1
|
Lehto TPK, Pylväläinen J, Sandeman K, Kenttämies A, Nordling S, Mills IG, Tang J, Mirtti T, Rannikko A. Histomic and transcriptomic features of MRI-visible and invisible clinically significant prostate cancers are associated with prognosis. Int J Cancer 2024; 154:926-939. [PMID: 37767987 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.34743] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2023] [Revised: 08/27/2023] [Accepted: 09/06/2023] [Indexed: 09/29/2023]
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used to triage patients for prostate biopsy. However, 9% to 24% of clinically significant (cs) prostate cancers (PCas) are not visible in MRI. We aimed to identify histomic and transcriptomic determinants of MRI visibility and their association to metastasis, and PCa-specific death (PCSD). We studied 45 radical prostatectomy-treated patients with csPCa (grade group [GG]2-3), including 30 with MRI-visible and 15 with MRI-invisible lesions, and 18 men without PCa. First, histological composition was quantified. Next, transcriptomic profiling was performed using NanoString technology. MRI visibility-associated differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and Reactome pathways were identified. MRI visibility was classified using publicly available genes in MSK-IMPACT and Decipher, Oncotype DX, and Prolaris. Finally, DEGs and clinical parameters were used to classify metastasis and PCSD in an external cohort, which included 76 patients with metastatic GG2-4 PCa, and 84 baseline-matched controls without progression. Luminal area was lower in MRI-visible than invisible lesions and low luminal area was associated with short metastasis-free and PCa-specific survival. We identified 67 DEGs, eight of which were associated with survival. Cell division, inflammation and transcriptional regulation pathways were upregulated in MRI-visible csPCas. Genes in Decipher, Oncotype DX and MSK-IMPACT performed well in classifying MRI visibility (AUC = 0.86-0.94). DEGs improved classification of metastasis (AUC = 0.69) and PCSD (AUC = 0.68) over clinical parameters. Our data reveals that MRI-visible csPCas harbor more aggressive histomic and transcriptomic features than MRI-invisible csPCas. Thus, targeted biopsy of visible lesions may be sufficient for risk stratification in patients with a positive MRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timo-Pekka K Lehto
- Department of Pathology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Urology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Research Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Juho Pylväläinen
- Department of Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | | | - Anu Kenttämies
- Department of Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Stig Nordling
- Department of Pathology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Ian G Mills
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
- Patrik G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Jing Tang
- Research Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Biochemistry and Developmental Biology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Tuomas Mirtti
- Department of Pathology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Research Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- iCAN-Digital Precision Cancer Medicine Flagship, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Antti Rannikko
- Department of Urology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Research Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- iCAN-Digital Precision Cancer Medicine Flagship, Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chen JY, Wang PY, Liu MZ, Lyu F, Ma MW, Ren XY, Gao XS. Biomarkers for Prostate Cancer: From Diagnosis to Treatment. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13:3350. [PMID: 37958246 PMCID: PMC10649216 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13213350] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2023] [Revised: 09/26/2023] [Accepted: 10/18/2023] [Indexed: 11/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is a widespread malignancy with global significance, which substantially affects cancer-related mortality. Its spectrum varies widely, from slow-progressing cases to aggressive or even lethal forms. Effective patient stratification into risk groups is crucial to therapeutic decisions and clinical trials. This review examines a wide range of diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers, several of which are integrated into clinical guidelines, such as the PHI, the 4K score, PCA3, Decipher, and Prolaris. It also explores the emergence of novel biomarkers supported by robust preclinical evidence, including urinary miRNAs and isoprostanes. Genetic alterations frequently identified in PCa, including BRCA1/BRCA2, ETS gene fusions, and AR changes, are also discussed, offering insights into risk assessment and precision treatment strategies. By evaluating the latest developments and applications of PCa biomarkers, this review contributes to an enhanced understanding of their role in disease management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jia-Yan Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China; (J.-Y.C.); (F.L.); (M.-W.M.); (X.-Y.R.)
| | - Pei-Yan Wang
- School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA;
| | - Ming-Zhu Liu
- Clinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou 350014, China;
| | - Feng Lyu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China; (J.-Y.C.); (F.L.); (M.-W.M.); (X.-Y.R.)
| | - Ming-Wei Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China; (J.-Y.C.); (F.L.); (M.-W.M.); (X.-Y.R.)
| | - Xue-Ying Ren
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China; (J.-Y.C.); (F.L.); (M.-W.M.); (X.-Y.R.)
| | - Xian-Shu Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China; (J.-Y.C.); (F.L.); (M.-W.M.); (X.-Y.R.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ahmed ME, Todenhöfer T, Karnes RJ, Seiler R. Prognostic Role of RNA Expression Molecular Biomarkers in Prostate and Bladder Cancers. Eur Urol Focus 2022; 8:663-666. [PMID: 35843864 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.06.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2022] [Revised: 06/10/2022] [Accepted: 06/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
Prostate cancer and bladder cancer are two of the most common urologic cancers. Cancer risk stratification and prediction of prognosis have always been challenging. Following recent advances in genomic and proteomic technologies, several genomic biomarkers have been developed and proposed as a noninvasive and nonexpansive approach that can supplement our current data to improve prediction and accuracy. Several biomarkers have shown efficacy in patient risk stratification and in predicting prognosis. Here we provide a mini-review of current RNA biomarkers approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, including the Decipher, Oncotype DX Prostate, and Prolaris tests. We also provide a summary of their approved clinical utility in prostate cancer and bladder cancer management. PATIENT SUMMARY: A number of tests are available for measuring expression levels of genes related to prostate or bladder cancer. We review the usefulness of these tests in stratifying risk for patients and predicting their prognosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Roland Seiler
- Department of Urology, Hospital Center Biel, Biel, Switzerland; Translational Organoid Core, Department of BioMedical Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To review systematically the literature on genomic tests for prostate cancer (PCa) and to evaluate the current state of the evidence on their use in patients with newly diagnosed PCa. METHODS We conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central and conference abstracts from the American Urological Association, published between 2010 and 2018. Studies evaluating Prolaris, Oncotype Dx and Decipher assays were assessed for inclusion by two authors. Studies were excluded if the results were derived from surgical specimens rather than biopsy specimens. A meta-analysis was not performed owing to significant variations in methodologies, definitions and outcome measures. RESULTS A total of 729 articles were retrieved in our initial search. After removing duplicates (270) and excluding articles deemed not relevant (432), 21 full-text articles were deemed suitable for inclusion in the present analysis. The full-text articles comprised eight studies on Prolaris, eight studies on Oncotype Dx and five studies on Decipher. For each genomic test we extracted data regarding the risks of adverse pathology, biochemical recurrence, metastasis and PCa-specific mortality. CONCLUSION The results of genomic tests that use biomarkers derived from prostate biopsy can be used in conjunction with clinicopathological variables to improve our ability to risk-stratify patients with newly diagnosed PCa. Additional data are needed on the impact of using these tests on long-term patient outcomes and their cost-effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Fred LaPolla
- NYU Health Sciences Library, New York University, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Stacy Loeb
- Department of Urology and Population Health, New York University and Manhattan VA, New York, NY, USA
| | - Hasan Dani
- James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins, University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous cancer among men in the United States. In the last decade there has been a rapid expansion in the field of biomarker assays for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment prediction in prostate cancer. The evidence base for these assays is rapidly evolving. With several commercial assays available at each stage of the disease, deciding which genomic assays are appropriate for which patients can be nuanced for physicians. In an effort to help guide these decisions in clinical practice, we aim to give an update on the current status of the biomarker field of prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zachary Kornberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Matthew R Cooperberg
- Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Felix Y Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
Diagnostic biomarkers derived from blood, urine, or prostate tissue provide additional information beyond clinical calculators to determine the risk of detecting high-grade prostate cancer. Once diagnosed, multiple markers leverage prostate cancer biopsy tissue to prognosticate clinical outcomes, including adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy, disease recurrence, and prostate cancer mortality; however the clinical utility of some outcomes to patient decision making is unclear. Markers using tissue from radical prostatectomy specimens provide additional information about the risk of biochemical recurrence, development of metastatic disease, and subsequent mortality beyond existing multivariable clinical calculators (the use of a marker to simply sub-stratify risk groups such as the NCCN groups is of minimal value). No biomarkers currently available for prostate cancer have been prospectively validated to be predict an improved clinical outcome for a specific therapy based on the test result; however, further research and development of these tests may produce a truly predictive biomarker for prostate cancer treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adam J Gadzinski
- Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Matthew R Cooperberg
- Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Prostate cancer (PCa) is a common cancer in men, but variable clinical behaviors make its management challenging. Risk stratification is a key issue in disease management. Patient-tailored strategies are strongly advocated to reduce unnecessary treatment while maximizing the oncological outcomes of patient who need active treatment in the primary, adjuvant or salvage setting. Recently, tissue-based biomarkers or genomic tests have become available to improve the clinical decision-making. Areas covered: In this review, the authors present recent evidence about these tissue-based biomarkers, discussing the application of each of them in the clinical setting, focusing on the tests aimed to provide a better risk stratification and to guide decision-making after the diagnosis of PCa (i.e. OncotypeDXⓇ, ProlarisⓇ, ProMarkⓇ, Ki-67, DecipherⓇ, PTEN, PORTOS, AR-V7 and DNA repair gene mutations). Expert commentary: Even if the clinicopathologic features are still the most frequently-used predictors of disease progression, these tools can be helpful in decision-making at every stage of the PCa management. Actually, OncotypeDXⓇ, ProlarisⓇ and DecipherⓇ are recommended in the clinical setting by guidelines at different steps of PCa management. Consequently, further studies are indispensable to better tailor the right therapy for the right patient and at the right time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michele Colicchia
- a Department of Urology , Mayo Clinic Rochester , Rochester , MN , USA
| | - Alessandro Morlacco
- b Department of Surgical Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences , Urology University of Padua , Padua , Italy
| | - John C Cheville
- c Department of Pathology , Mayo Clinic and Mayo Medical School , Rochester , MN , USA
| | - R Jeffrey Karnes
- a Department of Urology , Mayo Clinic Rochester , Rochester , MN , USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Alford AV, Brito JM, Yadav KK, Yadav SS, Tewari AK, Renzulli J. The Use of Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Screening and Treatment. Rev Urol 2017; 19:221-234. [PMID: 29472826 PMCID: PMC5811879 DOI: 10.3909/riu0772] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
Prostate cancer screening and diagnosis has been guided by prostate-specific antigen levels for the past 25 years, but with the most recent US Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations, as well as concerns regarding overdiagnosis and overtreatment, a new wave of prostate cancer biomarkers has recently emerged. These assays allow the testing of urine, serum, or prostate tissue for molecular signs of prostate cancer, and provide information regarding both diagnosis and prognosis. In this review, we discuss 12 commercially available biomarker assays approved for the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. The results of clinical validation studies and clinical decision-making studies are presented. This information is designed to assist urologists in making clinical decisions with respect to ordering and interpreting these tests for different patients. There are numerous fluid and biopsy-based genomic tests available for prostate cancer patients that provide the physician and patient with different information about risk of future disease and treatment outcomes. It is important that providers be able to recommend the appropriate test for each individual patient; this decision is based on tissue availability and prognostic information desired. Future studies will continue to emphasize the important role of genomic biomarkers in making individualized treatment decisions for prostate cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashley V Alford
- 1Department of Urology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York Presbyterian Hospital New York, NY
| | - Joseph M Brito
- Department of Urology, Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital Providence, RI
| | - Kamlesh K Yadav
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York, NY
| | - Shalini S Yadav
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York, NY
| | - Ashutosh K Tewari
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York, NY
| | - Joseph Renzulli
- Department of Urology, Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital Providence, RI
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Moschini M, Spahn M, Mattei A, Cheville J, Karnes RJ. Incorporation of tissue-based genomic biomarkers into localized prostate cancer clinics. BMC Med 2016; 14:67. [PMID: 27044421 PMCID: PMC4820857 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0613-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2015] [Accepted: 03/30/2016] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Localized prostate cancer (PCa) is a clinically heterogeneous disease, which presents with variability in patient outcomes within the same risk stratification (low, intermediate or high) and even within the same Gleason scores. Genomic tools have been developed with the purpose of stratifying patients affected by this disease to help physicians personalize therapies and follow-up schemes. This review focuses on these tissue-based tools. At present, four genomic tools are commercially available: Decipher™, Oncotype DX®, Prolaris® and ProMark®. Decipher™ is a tool based on 22 genes and evaluates the risk of adverse outcomes (metastasis) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Oncotype DX® is based on 17 genes and focuses on the ability to predict outcomes (adverse pathology) in very low-low and low-intermediate PCa patients, while Prolaris® is built on a panel of 46 genes and is validated to evaluate outcomes for patients at low risk as well as patients who are affected by high risk PCa and post-RP. Finally, ProMark® is based on a multiplexed proteomics assay and predicts PCa aggressiveness in patients found with similar features to Oncotype DX®. These biomarkers can be helpful for post-biopsy decision-making in low risk patients and post-radical prostatectomy in selected risk groups. Further studies are needed to investigate the clinical benefit of these new technologies, the financial ramifications and how they should be utilized in clinics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Martin Spahn
- Department of Urology, University Hospital of Bern, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Agostino Mattei
- Klinik für Urologie, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland
| | - John Cheville
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, MN, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Nickel JC, Gorin MA, Partin AW, Assimos D, Brawer M, Nicolai H, Chancellor MB, Goggins Á, Loeb S, Shapiro E. Best of the 2015 AUA Annual Meeting: Highlights From the 2015 American Urological Association Annual Meeting, May 15-19, 2015, New Orleans, LA. Rev Urol 2015; 17:179-89. [PMID: 26543434 PMCID: PMC4633663] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Dean Assimos
- University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL
| | | | - Heinz Nicolai
- Escuela de Medicina, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile
| | | | - Áine Goggins
- School of Medicine, Queen's University, Belfast, and Guy's & St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Stacy Loeb
- New York University and the Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Ellen Shapiro
- New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|