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.

Management of men with a suspicion of prostate cancer after negative initial prostate biopsy results

INTRODUCTION

For men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA), appropriate management after negative prostate biopsy remains controversial. After determining PSA kinetics, subsequent follow-up was considered.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 115 cases with negative repeat biopsy were followed by evaluating PSA kinetics and ratio of percent free PSA (F/T) and by performing second repeat biopsy.

RESULTS

Eighteen cancer cases were diagnosed. Shorter PSA doubling times and faster velocities were found in cancer cases compared with cases without cancer. We observed a clear decrease in F/T among cancer cases.

CONCLUSIONS

To avoid unnecessary repeat biopsies, cases with a suspicion of cancer after negative biopsy can be divided into two groups: one that requires additional biopsies and one with an average change in PSA of <1 ng/ml/year and no change in F/T, which is recommended for surveillance as stable disease without biopsy over a specified time period.

Evaluation of GSTP1 and APC methylation as indicators for repeat biopsy in a high-risk cohort of men with negative initial prostate biopsies

Study Type - Diagnostic (exploratory cohort) Level of Evidence 2b What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Hypermethylation of genes such as glutathione-S-transferase P1 (GSTP1) and adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) occurs with high frequency in prostate tumour tissue but is much less common in the benign prostate; however, the potential value of gene methylation biomarkers as an adjunct to biopsy histopathology has had little study. When measured in histologically benign prostate biopsy tissue, APC gene hypermethylation was found to have high negative predictive value and high sensitivity. GSTP1 hypermethylation was found to have lower performance than APC.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of DNA methylation biomarkers in the setting of repeat biopsy in men with an initially negative prostate biopsy but a high index of suspicion for missed prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 86 men with an initial histologically negative prostate biopsy and high-risk features. All men underwent repeat 12-core ultrasonography-guided biopsy. DNA methylation of glutathione-S-transferase P1 (GSTP1) and adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) was determined using tissue from the initially negative biopsy and compared with histology of the repeat biopsy. The primary outcome was the relative negative predictive value (NPV) of APC compared with GSTP1, and its 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

On repeat biopsy, 21/86 (24%) men had prostate cancer. APC and GSTP1 methylation ratios below the threshold (predicting no cancer) produced a NPV of 0.96 and 0.80, respectively. The relative NPV was 1.2 (95% CI: 1.06-1.36), indicating APC has significantly higher NPV. Methylation ratios above the threshold yielded a sensitivity of 0.95 for APC and 0.43 for GSTP1. Combining both methylation markers produced a performance similar to that of APC alone. APC methylation patterns were consistent with a possible field effect or occurrence early in carcinogenesis.

CONCLUSIONS

APC methylation provided a very high NPV with a low percentage of false-negatives, in the first prospective study to evaluate performance of DNA methylation markers in a clinical cohort of men undergoing repeat biopsy. The potential of APC methylation to reduce unnecessary repeat biopsies warrants validation in a larger prospective cohort.

Prostate cancer detection after a negative prostate biopsy: lessons learnt in the Cleveland Clinic experience

Urologists are often faced with the dilemma of managing patients with a negative initial prostate biopsy in whom clinical or pathological risk for prostate cancer still exists. Such real-life challenging scenarios might raise questions such as: Who should undergo further biopsies? What are the optimal predictors for prostate cancer on subsequent biopsies? What is the optimal biopsy protocol that should be used? When to stop the biopsy cascade? The last decade has witnessed numerous studies that have analyzed factors conferring a significant risk for cancer discovered on repeat biopsies. We and others have developed predictive models to aid decision-making regarding pursuing further biopsies. For decades, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia has been considered a strong risk indicator for subsequent cancer. However, it has been recently shown that only through segmentation of this heterogeneous population does the real risk profile emerge. Biopsy templates underwent modification regarding the number and location of cores with emergence of the transrectal or brachytherapy grid transperineal saturation biopsy. However, the best biopsy protocol remains controversial. We have refined the initial biopsy template to a 14 core initial biopsy template that optimizes cancer detection, and have shown that transrectal saturation biopsy significantly improves cancer detection for repeat biopsy. Another concern is the overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer on repeat biopsies, so we explored ways to limit this, and to deal with its ramifications. Through carrying out a Medline literature search, we critically evaluated pertinent articles together with emphasis of our own journey in this arena to assist in the decision-making process for repeat biopsy population.