Matthew R Cooperberg1, Janet E Cowan2, Karla J Lindquist2, Yasuko Kobayashi2, Jeffry P Simko3, Henrik Bengtsson4, Khushboo Singh2, Vy Ngo2, Andrew Avila2, Lisa F Newcomb5, Maria Tretriakova6, Daniel W Lin5, Steven Stone7, Peter R Carroll2, Pamela L Paris8. 1. Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: matthew.cooperberg@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Pathology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 6. Department of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. Myriad Genetics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 8. Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA; Division of Hematology and Oncology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Distinguishing indolent from aggressive prostate cancer remains a key challenge for decision making regarding prostate cancer management. A growing number of biomarkers are now available to help address this need, but these have rarely been examined together in the same patients to determine their potentially additive value. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether two previously validated plasma markers (transforming growth factor β1 [TGFβ1] and interleukin-6 soluble receptor [IL6-SR]) and two validated tissue scores (the Genomic Evaluators of Metastatic Prostate Cancer [GEMCaP] and cell cycle progression [CCP] scores) can improve on clinical parameters in predicting adverse pathology after prostatectomy, and how much they vary within tumors with heterogeneous Gleason grade. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A case-control study was conducted among men with low-risk cancers defined by biopsy grade group (GG) 1, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤10 ng/mL, and clinical stage ≤ T2 who underwent immediate prostatectomy. We collected paraffin-fixed prostatectomy tissue and presurgical plasma samples from 381 cases from the University of California, San Francisco, and 260 cases from the University of Washington. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Pathologic outcomes were minor upgrading/upstaging (GG 2 or pT3a) or major upgrading/upstaging (GG ≥ 3 or ≥ pT3b), and multinomial regression was performed to determine putative markers' ability to predict these outcomes, controlling for PSA, percent of positive biopsy cores, age, and clinical site. For upgraded tumors, a secondary analysis of the GEMCaP and CCP scores from the higher-grade tumor was also performed to evaluate for heterogeneity. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 357 men had no upgrading/upstaging event at prostatectomy, 236 had a minor event, and 67 had a major event. Neither TGFβ1 nor IL6-SR was statistically significantly associated with any upgrading/upstaging. On the contrary, both the CCP and the GEMCaP score obtained from Gleason pattern 3 tissue were directly associated with minor and major upgrading/upstaging on univariate analysis. The two scores correlated with each other, but weakly. On multinomial analysis including both scores in the model, the CCP score predicted minor upgrading/upstaging (odds ratio [OR] 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.49) and major upgrading/upstaging (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.05-4.90), p = 0.04), and the GEMCaP score also predicted minor upgrading/upstaging (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.08) and major upgrading/upstaging (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.11), p < 0.01). The other clinical parameters were not significant in this model. Among upgraded tumors including both Gleason patterns 3 and 4, both the GEMCaP and the CCP score tended to be higher from the higher-grade tumor. The main limitation was the use of virtual biopsies from prostatectomy tissue as surrogates for prostate biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarker signatures based on analyses of both DNA and RNA significantly and independently predict adverse pathology among men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer undergoing prostatectomy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Validated biomarker scores derived from both prostate cancer DNA and prostate cancer RNA can add independent information to help predict outcomes after prostatectomy.
BACKGROUND: Distinguishing indolent from aggressive prostate cancer remains a key challenge for decision making regarding prostate cancer management. A growing number of biomarkers are now available to help address this need, but these have rarely been examined together in the same patients to determine their potentially additive value. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether two previously validated plasma markers (transforming growth factor β1 [TGFβ1] and interleukin-6 soluble receptor [IL6-SR]) and two validated tissue scores (the Genomic Evaluators of Metastatic Prostate Cancer [GEMCaP] and cell cycle progression [CCP] scores) can improve on clinical parameters in predicting adverse pathology after prostatectomy, and how much they vary within tumors with heterogeneous Gleason grade. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A case-control study was conducted among men with low-risk cancers defined by biopsy grade group (GG) 1, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤10 ng/mL, and clinical stage ≤ T2 who underwent immediate prostatectomy. We collected paraffin-fixed prostatectomy tissue and presurgical plasma samples from 381 cases from the University of California, San Francisco, and 260 cases from the University of Washington. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Pathologic outcomes were minor upgrading/upstaging (GG 2 or pT3a) or major upgrading/upstaging (GG ≥ 3 or ≥ pT3b), and multinomial regression was performed to determine putative markers' ability to predict these outcomes, controlling for PSA, percent of positive biopsy cores, age, and clinical site. For upgraded tumors, a secondary analysis of the GEMCaP and CCP scores from the higher-grade tumor was also performed to evaluate for heterogeneity. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 357 men had no upgrading/upstaging event at prostatectomy, 236 had a minor event, and 67 had a major event. Neither TGFβ1 nor IL6-SR was statistically significantly associated with any upgrading/upstaging. On the contrary, both the CCP and the GEMCaP score obtained from Gleason pattern 3 tissue were directly associated with minor and major upgrading/upstaging on univariate analysis. The two scores correlated with each other, but weakly. On multinomial analysis including both scores in the model, the CCP score predicted minor upgrading/upstaging (odds ratio [OR] 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.49) and major upgrading/upstaging (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.05-4.90), p = 0.04), and the GEMCaP score also predicted minor upgrading/upstaging (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.08) and major upgrading/upstaging (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.11), p < 0.01). The other clinical parameters were not significant in this model. Among upgraded tumors including both Gleason patterns 3 and 4, both the GEMCaP and the CCP score tended to be higher from the higher-grade tumor. The main limitation was the use of virtual biopsies from prostatectomy tissue as surrogates for prostate biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarker signatures based on analyses of both DNA and RNA significantly and independently predict adverse pathology among men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer undergoing prostatectomy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Validated biomarker scores derived from both prostate cancer DNA and prostate cancer RNA can add independent information to help predict outcomes after prostatectomy.
Authors: Spyridon P Basourakos; Michael Tzeng; Patrick J Lewicki; Krishnan Patel; Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh; Siv Venkat; Jonathan E Shoag; Michael A Gorin; Christopher E Barbieri; Jim C Hu Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 6.244