Sharanjot Saini1,2. 1. Department of Urology, Urology Research (112J), Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 4150 Clement Street, San Francisco, CA, 94121, USA. Sharanjot.Saini@ucsf.edu. 2. University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Sharanjot.Saini@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of biomarkers for prostate cancer screening, diagnosis and prognosis has the potential to improve the clinical management of the patients. Owing to inherent limitations of the biomarker prostate-specific antigen (PSA), intensive efforts are currently directed towards a search for alternative prostate cancer biomarkers, particularly those that can predict disease aggressiveness and drive better treatment decisions. METHODS: A literature search of Medline articles focused on recent and emerging advances in prostate cancer biomarkers was performed. The most promising biomarkers that have the potential to meet the unmet clinical needs in prostate cancer patient management and/or that are clinically implemented were selected. CONCLUSIONS: With the advent of advanced genomic and proteomic technologies, we have in recent years seen an enormous spurt in prostate cancer biomarker research with several promising alternative biomarkers being discovered that show an improved sensitivity and specificity over PSA. The new generation of biomarkers can be tested via serum, urine, or tissue-based assays that have either received regulatory approval by the US Food and Drug Administration or are available as Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-based laboratory developed tests. Additional emerging novel biomarkers for prostate cancer, including circulating tumor cells, microRNAs and exosomes, are still in their infancy. Together, these biomarkers provide actionable guidance for prostate cancer risk assessment, and are expected to lead to an era of personalized medicine.
BACKGROUND: The use of biomarkers for prostate cancer screening, diagnosis and prognosis has the potential to improve the clinical management of the patients. Owing to inherent limitations of the biomarker prostate-specific antigen (PSA), intensive efforts are currently directed towards a search for alternative prostate cancer biomarkers, particularly those that can predict disease aggressiveness and drive better treatment decisions. METHODS: A literature search of Medline articles focused on recent and emerging advances in prostate cancer biomarkers was performed. The most promising biomarkers that have the potential to meet the unmet clinical needs in prostate cancerpatient management and/or that are clinically implemented were selected. CONCLUSIONS: With the advent of advanced genomic and proteomic technologies, we have in recent years seen an enormous spurt in prostate cancer biomarker research with several promising alternative biomarkers being discovered that show an improved sensitivity and specificity over PSA. The new generation of biomarkers can be tested via serum, urine, or tissue-based assays that have either received regulatory approval by the US Food and Drug Administration or are available as Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-based laboratory developed tests. Additional emerging novel biomarkers for prostate cancer, including circulating tumor cells, microRNAs and exosomes, are still in their infancy. Together, these biomarkers provide actionable guidance for prostate cancer risk assessment, and are expected to lead to an era of personalized medicine.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomarkers; Diagnostic; Predictive; Prognostic; Prostate cancer
Authors: Peter J Boström; Anders S Bjartell; James W F Catto; Scott E Eggener; Hans Lilja; Stacy Loeb; Jack Schalken; Thorsten Schlomm; Matthew R Cooperberg Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Ruth Etzioni; Alex Tsodikov; Angela Mariotto; Aniko Szabo; Seth Falcon; Jake Wegelin; Dante DiTommaso; Kent Karnofski; Roman Gulati; David F Penson; Eric Feuer Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2007-11-20 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Jeffry P Simko; Janet E Cowan; Julia E Reid; Azita Djalilvand; Satish Bhatnagar; Alexander Gutin; Jerry S Lanchbury; Gregory P Swanson; Steven Stone; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-03-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Johann S de Bono; Howard I Scher; R Bruce Montgomery; Christopher Parker; M Craig Miller; Henk Tissing; Gerald V Doyle; Leon W W M Terstappen; Kenneth J Pienta; Derek Raghavan Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Anwar R Padhani; Jelle Barentsz; Geert Villeirs; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Daniel J Margolis; Baris Turkbey; Harriet C Thoeny; François Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Clare M Tempany; Sadhna Verma; Jeffrey C Weinreb Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Neil M Carleton; Guangjing Zhu; Mikhail Gorbounov; M Craig Miller; Kenneth J Pienta; Linda M S Resar; Robert W Veltri Journal: Prostate Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Avital Lev; Amriti R Lulla; Brian C Ross; Marie D Ralff; Petr B Makhov; David T Dicker; Wafik S El-Deiry Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 5.852