Biomarker research in prostate cancer - Towards utility, not futility

Nature Reviews Urology

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 131-138

  Oon, Sheng Fei ^a   Pennington, Stephen R ^a   Fitzpatrick, John M ^b   Watson, R William G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^b MATER MISERICORDIAE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; TUMOR MARKER;

BONE METASTASIS; CANCER INVASION; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; NOMOGRAM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; FORECASTING; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL FUTILITY; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 79952637485     PISSN: 17594812     EISSN: 17594820     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2011.11     Document Type: Review

References (74)

1. Oliver, S. E., May, M. T. & Gunnell, D. International trends in prostate-cancer mortality in the "PSA era". Int. J. Cancer 92, 893-898 (2001).
2. Baade, P. D., Coory, M. D. & Aitken, J. F. International trends in prostate-cancer mortality: the decrease is continuing and spreading. Cancer Causes Control 15, 237-241 (2004).
3. Baker, M. In biomarkers we trust? Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 297-304 (2005).
4. Partin, A. W. et al. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J. Urol. 150, 110-114 (1993).
5. Partin, A. W. et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional update. JAMA 277, 1445-1451 (1997).
6. Partin, A. W. et al. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 58, 843-848 (2001).
7. Makarov, D. V. et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 69, 1095-1101 (2007).
8. Gleason, D. F. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother. Rep. 50, 125-128 (1966).
9. Epstein, J. I., Allsbrook, W. C. Jr, Amin, M. B., Egevad, L. L. & ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 29, 1228-1242 (2005).
10. Brewster, S., Turkeri, L., Brausi, M., Ravery, V. & Djavan, B. 5A prospective survey of current prostate biopsy practices among oncological urologists. Can. J. Urol. 17, 5071-5076 (2010).
11. Thompson, I. M. Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/ml or lower. JAMA 294, 66-70 (2005).
12. Thompson, I. M. et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level ≤4.0 ng/ml. N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 2239-2246 (2004).
13. Pinsky, P. F. et al. Prostate volume and prostate-specific antigen levels in men enrolled in a large screening trial. Urology 68, 352-356 (2006).
14. Schröder, F. H. et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 1320-1328 (2009).
15. Andriole, G. L. et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 1310-1319 (2009).
16. Eckersberger, E. et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the ERSPC and PLCO trials. Rev. Urol. 11, 127-133 (2009).
17. Chodak, G. W., Keller, P. & Schoenberg, H. W. Assessment of screening for prostate cancer using the digital rectal examination. J. Urol. 141, 1136-1138 (1989).
18. Gosselaar, C., Kranse, R., Roobol, M. J., Roemeling, S. & Schröder, F. H. The interobserver variability of digital rectal examination in a large randomized trial for the screening of prostate cancer. Prostate 68, 985-993 (2008).
19. Mistry, K. & Cable, G. Meta-analysis of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination as screening tests for prostate carcinoma. J. Am. Board Fam. Pract. 16, 95-101 (2003).
20. Chodak, G. W., Keller, P. & Schoenberg, H. W. Assessment of screening for prostate cancer using the digital rectal examination. J. Urol. 141, 1136-1138 (1989).
21. Heidenreich, A. et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Prostate Cancer [online], http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/ Prostate%20Cancer%202010%20June%2017th.pdf (2011).
22. Hendrikx, A., Safarik, L. & Hammerer, P. TRUS and biopsy: practical aspects. Eur. Urol. 41, 581-704 (2002).
23. Schröder, F. H. et al. Eleven year outcome of patients with prostate cancers diagnosed during screening after initial negative sextant biopsies. Eur. Urol. 57, 256-266 (2010).
24. th edition 457-468 (Springer, New York, 2010).
25. Engelbrecht, M. R. et al. Prostate cancer staging using imaging. BJU Int. 86, 123-134 (2000).
26. Stratton, K. L. & Chang, S. S. Locally advanced prostate cancer: the role of surgical management. BJU Int. 104, 449-454 (2009).
27. Ward, J. F., Slezak, J. M., Blute, M. L., Bergstralh, E. J. & Zincke, H. Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15 year outcome. BJU Int. 95, 751-756 (2005).
28. Hsu, C. Y., Joniau, S., Oyen, R., Roskams, T. & Van Poppel, H. Outcome of surgery for clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer: a singleinstitution experience. Eur. Urol. 51, 121-128 (2007).
29. Eisenberg, M. L., Cowan, J. E., Davies, B. J., Carroll, P. R. & Shinohara, K. The importance of tumor palpability and transrectal ultrasonographic appearance in the contemporary clinical staging of prostate cancer. Urol. Oncol. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.01.005.
30. Wieder, J. A. & Soloway, M. S. Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J. Urol. 160, 299-315 (1998).
31. Joniau, S. et al. A pretreatment table for the prediction of final histopathology after radical prostatectomy in clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 51, 388-389 (2007).
32. Van Poppel, H. et al. Radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer: results of a feasibility study (EORTC 30001). Eur. J. Cancer 42, 1062-1067 (2006).
33. Touma, N. J., Izawa, J. I. & Chin, J. L. Current status of local salvage therapies following radiation failure for prostate cancer. J. Urol. 173, 373-379 (2005).
34. Villari, D. et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer with microscopic bladder neck involvement: survival and prognostic implications. BJU Int. 105, 946-950 (2010).
35. Hövels, A. M. et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin. Radiol. 63, 387-395 (2008).
36. Ordon, M. & Nam, R. K. Lymph node assessment and lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer. J. Surg. Oncol. 99, 215-224 (2009).
37. Heidenrich, A., Varga, Z. & Von Knobloch, R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastases. J. Urol. 167, 1681-1686 (2002).
38. Bader, P., Burkhard, F. C., Markwalder, R. & Studer, U. E. Disease progression and survival of patients with positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy. Is there a chance of cure? J. Urol. 169, 849-854 (2003).
39. Briganti, A. et al. Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 50, 1006-1013 (2006).
40. Briganti, A. et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 55, 1251-1265 (2009).
41. De la Taille, A. et al. Perineural invasion on prostate needle biopsy: an independent predictor of final pathologic stage. Urology 54, 1039-1043 (1999).
42. Sebo, T. J. et al. Predicting prostate carcinoma volume and stage at radical prostatectomy by assessing needle biopsy specimens for percent surface area and cores positive for carcinoma, perineural invasion, Gleason score, DNA ploidy and proliferation, and preoperative serum prostate specific antigen: a report of 454 cases. Cancer 91, 2196-2204 (2001).
43. Yu, J. B. et al. Validation of the Partin nomogram for prostate cancer in a national sample. J. Urol. 183, 105-111 (2010).
44. Bhojani, N. et al. Partin tables cannot accurately predict the pathological stage at radical prostatectomy. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 35, 123-128 (2009).
45. Bhojani, N. et al. External validation of the updated Partin tables in a cohort of French and Italian men. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 73, 347-352 (2009).
46. Fanning, D. M., Yue, F., Fitzpatrick, J. M. & Watson, R. W. Novel predictive tools for Irish radical prostatectomy pathological outcomes: development and validation. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 179, 187-195 (2010).
47. Helpap, B. & Egevad, L. Modified Gleason grading. An updated review. Histol. Histopathol. 24, 661-666 (2009).
48. Chan, T. Y., Partin, A. W., Walsh, P. C. & Epstein, J. I. Prognostic significance of Gleason Score 3+4 versus Gleason Score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 56, 823-827 (2000).
49. Epstein, J. I. An update of the Gleason grading system. J. Urol. 183, 433-440 (2010).
50. Lau, W. K. et al. Prognostic factors for survival of patients with pathological Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: differences in outcome between 3 and 4. J. Urol. 166, 1692-1697 (2001).
51. Stark, J. R. et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 3459-3464 (2009).
52. Wright, J. L. et al. Prostate cancer specific mortality and Gleason 7 disease differences in prostate cancer outcomes between cases with Gleason 4 + 3 and Gleason 3 + 4 tumors in a population based cohort. J. Urol. 182, 2702-2707 (2009).
53. Sakr, W. A. et al. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogenous entity? Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease free survival. Urology 56, 730-734 (2000).
54. Gleason, D. F. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother. Rep. 50, 125-128 (1966).
55. Glaessgen, A. et al. Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens. J. Urol. 168, 2006-2010 (2002).
56. Helpap, B. & Egevad, L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. Virchows Arch. 449, 622-627 (2006).
57. Lopez-Beltran, A., Mikuz, G., Luque, R. J., Mazzucchelli, R. & Montironi, R. Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 448, 111-118 (2006).
58. Uemura, H. et al. Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int. 103, 1190-1194 (2009).
59. Rullis, I., Schaeffer, J. A. & Lilien, O. M. Incidence of prostatic carcinoma in the elderly. Urology 6, 295-297 (1975).
60. Albertsen, P. C., Fryback, D. G., Storer, B. E., Kolon, T. F. & Fine, J. Long-term survival among men with conservatively treated localized prostate cancer. JAMA 274, 626-631 (1995).
61. Parkin, D. M., Bray, F. I. & Devesa, S. S. Cancer burden in the year 2000. The global picture. Eur. J. Cancer 37, S4-S66 (2001).
62. Dall'Era, M. A. et al. Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current literature. Cancer 112, 1650-1659 (2008).
63. Shariat, S. F., Karakiewicz, P. I., Roehrborn, C. G. & Kattan, M. W. An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer 113, 3075-3099 (2008).
64. Epstein, J. I., Walsh, P. C., Carmichael, M. & Brendler, C. B. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 271, 368-374 (1994).
65. Jeldres, C. et al. Validation of the contemporary Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men. Eur. Urol. 54, 1306-1313 (2008).
66. Lee, M. C. et al. The Epstein Criteria Predict for organ-confined but not insignificant disease and a high likelihood of cure at radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 8, 90-95 (2010).
67. Hekal, I. A. et al. Validation of Epstein criteria of insignificant prostate cancer in Middle East patients. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 42, 667-671 (2009).
68. Lee, S. E. et al. Application of the Epstein criteria for prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer in Korean men. BJU Int. 105, 1526-1530 (2010).
69. Louie-Johnsun, M., Neill, M., Treurnicht, K., Jarmulowicz, M. & Eden, C. Final outcomes of patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance but treated surgically. BJU Int. 104, 1501-1504 (2009).
70. Kattan, M. W., Eastham, J. A., Stapleton, A. M., Wheeler, T. M. & Scardino, P. T. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 90, 766-771 (1998).
71. Rouprêt, M. et al. Cross-cultural validation of a prognostic tool: example of the Kattan preoperative nomogram as a predictor of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 104, 813-817 (2009).
72. Zagars, G. K. & Pollack, A. Kinetics of serum prostate-specific antigen after external beam radiation for clinically localized prostate cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 44, 213-221 (1997).
73. Naito, S. Evaluation and management of prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Jpn J. Clin. Oncol. 35, 365-374 (2005).
74. Pound, C. R. et al. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 281, 1591-1597 (1999).