. The association of SelectMDx plus mpMRI rather than PSA density (PSAD) plus mpMRI showed higher specificity (both 91.4%) compared to the association of PSA plus mpMRI (85.7%). In terms of csPCa predictive value, SelectMDx showed higher specificity (73.3%) than PSA (13.3%) and mpMRI (64.4%); as for the association of SelectMDx plus mpMRI (75.6%) versus PSA plus mpMRI (68.9%), the association of PSAD plus mpMRI showed the highest specificity (80.0%).

CONCLUSION

Our results of SelectMDx can be confirmed as significant but their impact on clinical practice together with a cost-effectiveness evaluation should be investigated in a larger prospective multicenter analysis.

Clinical use of the SelectMDx urinary-biomarker test with or without mpMRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: a prospective, multicenter study in biopsy-naïve men

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.

SelectMDx and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate for Men Undergoing Primary Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective Assessment in a Multi-Institutional Study

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing as the sole indication for prostate biopsy lacks specificity, resulting in overdiagnosis of indolent prostate cancer (PCa) and missing clinically significant PCa (csPCa). SelectMDx is a biomarker-based risk score to assess urinary HOXC6 and DLX1 mRNA expression combined with traditional clinical risk factors. The aim of this prospective multi-institutional study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx and its association with multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMRI) when predicting PCa in prostate biopsies. Overall, 310 consecutive subjects were included. All patients underwent mpMRI and SelectMDx prior to prostate biopsy. SelectMDx and mpMRI showed sensitivity and specificity of 86.5% vs. 51.9%, and 73.8% vs. 88.3%, respectively, in predicting PCa at biopsy, and 87.1% vs. 61.3%, and 63.7% vs. 83.9%, respectively, in predicting csPCa at biopsy. SelectMDx was revealed to be a good predictor of PCa, while with regards to csPCa detection, it was demonstrated to be less effective, showing results similar to mpMRI. With analysis of strategies assessed to define the best diagnostic strategy to avoid unnecessary biopsy, SelectMDx appeared to be a reliable pathway after an initial negative mpMRI. Thus, biopsy could be proposed for all cases of mpMRI PI-RADS 4-5 score, and to those with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 1-3 score followed by a positive SelectMDx.

Health Economic Evidence for Liquid- and Tissue-based Molecular Tests that Inform Decisions on Prostate Biopsies and Treatment of Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Context

Several liquid- and tissue-based biomarker tests (LTBTs) are available to inform the need for prostate biopsies and treatment of localised prostate cancer (PCa) through risk stratification, but translation into routine practice requires evidence of their clinical utility and economic impact.

Objective

To review and summarise the health economic evidence on the ability of LTBTs to inform decisions on prostate biopsies and treatment of localised PCa through risk stratification.

Evidence acquisition

A systematic search was performed in the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Health Technology Assessment, and National Health Service Health Economic Evaluation databases. Eligible publications were those presenting health economic evaluations of an LTBT to select individuals for biopsy or risk-stratify PCa patients for treatment. Data on the study objectives, context, methodology, clinical utility, and outcomes were extracted and summarised.

Evidence synthesis

Of the 22 studies included, 14 were focused on test-informed biopsies and eight on treatment selection. Most studies performed cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 7), followed by costing (n = 4) or budget impact analyses (n = 3). Most (18 of 22) studies concluded that biomarker tests could decrease health care costs or would be cost-effective. However, downstream consequences and long-term outcomes were typically not included in studies that evaluated LTBT to inform biopsies. Long-term effectiveness was modelled by linking evidence from different sources instead of using data from prospective studies.

Conclusions

Although studies concluded that LTBTs would probably be cost-saving or -effective, the strength of this evidence is disputable because of concerns around the validity and transparency of the assumptions made. This warrants prospective interventional trials to inform health economic analyses to ensure collection of direct evidence of clinical outcomes based on LTBT use.

Patient summary

We reviewed studies that evaluated whether blood, urine, and tissue tests can reduce the health and economic burden of prostate cancer. Results indicate that these tests could be cost-effective, but clinical studies of long-term outcomes are needed to confirm the findings.

When Tissue is an Issue the Liquid Biopsy is Nonissue: A Review

Precision medicine has impacted the field of medical oncology by introducing personalized therapies, improving all measurable outcomes. This field, in turn, has expanded to obtaining and analyzing a vast and ever-increasing amount of genomic information. One technique currently applied is the liquid biopsy, which consists of detecting and isolating DNA and exosomes in cancer patients. Newly developed techniques have made it possible to use the liquid biopsy in a wide range of settings. However, challenges regarding the validation of its clinical utility exist because of a lack of standardization across different techniques and tumor types, confounder genomic information, lack of appropriate clinical trial designs, and a non-measured, and therefore not estimated, economic impact on population health. Nowadays, liquid biopsy is not routinely used, but ongoing research is increasing its popularity, and a new era in oncology is developing. Therefore, it is essential to have an in-depth understanding of the liquid biopsy technique. In this review, we summarize the leading techniques and liquid biopsy applications in cancer.

A Predictive Model Based on Bi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Clinical Parameters for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Korean Population

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop and validate a predictive model for the assessment of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men, prior to prostate biopsies, based on bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) and clinical parameters.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 300 men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥ 4.0 ng/mL and/or abnormal findings in a digital rectal examination), who underwent bpMRI-ultrasound fusion transperineal targeted and systematic biopsies in the same session, at a Korean university hospital. Predictive models, based on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems scores of bpMRI and clinical parameters, were developed to detect csPCa (intermediate/high grade [Gleason score ≥ 3+4]) and compared by analyzing the areas under the curves and decision curves.

RESULTS

A predictive model defined by the combination of bpMRI and clinical parameters (age, PSA density) showed high discriminatory power (area under the curve, 0.861) and resulted in a significant net benefit on decision curve analysis. Applying a probability threshold of 7.5%, 21.6% of men could avoid unnecessary prostate biopsy, while only 1.0% of significant prostate cancers were missed.

CONCLUSION

This predictive model provided a reliable and measurable means of risk stratification of csPCa, with high discriminatory power and great net benefit. It could be a useful tool for clinical decision-making prior to prostate biopsies.

Advances in the diagnostic options for prostate cancer

Over the past decade, despite the controversies surrounding prostate cancer screening, significant refinements have improved its application. PSA screening, although it has been questioned, appears to confer a mortality benefit and remains the most effective way to identify the possible presence of prostate cancer. Methods to improve the specificity of PSA screening and limit overdiagnosis of indolent cancers, including risk-stratified screening regimens, are currently being utilized. Certain imaging modalities, such as multiparametric MRI, have proven to be excellent adjuncts providing improved risk stratification and the ability for targeted biopsies; however, concerns over variability in interpretation and generalizability persist. A number of novel biomarkers have become available with nearly all demonstrating the ability to improve upon the specificity of PSA screening; however, optimal timing, direct comparisons, and usefulness in conjunction with imaging modalities remain to be elucidated. With the improvement in testing options and recognition of the risk/benefit ratio for men undergoing screening for prostate cancer, the increasing role of shared decision making in the process is emphasized.

Biomarkers in the setting of benign prostatic hyperplasia-induced lower urinary tract symptoms: what an interventional radiologist needs to know

With increasing evidence to support prostate artery embolization (PAE) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-induced lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), Interventional Radiologists have begun to play an important role in the management of these patients. One area of knowledge needed when developing a PAE practice is knowledge of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and other biomarkers utilized to detect prostate cancer in this population and what role they should play in the work up and follow-up of patients presenting with presumed BPH-induced LUTS. Furthermore, understanding how to evaluate presumed BPH-induced LUTS and stratify the risk of prostate cancer is an important skill to develop. The goal of this review is to provide Interventional Radiologists who have begun or aim to begin a PAE practice with the information they need to know regarding PSA levels and prostate cancer risk stratification for this patient population.

An up-to-date catalogue of urinary markers for the management of prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. Poor specificity and sensitivity of total PSA often results in over and sometimes underdetection/treatment. Therefore, more specific and sensitive biomarkers for the detection and monitoring especially of clinically significant PCa as well as treatment-specific markers are much sought after. In this field, urine has emerged as a promising noninvasive source of biomarkers.

RECENT FINDINGS

RNA-based biomarkers are the most extensively studied type of urinary nucleic acids. ERG-Score/MiPS (Mi-Prostate Score) and SelectMDx might be considered as additional parameters together with clinical and imaging modalities to decrease unnecessary biopsies. miR Sentinel Tests could make it possible to accurately detect the presence of cancer and to distinguish low-grade from high-grade disease. In men with previous negative biopsies, PCA3 may suggest the need to repeat biopsy.

SUMMARY

The definitive role of these markers and their clinical benefit needs future validation.

Initial experience with SelectMDx® in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in a real-world evidence clinical practice setting

INTRODUCTION

The use of biomarkers in the detection of prostate cancer (PC) can decrease overdiagnosis and overtreatment of non-significant PC. We analyze the usefulness and applicability of the SelectMDx® marker in a routine clinical practice setting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 48 patients evaluated by the SelectMDx® test between July 2017 and April 2019. Patients were stratified into two groups according to the risk estimated by the clinically significant CP test (CS-PC): <2% or 'very low risk', and >2%. Results were expressed based on previous prostate biopsy (PB) and multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients with negative PB and normal/doubtful mpMRI had <2% risk in 7/9 cases. Patients without PB and normal/doubtful mpMRI had <2% risk in 12/18 cases, and 2/6 cases with a >2% risk presented CS-PC. Of the 14 patients with no previous PB or mpMRI, 9 had <2% risk, and 2 cases were diagnosed with PC from the group of patients (5) with risk >2%. The number of patients in the remaining subgroups is too small to draw any conclusions. In all cases with pathological digital rectal examination, the test showed a >2% PC risk.

CONCLUSION

SelectMDx® is a promising test for detecting patients with a very low risk of CS-PC, especially in patients with suspected PC, with or without negative PB, with normal/doubtful mpMRI. The presence of a pathological digital rectal examination may condition the result of the test.

Multiparametric MRI Versus SelectMDx Accuracy in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant PCa in Men Enrolled in Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND/AIM

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the urinary SelectMDx test in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men enrolled in an active surveillance (AS) protocol.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From July 2015 to July 2018, 125 men with very low-risk PCa were enrolled in the AS protocol; all patients underwent confirmatory transperineal saturation biopsy (SPBx). In the presence of PI-RADS score ≥3, a targeted MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy was added to SPBx. Post-digital rectal examination urine was collected in 45/125 (36%) patients before SPBx; the genetic urine analysis was performed using a biomarker-based risk score model, the SelectMDx, that measured mRNA levels of distal-less homeobox 1 (DLX1) and homeobox C6 (HOXC6).

RESULTS

A total of 9/45 (20%) patients were reclassified as csPCa (7 cases=Grade Group 2; 2 cases=Grade Group 3); sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI vs. SelectMDx in the diagnosis of csPCa were equal to 66.6 vs. 55.6%, 87.7 vs. 65.8%, 54.5 vs. 27.8%, 92.3 vs. 87%, 84.9 vs. 70.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

SPBx combined with MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy significantly outperformed the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx (70.3%) in the diagnosis of csPCa in men enrolled in AS.

Serum and urinary biomarkers for detection and active surveillance of prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide a comprehensive review of the available biomarkers for the detection and active surveillance of prostate cancer and simplify decision-making while choosing between them.

RECENT FINDINGS

The limitations of PSA and mpMRI and the invasive nature of prostate biopsy has led to a constant search for serum and urinary biomarkers for both the detection and monitoring during active surveillance of prostate cancer. 4K, PHI and PCA3 have been validated in prospective clinical trials for initial detection of prostate cancer and recent evidence points to potential differentiation between indolent and aggressive cancer. However, the usage in monitoring tumor dynamics is debatable because of lack of conclusive evidence. The answer to the existing problems lies in high-quality studies to establish definitive evidence and also to help choose between the plethora of biomarkers available today.

SUMMARY

Despite the advancements in innovation and usage of biomarkers in prostate cancer, there exists tremendous potential in improving them to fulfil the unmet need that exists today. Studies to establish conclusive evidence and integration with imaging can tremendously aid diagnosis and monitoring.

Challenges and opportunities of cfDNA analysis implementation in clinical practice: Perspective of the International Society of Liquid Biopsy (ISLB)

Precision medicine was born with the development of new diagnostic techniques and targeted drugs, yielding better outcomes in cancer care. With the evolution and increasing sensitivity for detecting oncogenic drivers, liquid biopsies (LBs), specifically cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis, have been proposed as a minimally-invasive technique for genomic profiling. Ranging from sequencing techniques to PCR-based methods and other more complex strategies, this approach, currently applicable in some solid tumors with robust evidence, is showing promising opportunities in other cancers. However, difficulties in validating their clinical utility exist within limitation at different levels among several techniques, reporting of the results, lack of appropriate clinical trial designs, and unknown economic impact. One of the aims of the ISLB is to create recommendations to develop reliable and sustainable diagnostic, prognostic and predictive tools using LBs. This paper is addressing these objectives, helping the healthcare providers and scientific community to understand the potential of LB.

Validation of a 2-gene mRNA urine test for the detection of ≥GG2 prostate cancer in an opportunistic screening population

BACKGROUND

A 2-gene urine-based molecular test that targets messenger RNAs known to be overexpressed in aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) has been described as a helpful method for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (grade group [GG] ≥2). We performed an external validation of this test in men undergoing initial prostate biopsy (Bx) within a Spanish opportunistic screening scenario.

METHODS

We analyzed archived samples from 492 men who underwent prostate Bx in an opportunistic screening scenario, with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 3 to 10 ng/mL and/or suspicious digital rectal exploration (DRE) and without previous multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Urinary biomarker measurements were combined with clinical risk factors to determine a risk score, and accuracy for GG ≥ 2 PCa detection was compared with PCA3, European randomized screening in prostate cancer (ERSPC), and prostate biopsy collaborative group (PBCG) risk calculators in a validation workup that included calibration, discrimination, and clinical utility analysis.

RESULTS

In our cohort, the detection rates for GG1 and GG ≥ 2 PCa were 20.3% and 14.0%, respectively. The median PSA level was 3.9 ng/mL and 13.4% of subjects had suspicious DRE findings. The median risk score for men with GG ≥ 2 PCa was 21 (interquartile range: 14-28), significantly higher than benign+GG1 PCa (10, 6-18), P < .001, achieving the highest area under the curve among the models tested, 0.749 (95% confidence interval: 0.690-0.807). The urine test was well-calibrated, while ERSPC showed a slight underestimation and PBCG a slight overestimation of risk. Assuming a GG2 non-detection rate of 11% without using mpMRI, use of the urinary biomarker-based clinical model could have helped avoid 37.2% of excess biopsies while delaying the diagnosis of eight patients (1.6% of the entire cohort) with GG ≥ 2 PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first evaluation in an opportunistic screening population, the urinary biomarker-based test improved the detection of clinically significant PCa. Facing men with elevated PSA and/or suspicious DRE, it could be a useful tool to help avoid excess initial Bx and to identify patients most likely to benefit from Bx.

Serum and urine biomarkers for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer

Since the "prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era," we have seen an increase in unnecessary biopsies, which has ultimately lead to an overtreatment of low-risk cancers. Given the limitations of prostate-specific antigen and the invasive nature of prostate biopsy several serum and urinary biomarkers have been developed. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of the available biomarkers for the detection clinically significant prostate cancer namely PHI, 4Kscore, PCA3, MiPS, SelectMDx, ExosomeDX. Current literature suggests that these biomarkers can improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer reducing overtreatment and making treatment strategies more cost-effective. Nevertheless, large prospective studies with head-to-head-comparisons of the available biomarkers are necessary to fully assess the potential of incorporating biomarkers in routine clinical practice.

All change in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway

Following detection of high levels of serum prostate-specific antigen, many men are advised to have transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in an attempt to locate a cancer. This nontargeted approach lacks accuracy and carries a small risk of potentially life-threatening sepsis. Worse still, it can detect clinically insignificant cancer cells, which are unlikely to be the origin of advanced-stage disease. The detection of these indolent cancer cells has led to overdiagnosis, one of the major problems of contemporary medicine, whereby many men with clinically insignificant disease are advised to undergo unnecessary radical surgery or radiotherapy. Advances in imaging and biomarker discovery have led to a revolution in prostate cancer diagnosis, and nontargeted prostate biopsies should become obsolete. In this Perspective article, we describe the current diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer, which relies on nontargeted biopsies, and the problems linked to this pathway. We then discuss the utility of prebiopsy multiparametric MRI and novel tumour markers. Finally, we comment on how the incorporation of these advances into a new diagnostic pathway will affect the current risk-stratification system and explore future challenges.

The Urinary Transcriptome as a Source of Biomarkers for Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer of men and is typically slow-growing and asymptomatic. The use of blood PSA as a screening method has greatly improved PCa diagnosis, but high levels of false positives has raised much interest in alternative biomarkers. We used next-generation sequencing (NGS) to elucidate the urinary transcriptome of whole urine collected from high-stage and low-stage PCa patients as well as from patients with the confounding diagnosis of benign hyperplasia (BPH). We identified and validated five differentially expressed protein-coding genes (FTH1 BRPF1, OSBP, PHC3, and UACA) in an independent validation cohort of small-volume (1 mL) centrifuged urine (n = 94) and non-centrifuged urine (n = 84) by droplet digital (dd)PCR. These biomarkers were able to discriminate between BPH and PCa patients and healthy controls using either centrifuged or non-centrifuged whole urine samples, suggesting that the urinary transcriptome is a valuable source of non-invasive biomarkers for PCa that warrants further investigation.

Clinically significant Prostate Cancer diagnosed using a urinary molecular biomarker-based risk score: two case reports

BACKGROUND

Identifying men for a repeat prostate biopsy is a conundrum to urologists. Risk calculators (RCs) such as the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) RCs have been developed to predict the outcome of prostate biopsies and have been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy compared to PSA alone. However, it was recently shown that the outcome for high-grade prostate cancer (PCa) upon biopsy tended to be underestimated in men with previous negative biopsies using ERSPC RC model 4. For these men, an individualized approach combining the clinical information with the outcome of biomarker-related urine tests may help to make a more informed decision.

CASE PRESENTATION

Two men, aged 66 and 69 respectively when presented in the clinic, show the typical dilemma of urologist and patient for electing repeat prostate biopsy. Both men had normal DRE findings, did not have a family history of PCa, presented with serum PSA values between 3 and 10 ng/ml and the first biopsies were negative for disease. The ERSPC RC4 did not indicate a biopsy in these men. The urinary molecular biomarker-based test for HOXC6 and DLX1, combining biomarker-expression profiling with clinical risk factors, resulted in SelectMDx Risk scores for these men that were higher than the cut-off of the test. Based on this outcome, mpMRI was performed with an outcome of PI-RADS ≥4 in both men. Histopathological evaluation of TRUS-guided biopsies confirmed high-grade PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

The urinary molecular biomarker-based risk score played a pivotal role in the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa whereas ERSPC RC4 outcome would not have indicated further diagnostic follow-up in these two cases. The timely diagnosis was shown to be crucial for the curative treatment by radical retropubic prostatectomy and the potential life-years gained for these two vital males.

Prediction Medicine: Biomarkers, Risk Calculators and Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Risk Stratification Tools in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis

This review discusses the most recent evidence for currently available risk stratification tools in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), and evaluates diagnostic strategies that combine these tools. Novel blood biomarkers, such as the Prostate Health Index (PHI) and 4Kscore, show similar ability to predict csPCa. Prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) is a urinary biomarker that has inferior prediction of csPCa compared to PHI, but may be combined with other markers like TMPRSS2-ERG to improve its performance. Original risk calculators (RCs) have the advantage of incorporating easy to retrieve clinical variables and being freely accessible as a web tool/mobile application. RCs perform similarly well as most novel biomarkers. New promising risk models including novel (genetic) markers are the SelectMDx and Stockholm-3 model (S3M). Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has evolved as an appealing tool in the diagnostic arsenal with even stratifying abilities, including in the initial biopsy setting. Merging biomarkers, RCs and MRI results in higher performances than their use as standalone tests. In the current era of prostate MRI, the way forward seems to be multivariable risk assessment based on blood and clinical parameters, potentially extended with information from urine samples, as a triaging test for the selection of candidates for MRI and biopsy.

A prospective randomized trial of povidone-iodine suppository before transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate a way to reduce infectious complication after transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx), we planned a randomized trial to determine whether the use of the povidone-iodine suppository is effective in preventing infectious complications.

METHODS

This study prospectively assessed 250 patients who underwent TRUS-Bx during December 2014 and May 2016. Clinical questionnaire responses and safety were evaluated. Povidone-iodine suppository after glycerin enema was performed 1 to 2 hours before TRUS-Bx. Both groups received the prophylactic antibiotics (ceftriaxone 2.0 g) 30 to 60 minutes before TRUS-Bx. No antibiotics were prescribed after TRUS-Bx.

RESULTS

The 120 were assigned in the treatment group using povidone-iodine suppository and 130 were assigned in the control group. There was no significant difference of clinicopathologic features including age, prostate-specific antigen and cancer detection rate in both groups (P > .05). No infectious and non-infectious complications were reported in both groups. Povidone-iodine suppository-related side effects were not reported. No significant differences in international prostate symptom score, sexual health inventory for men score, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life questionnaire scores were found between the 2 groups (P > .05). No changes in each questionnaire scores between before and after TRUS-Bx were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite satisfying the predefined sample size, we could not prove the hypothesis that the use of povidone-iodine suppositories after TRUS-Bx would reduce infectious complications. A large-scale, multicenter, prospective study is needed to fully evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of povidone-iodine suppository prior to TRUS-Bx.