Hasan Dani1, Stacy Loeb. 1. aDepartment of Urology, SUNY Downstate College of Medicine, Brooklyn, NY bDepartment of Urology and Population Health, New York University, New York cManhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article intends to review biomarkers derived from blood, urine, and tissue that can aid in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). RECENT FINDINGS: PCa screening requires tools that complement prostate-specific antigen (PSA) with a higher specificity for clinically significant disease. Novel blood biomarkers, such as the Prostate Health Index (phi) and 4Kscore, utilize isoforms of PSA to more accurately predict high-grade PCa than traditional tools such as PSA and the percentage free-to-total PSA. Several gene products associated with PCa can be detected in the urine through commercially available assays. PCa antigen 3 (PCA3), though approved for repeat biopsy decisions, appears inferior to other biomarkers such as phi for identifying aggressive disease. However, combinations of PCA3 with other urine assays have shown promising results. One tissue-based hypermethylation test, named ConfirmMDx, can also be used to determine the need for repeat biopsy in men with a prior negative biopsy. SUMMARY: Several biomarkers have been developed to aid in the screening and diagnosis of PCa. Such tests are often indicated in men with moderately elevated PSA or history of a prior negative biopsy. Their use facilitates reduction of unnecessary biopsies without sacrificing the early diagnosis of clinically significant PCa.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article intends to review biomarkers derived from blood, urine, and tissue that can aid in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). RECENT FINDINGS: PCa screening requires tools that complement prostate-specific antigen (PSA) with a higher specificity for clinically significant disease. Novel blood biomarkers, such as the Prostate Health Index (phi) and 4Kscore, utilize isoforms of PSA to more accurately predict high-grade PCa than traditional tools such as PSA and the percentage free-to-total PSA. Several gene products associated with PCa can be detected in the urine through commercially available assays. PCa antigen 3 (PCA3), though approved for repeat biopsy decisions, appears inferior to other biomarkers such as phi for identifying aggressive disease. However, combinations of PCA3 with other urine assays have shown promising results. One tissue-based hypermethylation test, named ConfirmMDx, can also be used to determine the need for repeat biopsy in men with a prior negative biopsy. SUMMARY: Several biomarkers have been developed to aid in the screening and diagnosis of PCa. Such tests are often indicated in men with moderately elevated PSA or history of a prior negative biopsy. Their use facilitates reduction of unnecessary biopsies without sacrificing the early diagnosis of clinically significant PCa.
Authors: Marc C Gittelman; Bernard Hertzman; James Bailen; Thomas Williams; Isaac Koziol; Ralph Jonathan Henderson; Mitchell Efros; Mohamed Bidair; John F Ward Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Massimo Lazzeri; Giovanni Lughezzani; Alexander Haese; Thomas McNicholas; Alexandre de la Taille; Nicolò Maria Buffi; Pasquale Cardone; Rodolfo Hurle; Paolo Casale; Vittorio Bini; Joan Palou Redorta; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Sheila M J Aubin; Jennifer Reid; Mark J Sarno; Amy Blase; Jacqueline Aussie; Harry Rittenhouse; Roger Rittmaster; Gerald L Andriole; Jack Groskopf Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Martin G Sanda; Dennis L Broyles; Sanghyuk S Shin; Chris H Bangma; John T Wei; Alan W Partin; George G Klee; Kevin M Slawin; Leonard S Marks; Ron H N van Schaik; Daniel W Chan; Lori J Sokoll; Amabelle B Cruz; Isaac A Mizrahi; William J Catalona Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Robert W Foley; Robert M Maweni; Laura Gorman; Keefe Murphy; Dara J Lundon; Garrett Durkan; Richard Power; Frank O'Brien; Kieran J O'Malley; David J Galvin; T Brendan Murphy; R William Watson Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna K Pauler; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Lori M Minasian; Leslie G Ford; Scott M Lippman; E David Crawford; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Claire de la Calle; Dattatraya Patil; John T Wei; Douglas S Scherr; Lori Sokoll; Daniel W Chan; Javed Siddiqui; Juan Miguel Mosquera; Mark A Rubin; Martin G Sanda Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Gunnar Aus; Carl-Gustav Pihl; Charlotte Becker; Kim Pettersson; Peter T Scardino; Jonas Hugosson; Hans Lilja Journal: BMC Med Date: 2008-07-08 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Christine A Simpson; Jane H Zhang; Dirk Vanderschueren; Lei Fu; Teresita C Pennestri; Roger Bouillon; David E C Cole; Thomas O Carpenter Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Yuqian Gao; Yi-Ting Wang; Yongmei Chen; Hui Wang; Denise Young; Tujin Shi; Yingjie Song; Athena A Schepmoes; Claire Kuo; Thomas L Fillmore; Wei-Jun Qian; Richard D Smith; Sudhir Srivastava; Jacob Kagan; Albert Dobi; Isabell A Sesterhenn; Inger L Rosner; Gyorgy Petrovics; Karin D Rodland; Shiv Srivastava; Jennifer Cullen; Tao Liu Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-05-17 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Mohammad Sajjad Rahnama'i; Christian Bach; Maximilian Schulze-Hagen; Christiane K Kuhl; Thomas Alexander Vögeli Journal: Cancer Rep (Hoboken) Date: 2021-05-01
Authors: Simita Gaglani; Edgar Gonzalez-Kozlova; Dara J Lundon; Ashutosh K Tewari; Navneet Dogra; Natasha Kyprianou Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 5.923