Martin G Sanda1, Ziding Feng2, David H Howard3, Scott A Tomlins4,5, Lori J Sokoll6, Daniel W Chan6, Meredith M Regan7, Jack Groskopf8, Jonathan Chipman7, Dattatraya H Patil1, Simpa S Salami9, Douglas S Scherr10, Jacob Kagan11, Sudhir Srivastava11, Ian M Thompson12, Javed Siddiqui5, Jing Fan13, Aron Y Joon2, Leonidas E Bantis2, Mark A Rubin14, Arul M Chinnayian4,5, John T Wei4, Mohamed Bidair15, Adam Kibel16, Daniel W Lin17, Yair Lotan18, Alan Partin19, Samir Taneja20. 1. Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Hologic Inc, San Diego, California. 9. Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, The Arthur Smith Institute for Urology, New Hyde Park, New York. 10. Department of Urology, Weill-Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York. 11. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 12. University of Texas Health Sciences Center - San Antonio, Texas. 13. Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, California. 14. Department of Pathology, Weill-Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York. 15. San Diego Clinical Trials, San Diego, California. 16. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 17. University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle. 18. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 19. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland. 20. New York University School of Medicine, New York.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Potential survival benefits from treating aggressive (Gleason score, ≥7) early-stage prostate cancer are undermined by harms from unnecessary prostate biopsy and overdiagnosis of indolent disease. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori primary hypothesis that combined measurement of PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG (T2:ERG) RNA in the urine after digital rectal examination would improve specificity over measurement of prostate-specific antigen alone for detecting cancer with Gleason score of 7 or higher. As a secondary objective, to evaluate the potential effect of such urine RNA testing on health care costs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, multicenter diagnostic evaluation and validation in academic and community-based ambulatory urology clinics. Participants were a referred sample of men presenting for first-time prostate biopsy without preexisting prostate cancer: 516 eligible participants from among 748 prospective cohort participants in the developmental cohort and 561 eligible participants from 928 in the validation cohort. INTERVENTIONS/EXPOSURES: Urinary PCA3 and T2:ERG RNA measurement before prostate biopsy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Presence of prostate cancer having Gleason score of 7 or higher on prostate biopsy. Pathology testing was blinded to urine assay results. In the developmental cohort, a multiplex decision algorithm was constructed using urine RNA assays to optimize specificity while maintaining 95% sensitivity for predicting aggressive prostate cancer at initial biopsy. Findings were validated in a separate multicenter cohort via prespecified analysis, blinded per prospective-specimen-collection, retrospective-blinded-evaluation (PRoBE) criteria. Cost effects of the urinary testing strategy were evaluated by modeling observed biopsy results and previously reported treatment outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 516 men in the developmental cohort (mean age, 62 years; range, 33-85 years) combining testing of urinary T2:ERG and PCA3 at thresholds that preserved 95% sensitivity for detecting aggressive prostate cancer improved specificity from 18% to 39%. Among the 561 men in the validation cohort (mean age, 62 years; range, 27-86 years), analysis confirmed improvement in specificity (from 17% to 33%; lower bound of 1-sided 95% CI, 0.73%; prespecified 1-sided P = .04), while high sensitivity (93%) was preserved for aggressive prostate cancer detection. Forty-two percent of unnecessary prostate biopsies would have been averted by using the urine assay results to select men for biopsy. Cost analysis suggested that this urinary testing algorithm to restrict prostate biopsy has greater potential cost-benefit in younger men. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Combined urinary testing for T2:ERG and PCA3 can avert unnecessary biopsy while retaining robust sensitivity for detecting aggressive prostate cancer with consequent potential health care cost savings.
IMPORTANCE: Potential survival benefits from treating aggressive (Gleason score, ≥7) early-stage prostate cancer are undermined by harms from unnecessary prostate biopsy and overdiagnosis of indolent disease. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori primary hypothesis that combined measurement of PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG (T2:ERG) RNA in the urine after digital rectal examination would improve specificity over measurement of prostate-specific antigen alone for detecting cancer with Gleason score of 7 or higher. As a secondary objective, to evaluate the potential effect of such urine RNA testing on health care costs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, multicenter diagnostic evaluation and validation in academic and community-based ambulatory urology clinics. Participants were a referred sample of men presenting for first-time prostate biopsy without preexisting prostate cancer: 516 eligible participants from among 748 prospective cohort participants in the developmental cohort and 561 eligible participants from 928 in the validation cohort. INTERVENTIONS/EXPOSURES: Urinary PCA3 and T2:ERG RNA measurement before prostate biopsy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Presence of prostate cancer having Gleason score of 7 or higher on prostate biopsy. Pathology testing was blinded to urine assay results. In the developmental cohort, a multiplex decision algorithm was constructed using urine RNA assays to optimize specificity while maintaining 95% sensitivity for predicting aggressive prostate cancer at initial biopsy. Findings were validated in a separate multicenter cohort via prespecified analysis, blinded per prospective-specimen-collection, retrospective-blinded-evaluation (PRoBE) criteria. Cost effects of the urinary testing strategy were evaluated by modeling observed biopsy results and previously reported treatment outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 516 men in the developmental cohort (mean age, 62 years; range, 33-85 years) combining testing of urinary T2:ERG and PCA3 at thresholds that preserved 95% sensitivity for detecting aggressive prostate cancer improved specificity from 18% to 39%. Among the 561 men in the validation cohort (mean age, 62 years; range, 27-86 years), analysis confirmed improvement in specificity (from 17% to 33%; lower bound of 1-sided 95% CI, 0.73%; prespecified 1-sided P = .04), while high sensitivity (93%) was preserved for aggressive prostate cancer detection. Forty-two percent of unnecessary prostate biopsies would have been averted by using the urine assay results to select men for biopsy. Cost analysis suggested that this urinary testing algorithm to restrict prostate biopsy has greater potential cost-benefit in younger men. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Combined urinary testing for T2:ERG and PCA3 can avert unnecessary biopsy while retaining robust sensitivity for detecting aggressive prostate cancer with consequent potential health care cost savings.
Authors: Alexandre de la Taille; Jacques Irani; Markus Graefen; Felix Chun; Theo de Reijke; Paul Kil; Paolo Gontero; Alain Mottaz; Alexander Haese Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Xiaomei Ma; Rong Wang; Jessica B Long; Joseph S Ross; Pamela R Soulos; James B Yu; Danil V Makarov; Heather T Gold; Cary P Gross Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew Vickers; Angel Cronin; Monique Roobol; Caroline Savage; Mari Peltola; Kim Pettersson; Peter T Scardino; Fritz Schröder; Hans Lilja Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-26 Impact factor: 44.544
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: M J Bussemakers; A van Bokhoven; G W Verhaegh; F P Smit; H F Karthaus; J A Schalken; F M Debruyne; N Ru; W B Isaacs Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1999-12-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Anders Widmark; Olbjørn Klepp; Arne Solberg; Jan-Erik Damber; Anders Angelsen; Per Fransson; Jo-Asmund Lund; Ilker Tasdemir; Morten Hoyer; Fredrik Wiklund; Sophie D Fosså Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Margaret S Pepe; Ziding Feng; Holly Janes; Patrick M Bossuyt; John D Potter Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-10-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Donna P Ankerst; Martin Goros; Scott A Tomlins; Dattatraya Patil; Ziding Feng; John T Wei; Martin G Sanda; Jonathan Gelfond; Ian M Thompson; Robin J Leach; Michael A Liss Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2018-02-13
Authors: Sudhir Srivastava; Eugene J Koay; Alexander D Borowsky; Angelo M De Marzo; Sharmistha Ghosh; Paul D Wagner; Barnett S Kramer Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 60.716