Padraic G O'Malley1, Daniel P Nguyen2, Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh3, Guojiao Wu4, Ian M Thompson5, Martin Sanda6, Mark Rubin7, John T Wei8, Richard Lee3, Paul Christos4, Christopher Barbieri3, Douglas S Scherr3. 1. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. Electronic address: pao9029@med.cornell.edu. 2. Department of Urology, Universität Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 4. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 5. Department of Urology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. 6. Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Department of Pathology, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 8. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Livonia, Michigan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To our knowledge it is unknown whether urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer have added utility to clinical risk calculators in different racial groups. We examined the utility of urinary biomarkers added to clinical risk calculators for predicting prostate cancer in African American and nonAfrican American men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Demographics, PCPT (Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial) risk scores, data on the biomarkers data PCA3 (prostate cancer antigen 3) and T2ERG (transmembrane protease serine 2 and v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog gene fusion), and biopsy pathology features were prospectively collected on 718 men as part of EDRN (Early Detection Research Network). Utility was determined by generating ROC curves and comparing AUC values for the baseline multivariable PCPT model and for models containing biomarker scores. RESULTS: PCA3 and T2ERG added utility for the prediction of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer when combined with the PCPT Risk Calculator. This utility was seen in nonAfrican American men only for PCA3 (AUC 0.64 increased to 0.75 for prostate cancer and to 0.69-0.77 for clinically significant prostate cancer, both p <0.001) and for T2ERG (AUC 0.64-0.74 for prostate cancer, p <0.001, and 0.69-0.73 for clinically significant prostate cancer, p = 0.029). African American men did not have an added benefit with the addition of biomarkers, including PCA3 (AUC 0.75-0.77, p = 0.64, and 0.65-0.66, p = 0.74) and T2ERG (AUC 0.75-0.74, p = 0.74, and 0.65-0.64, p = 0.88), for prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer, respectively. Limitations include the small number of African American men (72). The post hoc subgroup analysis nature of the study limited findings to being hypothesis generating. CONCLUSIONS: As novel biomarkers are discovered, clinical utility should be established across demographically diverse cohorts.
PURPOSE: To our knowledge it is unknown whether urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer have added utility to clinical risk calculators in different racial groups. We examined the utility of urinary biomarkers added to clinical risk calculators for predicting prostate cancer in African American and nonAfrican American men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Demographics, PCPT (Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial) risk scores, data on the biomarkers data PCA3 (prostate cancer antigen 3) and T2ERG (transmembrane protease serine 2 and v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog gene fusion), and biopsy pathology features were prospectively collected on 718 men as part of EDRN (Early Detection Research Network). Utility was determined by generating ROC curves and comparing AUC values for the baseline multivariable PCPT model and for models containing biomarker scores. RESULTS:PCA3 and T2ERG added utility for the prediction of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer when combined with the PCPT Risk Calculator. This utility was seen in nonAfrican American men only for PCA3 (AUC 0.64 increased to 0.75 for prostate cancer and to 0.69-0.77 for clinically significant prostate cancer, both p <0.001) and for T2ERG (AUC 0.64-0.74 for prostate cancer, p <0.001, and 0.69-0.73 for clinically significant prostate cancer, p = 0.029). African American men did not have an added benefit with the addition of biomarkers, including PCA3 (AUC 0.75-0.77, p = 0.64, and 0.65-0.66, p = 0.74) and T2ERG (AUC 0.75-0.74, p = 0.74, and 0.65-0.64, p = 0.88), for prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer, respectively. Limitations include the small number of African American men (72). The post hoc subgroup analysis nature of the study limited findings to being hypothesis generating. CONCLUSIONS: As novel biomarkers are discovered, clinical utility should be established across demographically diverse cohorts.
Authors: John T Wei; Ziding Feng; Alan W Partin; Elissa Brown; Ian Thompson; Lori Sokoll; Daniel W Chan; Yair Lotan; Adam S Kibel; J Erik Busby; Mohamed Bidair; Daniel W Lin; Samir S Taneja; Rosalia Viterbo; Aron Y Joon; Jackie Dahlgren; Jacob Kagan; Sudhir Srivastava; Martin G Sanda Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Páez; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paula M Kujala; Bert G Blijenberg; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Andreas Huber; Kimmo Taari; Matti Hakama; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert K Nam; Michael W Kattan; Joseph L Chin; John Trachtenberg; Rajiv Singal; Ricardo Rendon; Laurence H Klotz; Linda Sugar; Christopher Sherman; Jonathan Izawa; David Bell; Aleksandra Stanimirovic; Vasundara Venkateswaran; Eleftherios P Diamandis; Changhong Yu; D Andrew Loblaw; Steven A Narod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dipen J Parekh; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Betsy A Higgins; Javier Hernandez; Edith Canby-Hagino; Timothy Brand; Dean A Troyer; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson Journal: Urology Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Martijn P M Q van Gils; Daphne Hessels; Onno van Hooij; Sander A Jannink; W Pim Peelen; Suzanne L J Hanssen; J Alfred Witjes; Erik B Cornel; Herbert F M Karthaus; Geert A H J Smits; Gerhard A Dijkman; Peter F A Mulders; Jack A Schalken Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Moniek M Vedder; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Hans G Lilja; Andrew J Vickers; Geert J L H van Leenders; Ewout W Steyerberg; Monique J Roobol Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-08-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Albert M Levin; Karla J Lindquist; Andrew Avila; John S Witte; Pamela L Paris; Benjamin A Rybicki Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Rebecca Morgan; Willian Abraham da Silveira; Ryan Christopher Kelly; Ian Overton; Emma H Allott; Gary Hardiman Journal: Expert Rev Mol Diagn Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 5.225