OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop a clinical algorithm combining serum PSA with detection of TMPRSS2:ERG fusion and PCA3 in urine collected after digital rectal exam (post-DRE urine) to predict prostate cancer on subsequent biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post-DRE urine was collected in 48 consecutive patients before prostate biopsy at 2 centers; quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) was used to detect PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcript expression. Serum PSA was measured by clinical assay. The performance of TMPRSS2:ERG fusion, PCA3, and serum PSA as biomarkers predicting prostate cancer at biopsy was measured; a clinically practical algorithm combining serum PSA with TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in post-DRE urine to predict prostate cancer was developed. RESULTS: Post-DRE urine sediment provided informative RNA in 45 patients; prostate cancer was present on subsequent biopsy in 15. TMPRSS2:ERG in post-DRE urine was associated with prostate cancer (OR = 12.02; P < 0.001). PCA3 had the highest sensitivity in predicting prostate cancer diagnosis (93%), whereas TMPRSS2:ERG had the highest specificity (87%). TMPRSS2:ERG had the greatest discriminatory value in predicting prostate cancer (AUC = 0.77 compared with 0.65 for PCA3 and 0.72 for serum PSA alone). Combining serum PSA, PCA3, and TMPRSS2:ERG in a multivariable algorithm optimized for clinical utility improved cancer prediction (AUC = 0.88; specificity = 90% at 80% sensitivity). CONCLUSIONS: A clinical algorithm specifying biopsy for all patients with PSA ≥ 10 ng/ml, while restricting biopsy among those with PSA <10 ng/ml to only those with detectable PCA3 or TMPRSS2:ERG in post-DRE urine, performed better than the individual biomarkers alone in predicting prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop a clinical algorithm combining serum PSA with detection of TMPRSS2:ERG fusion and PCA3 in urine collected after digital rectal exam (post-DRE urine) to predict prostate cancer on subsequent biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post-DRE urine was collected in 48 consecutive patients before prostate biopsy at 2 centers; quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) was used to detect PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcript expression. Serum PSA was measured by clinical assay. The performance of TMPRSS2:ERG fusion, PCA3, and serum PSA as biomarkers predicting prostate cancer at biopsy was measured; a clinically practical algorithm combining serum PSA with TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in post-DRE urine to predict prostate cancer was developed. RESULTS: Post-DRE urine sediment provided informative RNA in 45 patients; prostate cancer was present on subsequent biopsy in 15. TMPRSS2:ERG in post-DRE urine was associated with prostate cancer (OR = 12.02; P < 0.001). PCA3 had the highest sensitivity in predicting prostate cancer diagnosis (93%), whereas TMPRSS2:ERG had the highest specificity (87%). TMPRSS2:ERG had the greatest discriminatory value in predicting prostate cancer (AUC = 0.77 compared with 0.65 for PCA3 and 0.72 for serum PSA alone). Combining serum PSA, PCA3, and TMPRSS2:ERG in a multivariable algorithm optimized for clinical utility improved cancer prediction (AUC = 0.88; specificity = 90% at 80% sensitivity). CONCLUSIONS: A clinical algorithm specifying biopsy for all patients with PSA ≥ 10 ng/ml, while restricting biopsy among those with PSA <10 ng/ml to only those with detectable PCA3 or TMPRSS2:ERG in post-DRE urine, performed better than the individual biomarkers alone in predicting prostate cancer.
Authors: Soonmyung Paik; Steven Shak; Gong Tang; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Michael G Walker; Drew Watson; Taesung Park; William Hiller; Edwin R Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; John Bryant; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gerald L Andriole; David L Levin; E David Crawford; Edward P Gelmann; Paul F Pinsky; David Chia; Barnett S Kramer; Douglas Reding; Timothy R Church; Robert L Grubb; Grant Izmirlian; Lawrence R Ragard; Jonathan D Clapp; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-03-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jacques B de Kok; Gerald W Verhaegh; Rian W Roelofs; Daphne Hessels; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Tilly W Aalders; Dorine W Swinkels; Jack A Schalken Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-05-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: M J Bussemakers; A van Bokhoven; G W Verhaegh; F P Smit; H F Karthaus; J A Schalken; F M Debruyne; N Ru; W B Isaacs Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1999-12-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Jan-Erik Johansson; Ove Andrén; Swen-Olof Andersson; Paul W Dickman; Lars Holmberg; Anders Magnuson; Hans-Olov Adami Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jo Vandesompele; Katleen De Preter; Filip Pattyn; Bruce Poppe; Nadine Van Roy; Anne De Paepe; Frank Speleman Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2002-06-18 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Selin Merdan; Scott A Tomlins; Christine L Barnett; Todd M Morgan; James E Montie; John T Wei; Brian T Denton Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 6.860