Современное представление о биомаркерах рака предстательной железы

Рак предстательной железы остается одним из наиболее распространенных злокачественных новообразований у мужчин и сопровождается высокими показателями смертности. Стандартные методы диагностики рака предстательной железы обладают ограниченными чувствительностью и специфичностью, часто проводятся ненужные биопсии, повышен риск гипердиагностики заболевания и чрезмерного лечения пациентов. В обзоре рассматриваются предложенные в последние годы диагностические и прогностические биологические маркеры рака предстательной железы. Анализируются теоретические основы применения новых биомаркеров. Приводятся характеристика и практическая значимость биомаркеров различных групп (иммуногистохимических, молекулярно-генетических, ассоциированных с простатическим специфическим антигеном, летучих органических метаболитов). Актуализируется необходимость дальнейших широкомасштабных научных исследований в области применения биомаркеров при раке предстательной железы, критериев их выбора и оценки. Внедрение в реальную клиническую практику современных диагностических и прогностических маркеров открывает новые возможности для улучшения диагностики рака предстательной железы, индивидуального определения прогноза заболевания и обоснования лечебной стратегии.

1. Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71(3):209–49. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660

2. Злокачественные новообразования в России в 2021 году (заболеваемость и смертность). Под ред. А.Д. Каприна, В.В. Старинского, А.О. Шахзадовой. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена – филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России, 2022. 252 с.

3. Dudka I., Thysell E., Lundquist K. et al. Comprehensive metabolomics analysis of prostate cancer tissue in relation to tumor aggressiveness and TMPRSS2-ERG fusion status. BMC Cancer 2020;20(1):437. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-06908-z

4. Рак предстательной железы. Клинические рекомендации. 2021. 124 с.

5. Lima A.R., Pinto J, Amaro F. et al. Advances and Perspectives in prostate cancer biomarker discovery in the last 5 years through tissue and urine metabolomics. Metabolites 2021;11(3):181. DOI: 10.3390/metabo11030181

6. Магрупов Б.А., Иноятов У.Н. Морфологическая характеристика рака предстательной железы и его оценка по шкале Глисона. Вестник экстренной медицины 2020;13(4):50–7.

7. Lee S., Ku J.Y., Kang B.J. et al. Unique urinary metabolic feature for the determination of bladder cancer, prostate cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Metabolites 2021;11(9):591. DOI: 10.3390/metabo11090591

8. Siegel R.L., Miller K.D., Wagle N.S., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin 2023;73(1):17–48. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21763

9. Lahoud R.M., O’Shea A., El-Mouhayyar C. et al. Tumour markers and their utility in abdominal and pelvic malignancies. Clin Radiol 2021;76(2):99–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2020.07.033

10. Абоян И.А., Федотова Е.Н., Шевченко А.Н. и др. Современные биомаркеры рака предстательной железы. Исследования и практика в медицине 2021;8(4):96–108. DOI: 10.17709/2410-1893-2021-8-4-10

11. Li C.Y., Chen C.Y., An J.H. et al. Normal basal epithelial cells stimulate the migration and invasion of prostate cancer cell RM-1 by TGF-β1/STAT3 axis in vitro. Cancer Manag Res 2021;13:3685– 97. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S303122

12. Agnello L., Vidali M., Giglio R.V. et al. Prostate health index (PHI) as a reliable biomarker for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022;60(8):1261–77. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2022-0354

13. Othman H., Yamin A.H.A., Isa N.M. et al. Diagnostic performance of prostate health index (PHI) in predicting prostate cancer on prostate biopsy. Malays J Pathol 2020;42(2): 209–14.

14. Ferro M., Crocetto F., Bruzzese D. et al. Prostate health index and multiparametric MRI: partners in crime fighting overdiagnosis and overtreatment in prostate cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13(18):4723. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13184723

15. Stejskal J., Adamcová V., Záleský M. et al. The predictive value of the prostate health index vs. multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in prostate biopsy. World J Urol 2021;39(6):1889–95. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03397-4

16. Nassir A.M., Kamel H.F.M. Explication of the roles of prostate health index (PHI) and urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) as diagnostic and predictor tools for prostate cancer in equivocal PSA range of 4–10 ng/mL. Saudi J Biol Sci 2020;27(8):1975–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.04.004

17. Barisiene M., Bakavicius A., Stanciute D. et al. Prostate health index and prostate health index density as diagnostic tools for improved prostate cancer detection. Biomed Res Int 2020;2020: 9872146. DOI: 10.1155/2020/9872146

18. Ito K., Yokomizo A., Tokunaga S. et al. Diagnostic impacts of clinical laboratory based p2PSA indexes on any grade, Gleason grade group 2 or greater, or 3 or greater prostate cancer and prostate specific antigen below 10 ng/mL. J Urol 2020;203(1):83–91. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000495

19. Rasmussen M., Fredsøe J., Tin A.L. et al. Independent validation of a pre-specified four-kallikrein marker model for prediction of adverse pathology and biochemical recurrence. Br J Cancer 2022;126(7):1004–9. DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01661-x

20. Fredsøe J., Rasmussen M., Tin A.L. et al. Predicting Grade group 2 or higher cancer at prostate biopsy by 4Kscore in blood and uCaP microRNA model in urine. Sci Rep 2022;12(1):15193. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-19460-6

21. Mi C., Bai L., Yang Y. et al. 4Kscore diagnostic value in patients with high-grade prostate cancer using cutoff values of 7.5 % to 10 %: a meta-analysis. Urol Oncol 2021;39(6):366.e1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.11.001

22. Bhattu A.S., Zappala S.M., Parekh D.J., Punnen S. A 4Kscore cut-off of 7.5 % for prostate biopsy decisions provides high sensitivity and negative predictive value for significant prostate cancer. Urology 2021;148:53–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.11.008

23. Falagario U.G., Martini A., Wajswol E. et al. Avoiding unnecessary Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and biopsies: negative and positive predictive value of MRI according to prostate-specific antigen density, 4Kscore and risk calculators. Eur Urol Oncol 2020;3(5):700–4. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.015

24. Wysock J.S., Becher E., Persily J. et al. Concordance and performance of 4Kscore and SelectMDx for informing decision to perform prostate biopsy and detection of prostate cancer. Urology 2020;141:119–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.02.032

25. Lonergan P.E., Vertosick E.A., Assel M. et al. Prospective validation of microseminoprotein-β added to the 4Kscore in predicting highgrade prostate cancer in an international multicentre cohort. BJU Int 2021;128(2):218–24. DOI: 10.1111/bju.15320

26. Sharma P.C., Gupta A. MicroRNAs: potential biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of different cancers. Transl Cancer Res 2020;9(9):5798–818. DOI: 10.21037/tcr-20-1294

27. Mugoni V., Ciani Y., Nardella C., Demichelis F. Circulating RNAs in prostate cancer patients. Cancer Lett 2022;524:57–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2021.10.011

28. Долотказин Д.Р., Шкурников М.Ю., Алексеев Б.Я. Роль микроРНК в диагностике рака предстательной железы. Онкоурология 2020;16(4):172–80. DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2020-16-4-172-180

29. Забегина Л.М., Никифорова Н.С., Назарова И.В. и др. Анализ микроРНК в ПСМА-положительной фракции внеклеточных нановезикул плазмы при раке предстательной железы. Онкоурология 2021;17(4):65–75. DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2021-17-4-65-75

30. Kalogirou C., Linxweiler J., Schmucker P. et al. MiR-205-driven downregulation of cholesterol biosynthesis through SQLE-inhibition identifies therapeutic vulnerability in aggressive prostate cancer. Nat Commun 2021;12(1):5066. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-25325-9

31. Bautista-Sánchez D., Arriaga-Canon C., Pedroza-Torres A. et al. The promising role of miR-21 as a cancer biomarker and its importance in RNA-based therapeutics. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids 2020;20: 409–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.omtn.2020.03.003

32. Gandellini P., Ciniselli C.M., Rancati T. et al. Prediction of grade reclassification of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance through the combination of a three-miRNA signature and selected clinical variables. Cancers 2021;13(10):2433. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13102433

33. Saltman A., Zegar J., Haj-Hamed M. et al. Prostate cancer biomarkers and multiparametric MRI: is there a role for both in prostate cancer management? Ther Adv Urol 2021;13:1756287221997186. DOI: 10.1177/1756287221997186

34. Gurung S., Perocheau D., Touramanidou L., Baruteau J. The exosome journey: from biogenesis to uptake and intracellular signalling. Cell Commun Signal 2021;19(1):47. DOI: 10.1186/s12964-021-00730-1

35. Yu W., Hurley J., Roberts D. et al. Exosome-based liquid biopsies in cancer: opportunities and challenges. Ann Oncol 2021;32(4):466–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.01.074

36. Tutrone R., Donovan M.J., Torkler P. et al. Clinical utility of the exosome based ExoDx Prostate (IntelliScore) EPI test in men presenting for initial Biopsy with a PSA 2–10ng/mL. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2020;23(4):607–14. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-020-0237-z

37. McKiernan J., Noerholm M., Tadigotla V. et al. A urine-based exosomal gene expression test stratifies risk of high-grade prostate cancer in men with prior negative prostate biopsy undergoing repeat biopsy. BMC Urol 2020;20:138. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-020-00712-4

38. Ramirez-Garrastacho M., Bajo-Santos C., Line A. et al. Extracellular vesicles as a source of prostate cancer biomarkers in liquid biopsies: a decade of research. Br J Cancer 2022;126(3):331–50. DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01610-8

39. Luca B.A., Moulton V., Ellis C. et al. Convergence of prognostic gene signatures suggests underlying mechanisms of human prostate cancer progression. Genes 2020;11:802. DOI: 10.3390/genes11070802

40. Canter D.J., Freedland S., Rajamani S. et al. Analysis of the prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression (CCP) score generated from needle biopsy in men treated with definitive therapy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2020;23:102–7. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-019-0159-9

41. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate Cancer (Version 2.2021). (2021) [electronic resource]. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf (last accessed 18 April 2023).

42. Farha M.W., Salami S.S. Biomarkers for prostate cancer detection and risk stratification. Ther Adv Urol 2022;14:17562872221103988. DOI: 10.1177/17562872221103988

43. Herlemann A., Huang H.C., Alam R. et al. Decipher identifies men with otherwise clinically favorable-intermediate risk disease who may not be good candidates for active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2020;23(1):136–43. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-019-0167-9

44. Jairath N.K., Dal Pra A., Vince R.Jr. et al. A systematic review of the evidence for the decipher genomic classifier in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2021;79(3):374–83. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.021

45. Feng F.Y., Sandler H.M., Huang H.C. et al. Transcriptome profiling of NRG oncology/RTOG 9601: validation of a prognostic genomic classifier in salvage radiotherapy prostate cancer patients from a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2020;38(6):276. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.6_suppl.276

46. Marascio J., Spratt D.E., Zhang J. et al. Prospective study to define the clinical utility and benefit of Decipher testing in men following prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2020;23(2):295–302. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-019-0185-7

47. Koliadenko V., Wilanowski T. Additional functions of selected proteins involved in DNA repair. Free Radic Biol Med 2020;146:1–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2019.10.010

48. Uhr A., Glick L., Gomella L.G. An overview of biomarkers in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. Can J Urol 2020;27(S3):24–7.

49. Matuszczak M., Schalken J.A., Salagierski M. Prostate cancer liquid biopsy biomarkers’ clinical utility in diagnosis and prognosis. Cancers 2021;13:3373. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13133373

50. Cullen J., Kuo H.C., Shan J. et al. The 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score Test as a predictor of outcomes in men with unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer. Urology 2020;143:103–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.05.045

51. Covas Moschovas M., Chew C., Bhat S. et al. Association between Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score and adverse tumor pathology after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus 2022;8(2):418–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.03.015

52. Foley R.W., Redman S.L., Graham R.N. et al. Fluorine-18 labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-1007 positronemission tomography-computed tomography: normal patterns, pearls, and pitfalls. Clin Radiol 2020;75(12):903–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2020.06.031

53. Maurer T., Gesterkamp H., Nguyen N. et al. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/ mpMRT zur Lokaldetektion des primären Prostatakarzinom bei Männern mit negativer Vorbiopsie [68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/mpMRI for local detection of primary prostate cancer in men with a negative prior biopsy (In German)]. Aktuelle Urol 2021;52(2):143–8. DOI: 10.1055/a-1198-2305

54. Lopci E., Lughezzani G., Castello A. et al. PSMA-PET and microultrasound potential in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 2021;23(1):172–8. DOI: 10.1007/s12094-020-02384-w

55. Plaza López P.J., Puertas E., Aguiló J.J. et al. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in patients with occult biochemical recurrence of prostate carcinoma and negative 18F-Choline PET/CT. Preliminary assessment of its clinical use. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed) 202;45(5):353–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2021.04.008

56. Progensa PCA3 Assay [electronic resource]. Available at: https:///www.hologic.com/sites/default/files/2019-05/502083-IFU-PI_003_01 (last accessed 17 April 2023).

57. Rodríguez S.V.M., García-Perdomo H.A. Diagnostic accuracy of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) prior to first prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can Urol Assoc J 2020;14(5):E214–9. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.6008

58. Lee D., Shim S.R., Ahn S.T. et al. Diagnostic performance of the prostate cancer antigen 3 test in prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2020;18(5):402–8.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2020.03.005

59. Jiao B., Gulati R., Hendrix N. et al. Economic evaluation of urinebased or magnetic resonance imaging reflex tests in men with intermediate prostate-specific antigen levels in the United States. Value Health 2021;24(8):1111–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.02.009

60. Tosoian J.J., Trock B.J., Morgan T.M. et al. Use of the MyProstateScore Test to rule out clinically significant cancer: validation of a straightforward clinical testing approach. J Urol 2021;205(3):732–9. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001430

61. Tosoian J.J., Singhal U., Davenport M.S. et al. Urinary MyProstateScore (MPS) to rule out clinically-significant cancer in men with equivocal (PI-RADS 3) multiparametric MRI: addressing an unmet clinical need. Urology 2022;164:184–90. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.11.033

62. Sessine M., Morgan T., Wei J. et al. Use of the MyProstateScore test for risk stratification in men with a previous negative biopsy: initial validation of a straightforward testing approach. J Urol 2021;206(Suppl 3):e467. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002023.12

63. Schmidt D.R., Patel R., Kirsch D.G. et al. Metabolomics in cancer research and emerging applications in clinical oncology. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71(4):333–58. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21670

64. Berenguer C.V., Pereira F., Pereira J.A.M., Câmara J.S. Volatilomics: an emerging and promising avenue for the detection of potential prostate cancer biomarkers. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14(16):3982. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14163982

65. Lima A.R., Pinto J., Barros-Silva D. et al. New findings on urinary prostate cancer metabolome through combined GC–MS and 1H NMR analytical platforms. Metabolomics 2020;16:1–9. DOI: 10.1007/s11306-020-01691-1

66. Salciccia S., Capriotti A.L., Lagana A. et al. Biomarkers in prostate cancer diagnosis: from current knowledge to the role of metabolomics and exosomes. Int J.Mol Sci 2021;22:4367. DOI: 10.3390/ijms22094367

67. Filianoti A., Costantini M., Bove A.M. et al. Volatilome analysis in prostate cancer by electronic nose: a pilot monocentric study. Cancers 2022;14:2927. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14122927.54

68. Taverna G., Grizzi F., Tidu L. et al. Accuracy of a new electronic nose for prostate cancer diagnosis in urine samples. Int J Urol 2022;29:890–6. DOI: 10.1111/iju.14912

69. Capelli L., Bax C., Grizzi F., Taverna G. Optimization of training and measurement protocol for eNose analysis of urine headspace aimed at prostate cancer diagnosis. Sci Rep 2021;11:20898. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-00033-y

70. Waltman C.G., Marcelissen T.A.T., van Roermund J.G.H. Exhaled-breath testing for prostate cancer based on volatile organic compound profiling using an Electronic Nose Device (Aeonose™): a preliminary report. Eur Urol Focus 2020;6:1220–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.11.006