Matthew Truong1, Bing Yang, David F Jarrard. 1. Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination have low specificity for detecting prostate cancer and they poorly predict the presence of aggressive disease. Urine is readily available and noninvasive, and it represents a promising source of biomarkers for the early detection and prediction of prostate cancer prognosis. We identified promising biomarkers for urine based prostate cancer, examined trends and outlined potential pitfalls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed PubMed® and Web of Science® database searches of the peer reviewed literature on urine based testing for prostate cancer. Original studies of this subject as well as a small number of reviews were analyzed, including the strengths and weaknesses. We provide a comprehensive review of urine based testing for prostate cancer that covers the technical aspects, including the methodology of urine collection, as well as recent developments in biomarkers spanning the fields of genomics, epigenetics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics. RESULTS: The process of urine collection is subject to variability, which may result in conflicting clinical results. Detecting prostate cancer in urine is technically feasible, as demonstrated by numerous proof of principle studies, but few markers have been validated in multiple large sample sets. Biomarker development using urine has been accelerating in recent years with numerous studies identifying DNA, RNA, protein and metabolite based biomarkers in urine. Advanced clinical studies have identified PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcripts as promising RNA markers for cancer detection and possibly prognosis. DNA methylation analysis of multiple genes improves specificity and represents a promising platform for developing clinical grade assays. CONCLUSIONS: Urine based testing is noninvasive and represents a rich source of novel biomarkers for prostate cancer. Although urine shows promise for detecting cancer, the ability to identify aggressive subsets of prostate cancer needs further development.
PURPOSE: Prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination have low specificity for detecting prostate cancer and they poorly predict the presence of aggressive disease. Urine is readily available and noninvasive, and it represents a promising source of biomarkers for the early detection and prediction of prostate cancer prognosis. We identified promising biomarkers for urine based prostate cancer, examined trends and outlined potential pitfalls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed PubMed® and Web of Science® database searches of the peer reviewed literature on urine based testing for prostate cancer. Original studies of this subject as well as a small number of reviews were analyzed, including the strengths and weaknesses. We provide a comprehensive review of urine based testing for prostate cancer that covers the technical aspects, including the methodology of urine collection, as well as recent developments in biomarkers spanning the fields of genomics, epigenetics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics. RESULTS: The process of urine collection is subject to variability, which may result in conflicting clinical results. Detecting prostate cancer in urine is technically feasible, as demonstrated by numerous proof of principle studies, but few markers have been validated in multiple large sample sets. Biomarker development using urine has been accelerating in recent years with numerous studies identifying DNA, RNA, protein and metabolite based biomarkers in urine. Advanced clinical studies have identified PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcripts as promising RNA markers for cancer detection and possibly prognosis. DNA methylation analysis of multiple genes improves specificity and represents a promising platform for developing clinical grade assays. CONCLUSIONS: Urine based testing is noninvasive and represents a rich source of novel biomarkers for prostate cancer. Although urine shows promise for detecting cancer, the ability to identify aggressive subsets of prostate cancer needs further development.
Authors: Ina L Deras; Sheila M J Aubin; Amy Blase; John R Day; Seongjoon Koo; Alan W Partin; William J Ellis; Leonard S Marks; Yves Fradet; Harry Rittenhouse; Jack Groskopf Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Scott A Tomlins; Sheila M J Aubin; Javed Siddiqui; Robert J Lonigro; Laurie Sefton-Miller; Siobhan Miick; Sarah Williamsen; Petrea Hodge; Jessica Meinke; Amy Blase; Yvonne Penabella; John R Day; Radhika Varambally; Bo Han; David Wood; Lei Wang; Martin G Sanda; Mark A Rubin; Daniel R Rhodes; Brent Hollenbeck; Kyoko Sakamoto; Jonathan L Silberstein; Yves Fradet; James B Amberson; Stephanie Meyers; Nallasivam Palanisamy; Harry Rittenhouse; John T Wei; Jack Groskopf; Arul M Chinnaiyan Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Florian Jentzmik; Carsten Stephan; Kurt Miller; Mark Schrader; Andreas Erbersdobler; Glen Kristiansen; Michael Lein; Klaus Jung Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kari Rostad; Olaf J C Hellwinkel; Svein A Haukaas; Ole J Halvorsen; Anne M Øyan; Alexander Haese; Lars Budäus; Heiko Albrecht; Lars A Akslen; Thorsten Schlomm; Karl-Henning Kalland Journal: APMIS Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.205
Authors: Marco Auprich; Anders Bjartell; Felix K-H Chun; Alexandre de la Taille; Stephen J Freedland; Alexander Haese; Jack Schalken; Arnulf Stenzl; Bertrand Tombal; Henk van der Poel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-08-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kasia Kania; Elizabeth A Byrnes; John P Beilby; Steve A R Webb; Kimberley J Strong Journal: Ann Clin Biochem Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 2.057
Authors: T Jamaspishvili; M Kral; I Khomeriki; V Vyhnankova; G Mgebrishvili; V Student; Z Kolar; J Bouchal Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Stacy Loeb; Anna Kettermann; Patricia Landis; Debra J Elliot; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; H Ballentine Carter; Lori J Sokoll Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Arun Sreekumar; Laila M Poisson; Thekkelnaycke M Rajendiran; Amjad P Khan; Qi Cao; Jindan Yu; Bharathi Laxman; Rohit Mehra; Robert J Lonigro; Yong Li; Mukesh K Nyati; Aarif Ahsan; Shanker Kalyana-Sundaram; Bo Han; Xuhong Cao; Jaeman Byun; Gilbert S Omenn; Debashis Ghosh; Subramaniam Pennathur; Danny C Alexander; Alvin Berger; Jeffrey R Shuster; John T Wei; Sooryanarayana Varambally; Christopher Beecher; Arul M Chinnaiyan Journal: Nature Date: 2009-02-12 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Gerrit Draisma; Ruth Etzioni; Alex Tsodikov; Angela Mariotto; Elisabeth Wever; Roman Gulati; Eric Feuer; Harry de Koning Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-03-10 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Wenting Cheng; Jeremy M G Taylor; Tian Gu; Scott A Tomlins; Bhramar Mukherjee Journal: J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 1.864
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Mangesh A Thorat; Gerald Andriole; Otis W Brawley; Powel H Brown; Zoran Culig; Rosalind A Eeles; Leslie G Ford; Freddie C Hamdy; Lars Holmberg; Dragan Ilic; Timothy J Key; Carlo La Vecchia; Hans Lilja; Michael Marberger; Frank L Meyskens; Lori M Minasian; Chris Parker; Howard L Parnes; Sven Perner; Harry Rittenhouse; Jack Schalken; Hans-Peter Schmid; Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger; Fritz H Schröder; Arnulf Stenzl; Bertrand Tombal; Timothy J Wilt; Alicja Wolk Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jamil S Syed; Juan Javier-Desloges; Stephanie Tatzel; Ansh Bhagat; Kevin A Nguyen; Kevin Hwang; Sarah Kim; Preston C Sprenkle Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Francesca Khani; Juan Miguel Mosquera; Kyung Park; Mirjam Blattner; Catherine O'Reilly; Theresa Y MacDonald; Zhengming Chen; Abhishek Srivastava; Ashutosh K Tewari; Christopher E Barbieri; Mark A Rubin; Brian D Robinson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-07-23 Impact factor: 12.531