Pierre-Jean Lamy1, Yves Allory2, Anne-Sophie Gauchez3, Bernard Asselain4, Philippe Beuzeboc5, Patricia de Cremoux6, Jacqueline Fontugne7, Agnès Georges8, Christophe Hennequin6, Jacqueline Lehmann-Che6, Christophe Massard9, Ingrid Millet10, Thibaut Murez11, Marie-Hélène Schlageter12, Olivier Rouvière13, Diana Kassab-Chahmi14, François Rozet15, Jean-Luc Descotes16, Xavier Rébillard17. 1. Institut Médical d'Analyse Génomique, Clinique BeauSoleil, Montpellier, France. Electronic address: pierre-jean.lamy@labosud-ocbiologie.fr. 2. Service de Pathologie, CHU Henri Mondor, Créteil, France. 3. UMR-S INSERM 1039, Institut de Biologie et de Pathologie, CHU Grenoble, Grenoble, France. 4. IR4M-UMR8081, Université Paris-Sud, Paris, France. 5. Département Oncologie Médicale, Institut Curie, Paris, France. 6. Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France. 7. CHU Henri Mondor, Créteil, France. 8. Médecine Nucléaire, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. 9. Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. 10. Département d'Imagerie Médicale, CHU Lapeyronie, Montpellier, France. 11. CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France. 12. Service de Biologie Cellulaire, Hôpital Saint-Louis, AP-HP, Paris, France. 13. Department of Urinary and Vascular Radiology, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot-Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France. 14. Intergroupe Coopérateur Francophone de Recherche en Onco-urologie, Paris, France. 15. Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris-Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France. 16. CHU Grenoble, France. 17. Service d'Urologie, Clinique BeauSoleil, Montpellier, France.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Prostate cancer stratification is based on tumour size, pretreatment PSA level, and Gleason score, but it remains imperfect. Current research focuses on the discovery and validation of novel prognostic biomarkers to improve the identification of patients at risk of aggressive cancer or of tumour relapse. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review by the Intergroupe Coopérateur Francophone de Recherche en Onco-urologie (ICFuro) analysed new evidence on the analytical validity and clinical validity and utility of six prognostic biomarkers (PHI, 4Kscore, MiPS, GPS, Prolaris, Decipher). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: All available data for the six biomarkers published between January 2002 and April 2015 were systematically searched and reviewed. The main endpoints were aggressive prostate cancer prediction, additional value compared to classical prognostic parameters, and clinical benefit for patients with localised prostate cancer. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The preanalytical and analytical validations were heterogeneous for all tests and often not adequate for the molecular signatures. Each biomarker was studied for specific indications (candidates for a first or second biopsy, and potential candidates for active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, or adjuvant treatment) for which the level of evidence (LOE) was variable. PHI and 4Kscore were the biomarkers with the highest LOE for discriminating aggressive and indolent tumours in different indications. CONCLUSIONS: Blood biomarkers (PHI and 4Kscore) have the highest LOE for the prediction of more aggressive prostate cancer and could help clinicians to manage patients with localised prostate cancer. The other biomarkers show a potential prognostic value; however, they should be evaluated in additional studies to confirm their clinical validity. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed studies assessing the value of six prognostic biomarkers for prostate cancer. On the basis of the available evidence, some biomarkers could help in discriminating between aggressive and non-aggressive tumours with an additional value compared to the prognostic parameters currently used by clinicians.
CONTEXT: Prostate cancer stratification is based on tumour size, pretreatment PSA level, and Gleason score, but it remains imperfect. Current research focuses on the discovery and validation of novel prognostic biomarkers to improve the identification of patients at risk of aggressive cancer or of tumour relapse. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review by the Intergroupe Coopérateur Francophone de Recherche en Onco-urologie (ICFuro) analysed new evidence on the analytical validity and clinical validity and utility of six prognostic biomarkers (PHI, 4Kscore, MiPS, GPS, Prolaris, Decipher). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: All available data for the six biomarkers published between January 2002 and April 2015 were systematically searched and reviewed. The main endpoints were aggressive prostate cancer prediction, additional value compared to classical prognostic parameters, and clinical benefit for patients with localised prostate cancer. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The preanalytical and analytical validations were heterogeneous for all tests and often not adequate for the molecular signatures. Each biomarker was studied for specific indications (candidates for a first or second biopsy, and potential candidates for active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, or adjuvant treatment) for which the level of evidence (LOE) was variable. PHI and 4Kscore were the biomarkers with the highest LOE for discriminating aggressive and indolent tumours in different indications. CONCLUSIONS: Blood biomarkers (PHI and 4Kscore) have the highest LOE for the prediction of more aggressive prostate cancer and could help clinicians to manage patients with localised prostate cancer. The other biomarkers show a potential prognostic value; however, they should be evaluated in additional studies to confirm their clinical validity. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed studies assessing the value of six prognostic biomarkers for prostate cancer. On the basis of the available evidence, some biomarkers could help in discriminating between aggressive and non-aggressive tumours with an additional value compared to the prognostic parameters currently used by clinicians.
Authors: Andrew Vickers; Emily A Vertosick; Daniel D Sjoberg; Freddie Hamdy; David Neal; Anders Bjartell; Jonas Hugosson; Jenny L Donovan; Arnauld Villers; Stephen Zappala; Hans Lilja Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alexander P Cole; Bjoern J Langbein; Francesco Giganti; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Mark Emberton Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Olga Dolejsova; Radek Kucera; Radka Fuchsova; Ondrej Topolcan; Hana Svobodova; Ondrej Hes; Viktor Eret; Ladislav Pecen; Milan Hora Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-01-01
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