Siebren Dijkstra1, Ingrid L Birker2, Frank P Smit3, Gisele H J M Leyten1, Theo M de Reijke2, Inge M van Oort1, Peter F A Mulders1, Sander A Jannink3, Jack A Schalken4. 1. Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Research and Development, NovioGendix, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Research and Development, NovioGendix, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: jack.schalken@radboudumc.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Urinary biomarker tests for diagnosing prostate cancer have gained considerable interest. Urine is a complex mixture that can be subfractionated. We evaluated 2 urinary fractions that contain nucleic acids, ie cell pellets and exosomes. The influence of digital rectal examination before urine collection was also studied and the prostate cancer specific biomarkers PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG were assayed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urine samples were prospectively obtained before and after digital rectal examination from 30 men scheduled for prostate biopsy. Cell pellet and exosomes were isolated and used for biomarker analysis. Analytical and diagnostic performance was tested using the Student t-test and ROC curves. RESULTS: Unlike the exosome fraction, urinary sediment gene expression analysis was compromised by amorphous precipitation in 10% of all specimens. Digital rectal examination resulted in increased mRNA levels in each fraction. This was particularly relevant for the exosomal fraction since after digital rectal examination the number of samples decreased in which cancer specific markers were below the analytical detection limit. Biomarker diagnostic performance was comparable to that in large clinical studies. In exosomes the biomarkers had to be normalized for prostate specific antigen mRNA while cell pellet absolute PCA3 levels had diagnostic value. CONCLUSIONS: Exosomes have characteristics that enable them to serve as a stable substrate for biomarker analysis. Thus, digital rectal examination enhances the analytical performance of biomarker analysis in exosomes and cell pellets. The diagnostic performance of biomarkers in exosomes differs from that of cell pellets. Clinical usefulness must be prospectively assessed in larger clinical cohorts.
PURPOSE: Urinary biomarker tests for diagnosing prostate cancer have gained considerable interest. Urine is a complex mixture that can be subfractionated. We evaluated 2 urinary fractions that contain nucleic acids, ie cell pellets and exosomes. The influence of digital rectal examination before urine collection was also studied and the prostate cancer specific biomarkers PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG were assayed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urine samples were prospectively obtained before and after digital rectal examination from 30 men scheduled for prostate biopsy. Cell pellet and exosomes were isolated and used for biomarker analysis. Analytical and diagnostic performance was tested using the Student t-test and ROC curves. RESULTS: Unlike the exosome fraction, urinary sediment gene expression analysis was compromised by amorphous precipitation in 10% of all specimens. Digital rectal examination resulted in increased mRNA levels in each fraction. This was particularly relevant for the exosomal fraction since after digital rectal examination the number of samples decreased in which cancer specific markers were below the analytical detection limit. Biomarker diagnostic performance was comparable to that in large clinical studies. In exosomes the biomarkers had to be normalized for prostate specific antigen mRNA while cell pellet absolute PCA3 levels had diagnostic value. CONCLUSIONS: Exosomes have characteristics that enable them to serve as a stable substrate for biomarker analysis. Thus, digital rectal examination enhances the analytical performance of biomarker analysis in exosomes and cell pellets. The diagnostic performance of biomarkers in exosomes differs from that of cell pellets. Clinical usefulness must be prospectively assessed in larger clinical cohorts.
Authors: Jung Hwan Yoon; In-Hye Ham; Olga Kim; Hassan Ashktorab; Duane T Smoot; Suk Woo Nam; Jung Young Lee; Hoon Hur; Won Sang Park Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: Kathryn L Pellegrini; Dattatraya Patil; Kristen J S Douglas; Grace Lee; Kathryn Wehrmeyer; Mersiha Torlak; Jeremy Clark; Colin S Cooper; Carlos S Moreno; Martin G Sanda Journal: Prostate Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Jessica De Long; Travis B Sullivan; John Humphrey; Tanya Logvinenko; Kelly A Summerhayes; Spencer Kozinn; Niall Harty; Ian C Summerhayes; John A Libertino; Antonia H Holway; Kimberly M Rieger-Christ Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2015-11-15 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: M J Donovan; M Noerholm; S Bentink; S Belzer; J Skog; V O'Neill; J S Cochran; G A Brown Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 5.554