Circulating biomarkers for discriminating indolent from aggressive disease in prostate cancer active surveillance

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 293-302

  Trock, Bruce J ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

active surveillance; circulating biomarkers; Gleason upgrading; prostate cancer; prostate specific antigen kinetics

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; MESSENGER RNA; MICRORNA 141; MICRORNA 145; MICRORNA 20A; MICRORNA 21; MICRORNA 221; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; TUMOR MARKER;

BLOOD LEVEL; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; CIRCULATING TUMOR CELL; EXOSOME; HUMAN; LOW RISK POPULATION; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; REVIEW; TUMOR GROWTH; URINE LEVEL; BIOPSY; BLOOD; MALE; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; TUMOR INVASION; WATCHFUL WAITING;

BIOPSY; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; PATIENT SELECTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84898538811     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000050     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Porten SP, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, et al. Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:2795-2800.
2. Tosoian JJ, Johnbull E, Trock BJ, et al. Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. J Urol 2013; 190:1218-1222.
3. Cai Y, Wang J, Ren C, Ittman M. Frequent heterogeneous missense mutations of GGAP2 in prostate cancer: implications for tumor biology, clonality and mutation analysis. PLoS One 2012; 7:e32708.
4. Ehdaie B, Vertosick E, Spaliviero M, et al. The impact of repeat biopsies on infectious complications in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 2014; 191:660-664.
5. Braun K, Ahallal Y, Sjoberg DD, et al. Effect of repeated prostate biopsies on erectile function in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2014; 191:744-749.
6. Fujita K, McNeil BK, Pavlovich CP. Serial prostate biopsies are associated with an increased risk of erectile dysfunction in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 2009; 182:2664-2669.
7. Khan MA, Carter HB, Epstein JI, et al. Can prostate specific antigen derivatives and pathological parameters predict significant change in expectant management criteria for prostate cancer? J Urol 2003; 170:2274-2278.
8. van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K, et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localized prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 2008; 54:1297-1305.
9. Ng MK, Van As N, Thomas K, et al. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics in untreated, localized prostate cancer: PSA velocity vs PSA doubling time. BJUI 2008; 103:872-876.
10. Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Feng Z, et al. Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188:1131-1136.
11. Hirama H, Sugimoto M, Ito K, et al. The impact of baseline [-2]proPSA-related indices on the prediction of pathological reclassification at 1 year during active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: the Japanese multicenter study cohort. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2014; 140:257-263.
12. Loeb S, Carter HB. Point: Impact of prostate-specific antigen velocity on management decisions and recommendations. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2013; 11:281-285.
13. Vickers AJ, Brewster SF. PSA velocity and doubling time in diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. Br J Med Surg Urol 2012; 5:162-168.
14. van den Bergh RCN, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics in clinical decision making during active surveillance for early prostate cancer: a review. Eur Urol 2008; 54:505-516.
15. Carter HB, Walsh PC, Landis P, Epstein JI. Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results. J Urol 2002; 167:1231-1234.
16. Khatami A, Aus G, Damber JE, et al. PSA doubling time predicts the outcome after active surveillance in screening-detected prostate cancer: results from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, Sweden section. Int J Cancer 2007; 120:170-174.
17. Stephenson AJ, Aprikian AG, Souhami L, et al. Utility of PSA doubling time in follow-up of untreated patients with localized prostate cancer. Urology 2002; 59:652-656.
18. Patel MI, DeConcini DT, Lopez-Corona E, et al. An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J Urol 2004; 171:1520-1524.
19. Iremashvili V, Manoharan M, Lokeshwar SD, et al. Comprehensive analysis of postdiagnostic prostate-specific antigen kinetics as predictor of a prostate cancer progression in active surveillance patients. BJUI 2012; 111:396- 403.
20. Sengupta S, Myers RP, Slezak JM, et al. Preoperative prostate specific antigen doubling time and velocity are strong and independent predictors of outcomes following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005; 174:2191-2196.
21. Al Otaibi M, Ross P, Fahmy N, et al. Role of repeated biopsy of the prostate in predicting disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Cancer 2008; 113:286-292.
22. Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:2810-2816.
23. Kotb AF, Tanguay S, Luz MA, et al. Relationship between initial PSA density with future PSA kinetics and repeat biopsies in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Pros Dis 2011; 14:53-57.
24. Whitson JM, Porten SP, Hilton JF, et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185:1656-1660.
25. Patel HD, Feng Z, Landis P, et al. Prostate specific antigen velocity risk count predicts biopsy reclassification for men with very low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2014; 191:629-637.
26. Sokoll LJ, Wang Y, Feng Z, et al. [-2]proenzyme prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection: a National Cancer Institute Early Detection Research Network validation study. J Urol 2008; 180:539-543.
27. Makarov DV, Isharwal S, Sokoll LJ, et al. Pro-prostate-specific antigen measurements in serum and tissue are associated with treatment necessity among men enrolled in expectant management for prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15:7316-7321.
28. Isharwal S, Makarov DV, Sokoll LJ, et al. ProPSA and diagnostic biopsy tissue DNA content combination improves accuracy to predict need for prostate cancer treatment among men enrolled in an active surveillance program. Urology 2011; 77:763.e1-763.e6.
29. Shen J, Hruby GW, McKiernan JM, et al. Dysregulation of circulating micro- RNAs and prediction of aggressive prostate cancer. Prostate 2012; 72:1649-1677.
30. Nakanishi H, Groskopf J, Fritsche HA, et al. PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate cancer tumor volume: implications in selecting candidates for active surveillance. J Urol 2008; 179:1804-1809.
31. Whitman EJ, Groskopf J, Ali A, et al. PCA3 score before radical prostatectomy predicts extracapsular extension and tumor volume. J Urol 2008; 180:1975- 1978.
32. Van Poppel H, Haese A, Graefen M, et al. The relationship between prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) and prostate cancer significance. BJUI 2011; 109:360-366.
33. Hessels D, van Gils MPMQ, van Hooij O, et al. Predictive value of PCA3 in urinary sediments in determining clinic-pathological characteristics of prostate cancer. Prostate 2010; 70:10-16.
34. Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Kettermann A, et al. Accuracy of PCA3 measurement in predicting short-term biopsy progression in an active surveillance program. J Urol 2010; 183:534-538.
35. Ploussard G, Durand X, Xylinas E, et al. Prostate cancer antigen 3 score accurately predicts tumour volume and might help in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol 2011; 59:422-429.
36. Lin DW, Newcomb LF, Brown EC, et al. Urinary TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in an active surveillance cohort: results from a baseline analysis in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19:2442- 2450.
37. Cornu JN, Cancel-Tassin G, Egrot C, et al. Urine TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcript integrated with PCA3 score, genotyping, and biological features are correlated to the results of prostatic biopsies in men at risk of prostate cancer. Prostate 2013; 73:242-249.
38. Whelan C, Kawachi M, Smith DD, et al. Expressed prostatic secretion biomarkers improve stratification of NCCN active surveillance candidates: performance of secretion capacity and TMPRSS2-ERG models. J Urol 2014; 191:220-226.
39. Scher HI, Morris MJ, Larson S, Heller G. Validation and clinical utility of prostate cancer biomarkers. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2013; 10:225-234.
40. Thalgott M, Rack B, Maurer T, et al. Detection of circulating tumor cells in different stages of prostate cancer. J Cancer Clin Res 2013; 139:755-763.
41. Duijvesz D, Luider T, Bangma CH, JensterG. Exosomes as biomarker treasure chests for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011; 59:823-831.
42. Gabriel K, Ingram A, Austin R, et al. Regulation of the tumor suppressor PTEN through exosomes: a diagnostic potential for prostate cancer. PLoS One 2013; 8:e70047.
43. Dijkstra S, Birker IL, Smit FP, et al. Prostate cancer biomarker profiles in urinary sediments and exosomes. J Urol 2013. [Epub ahead of print]
44. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29:1228- 1242.
45. Faraggi D, Simon R. A simulation study of cross-validation for selecting an optimal cut-point in univariate survival analysis. Stat Med 1996; 15:2203- 2213.
46. Oh JJ, Hong SK, Lee JK, et al. Prostate-specific antigen vs prostate-specific antigen density as a predictor of upgrading in men diagnosed with Gleason 6 prostate cancer by contemporary multicore prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2012; 110 (11 Pt B):E494-E499.
47. San Francisco IF, Werner L, Regan MM, et al. Risk stratification and validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. J Urol 2011; 185:471-476.
48. Johnson SB, Jackson WC, Murgic J, et al. Time to nadir PSA. Of popes and PSA - the immortality bias. Am J Clin Oncol 2013. [Epub ahead of print]
49. Pepe MS, Janes H, Longton G, et al. Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol 2004; 159:882-890.