Current understanding of prostate cancer biomarkers

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Worldwide, prostate cancer has remained one of the most common malignant neoplasms among men and it is accompanied by high mortality rates. Standard methods for diagnosing prostate cancer have limited sensitivity and specificity, unnecessary biopsies are often performed, and the risk of overdiagnosis of the disease and overtreatment of patients is high. The review considers diagnostic and prognostic biological markers of prostate cancer proposed in recent years. Theoretical foundations for the use of new biomarkers are analyzed. The characteristics and practical significance of biomarkers of various groups (immunohistochemical, molecular and genetic, prostate specific antigen-associated, volatile organic metabolites) are presented. The need for further large-scale scientific research in the field of biomarker application in prostate cancer, criteria for their selection and evaluation are described. The introduction of modern diagnostic and prognostic markers into real clinical practice opens up new opportunities for improvement of prostate cancer diagnosis, individual prognosis, and rationalization of treatment strategy.

About the authors

S. V. Popov

St. Luka’s Clinical Hospital;
Saint Petersburg Medical and Social Institute

Email: doc.popov@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2767-7153
SPIN-code: 3830-9539

46 Chugunnaya St., Saint Petersburg 194044,

Let. A, 72 Kondratievskiy Prospekt, Saint Petersburg 195271

Russian Federation

R. G. Guseynov

St. Luka’s Clinical Hospital;
Saint Petersburg Medical and Social Institute;
Saint Petersburg State University

Email: rusfa@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9935-0243
SPIN-code: 4222-4601

46 Chugunnaya St., Saint Petersburg 194044,

Let. A, 72 Kondratievskiy Prospekt, Saint Petersburg 195271,

7–9 Universitetskaya Naberezhnaya, Saint Petersburg 199034

Russian Federation

A. V. Vasin

Institute of Biomedical Systems and Biotechnologies, Peter the Great Saint Petersburg Polytechnic University

Email: vasin_av@spbstu.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1391-7139
SPIN-code: 2014-8298

29 Polytekhnicheskaya St., Saint Petersburg 195251

Russian Federation

K. V. Sivak

St. Luka’s Clinical Hospital;
A.A. Smorodintsev Research Institute of Influenza

Email: kvsivak@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4064-5033
SPIN-code: 7426-8322

46 Chugunnaya St., Saint Petersburg 194044,

15/17 Professora Popova St., Saint Petersburg 197022

Russian Federation

E. V. Pomeshkin

St. Luka’s Clinical Hospital

Email: info@lucaclinic.ru
SPIN-code: 5661-1947

46 Chugunnaya St., Saint Petersburg 194044

Russian Federation

V. V. Perepelitsa

St. Luka’s Clinical Hospital;
Saint Petersburg Medical and Social Institute

Email: perepelitsa_vit@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7656-4473
SPIN-code: 7445-1996

46 Chugunnaya St., Saint Petersburg 194044,

Let. A, 72 Kondratievskiy Prospekt, Saint Petersburg 195271

Russian Federation

N. S. Bunenkov

St. Luka’s Clinical Hospital;
I.P. Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University;
V.A. Almazov National Medical Research Centre

Author for correspondence.
Email: bunenkov2006@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4331-028X
SPIN-code: 3611-1290

Nikolay S. Bunenkov

46 Chugunnaya St., Saint Petersburg 194044,

6–8 L’va Tolstogo St., Saint Petersburg 197022,

2 Akkuratova St., Saint Petersburg 197341

Russian Federation

T. A. Lelyavina

V.A. Almazov National Medical Research Centre

Email: lucaclinic@zdrav.spb.ru
SPIN-code: 5663-1936

2 Akkuratova St., Saint Petersburg 197341

Russian Federation

References

  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. Malignant tumors in Russia in 2021 (morbidity and mortality). Eds.: А.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinskiy, A.O. Shakhzadova. Moscow: MNIOI im. P.A. Gertsena – filial FGBU “NMITS radiologii” Minzdrava Rossii, 2022. 252 p. (In Russ.).
  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. Prostate cancer. Clinical guidelines. 2021. 124 p. (In Russ.).
  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. Magrupov B.A., Inoyatov U.N. Morphological characteristics of prostate cancer and its assessment by the Gleason scale. Vestnik ekstrennoy meditsiny = Bulletin of Emergency Medicine 2020;13(4):50–7. (In Russ.).
  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. Aboian I.A., Fedotova Е.N., Shevchenko A.N. et al. Current biomarkers of prostate cancer. Issledovaniya i praktika v meditsine = Research and Practical Medicine Journal 2021;8(4):96–108. (In Russ.). 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. Dolotkazin D.R., Shkurnikov M.Yu., Alekseev B.Ya. The role of miRNA in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Onkourologiya = Cancer Urology 2020;16(4):172–80. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17650/1726-9776-2020-16-4-172-180
  29. Zabegina L.M., Nikiforova N.S., Nazarova I.V. et al. Analysis of miRNAs in the PSMA-positive fraction of plasma nano-sized extracellular vesicles in patients with prostate cancer. Onkourologiya = Cancer Urology 2021;17(4):65–75. (In Russ.). 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

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2023


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77-36986 от  21.07.2009.