PSA and its isoforms as modern markers of prostate cancer

Czech version

Authors: Vojtěch Novák; Štěpán Veselý
Authors‘ workplace: Urologická klinika FN Motol a 2. LF UK, Praha
Published in: Ces Urol 2019; 23(3): 194-202
Category: Review article

Overview

The growing incidence of prostate cancer is a clear reason for further research in the field of diagnosis and treatment of this disease. There has been huge progress made in the treatment of localized disease, even bigger in the treatment of advanced stage of prostate cancer. However, dayto- day practice shows persistent shortcomings in diagnostic methods, especially the limited risk assessment of patients. Due to the current trends in prostate cancer treatment, it is apparent that it is not only necessary to distinguish patients who have or do not have prostate cancer, but most importantly to identify those who are at risk and need to be treated aggressively. A standard, practice and time proven marker, at least partially meeting these requirements, is the prostate specific antigen (PSA). The aim of this article is to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of using this traditional marker and to present recently identified PSA isoforms that, in combination with standard PSA, can clarify the diagnosis and detection of at-risk patients.

Major statement: There are still countless questions in the field of diagnostics and risk prediction of prostate cancer patients. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) and its isoforms are available combinations of markers that could provide additional information for deciding the fate of patients, and which have not reached their maximum use yet.

Keywords:

Isoforms – markers – prostate cancer – prostate specific antigen – risk assessment

Sources

1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics 2016. Cancer J Clin. 2016; 66: 7–30.

2. Zhou CK, Check DP, Lortet‑Tieulent J, et al. Prostate cancer incidence in 43 populations worldwide: An analysis of time trends overall and by age group. Int J Cancer 2016; 138: 1388–1400.

3. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012; 104: 125–132.

4. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow up. Lancet 2014; 384: 2027–2035.

5. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU‑ESTRO‑SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2017; 71(4): 618–629.

6. Crawford ED, Schutz MJ, Clejan S, et al. The effect of digital rectal examination on prostate‑specific antigen levels. JAMA 1992; 267(16): 2227–2228.

7. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate‑specific antigen level 4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350: 2239–2246.

8. Nordstrom T, Akre O, Aly M, et al. Prostate‑specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic, DiS. 2018; 21(1): 57–63.

9. Bhat NR, Vetter JM, Andriole GL, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging‑Defined Prostate‑Specific Antigen Density Significantly Improves the Risk Prediction for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer on Biopsy. Urology 2018; 18: 1324–1328.

10. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Slawin KM, et al. Use of the percentage of free prostate‑specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease: A prospective multicenter clinical trial. JAMA 1998; 279: 1542–1547.

11. Vickers AJ, Savage C, O’Brien MF, et al. Systematic review of pretreatment prostate specific antigen velocity and doubling time as predictors for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 398–403.

12. Lukeš M, Záleský M, Zachoval R, Urban M, Heráček J. Prostatický specifický antigen a karcinom prostaty. Klinická onkologie 2001; 14(4): 114–118.

13. Klečka J, Běhounek P, Hora M. Současné postavení PSA v diagnostice karcinomu prostaty. Urolog. praxi 2008; 9(4): 187–189.

14. Le BV, Griffi n CR, Loeb S, et al. [-2] Proenzyme prostate specific antigen is more accurate than total and free prostate specific antigen in differentiating prostate cancer from benign disease in a prospective prostate cancer screening study. J Urol. 2010; 183: 1355–1359.

15. Mikolajczyk SD, Millar LS, Wang TJ, et al. A precursor form of prostate‑specific antigen is more highly elevated in prostate cancer compared with benign transition zone prostate tissue. Cancer Res. 2000; 60: 756–759.

16. Mikolajczyk SD, Rittenhouse HG. Pro PSA: a more cancer specific form of prostate specific antigen for the early detection of prostate cancer. Keio J Med. 2003; 52, 86–91.

17. Jansen FH, van Schaik RH, Kurstjens J. Prostate‑specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA in combination with total PSA and free PSA improves diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer detection. Eur Urol. 2010; 57: 921–927.

18. Guazzoni G, Nava L, Lazzeri M, et al. Prostate‑specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA significantly improves the prediction of prostate cancer at initial extended prostate biopsies in patients with total PSA between 2.0 and 10 ng/ml: results of a prospective study in a clinical setting. Eur Urol. 2011; 60: 214–222.

19. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG, et al. A multicenter study of [-2]pro‑prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. J Urol. 2011; 185(5): 1650-1655.

20. Lazzeri M, Haese A, de la Taille A, et al. Serum isoform [-2] proPSA derivatives signifi cantly improve prediction of prostate cancer at initial biopsy in a total PSA range of 2–10 ng/ml: a multicentric European study. Eur Urol 2013; 63(6): 986–994.

21. Král M, Hradil D, Grepl M, et al. Prostate health index (PHI) u pacientů s karcinomem prostaty a s BPH. Česká urologie 2011; 15(Suppl 2): 16–68.

22. Klečka J, Hora M, Topolčan O, et al. Je proPSA více specifický marker pro detekci karcinomu prostaty. Ces Urol 2011; 15(Suppl 2): 16–68.

23. Fuchsová R, Topolčan O, Vrzalova J, et al. Přínos stanovení [-2]proPSA v diferenciální diagnostice karcinomu prostaty. Ces Urol 18(1): 21–25.

24. Čapoun O, Sobotka R, Soukup V, et al. Prostate health index (PHI) v primární diagnostice karcinomu prostaty. Ces Urol 2014; 18(Suppl 1): 21–109.

25. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Aus G, et al. A panel of kallikrein markers can reduce unnecessary biopsy for prostate cancer: Data from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening in Goteborg, Sweden. BMC Med. 2008; 6: 19–24.

26. Stattin P, Vickers AJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. Improving the Specificity of Screening for Lethal Prostate Cancer Using Prostate‑specific Antigen and a Panel of Kallikrein Markers: A Nested Case‑Control Study. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(2): 207–213.

27. Lin DW, Newcomb LF, Brown MD, et al. Evaluating the Four Kallikrein Panel of the 4Kscore for Prediction of High‑grade Prostate Cancer in Men in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 448-454

28. Tomlins SA, Day JR, Lonigro RJ, et al. Urine TMPRSS2:ERG plus PCA3 for individualized prostate cancer risk assessment. Eur Urol. 2016; 70(1): 45–53.

29. Van Neste L, Hendriks RJ, Dijkstra S, et al. Detection of high-grade prostate cancer using a urinary molecular biomarker-based risk score. Eur. Urol. 2016; 70(5): 740–748.

30. McKiernan J, Donovan MJ, O´Neill V, et al. A novel urine exosome gene expression assay to predict high grade prostate cancer at initial biopsy. JAMA 2016; 2(7): 882–889.

31. Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi‑Galluzzi C, et al. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol. 2014; 66(3): 550–560.

32. Crawford ED, Scholz MC, Kar AJ, et al. Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014; 30(6): 1025–1031.

33. Wyatt AW, Azad AA, Volik SV, et al. Genomic alterations in cell-free DNA and Enzalutamide resistence in castration-resistant prostate cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016; 2(12): 1598–1606.

34. Crawford ED, Rove KO, Trabulsi EJ, et al. Diagnostic performance of PCA3 to detect prostate cancer in men with increased prostate specific antigen: a prospective study of 1,962 cases. J Urol. 2012; 188(5): 1726–1731.

35. Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al. Active surveillance for low‑risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 597–603.

36. Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, et al. Prostate‑specific antigen kinetics during follow‑up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2810–2816.

37. San Francisco IF, Werner L, Regan MM, et al. Risk stratification and validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. J Urol 2011; 185: 471–476.

38. Whitson JM, Porten SP, Hilton JF, et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185: 1656–1660

39. Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008; 112: 2664–2670.

40. Barayan GA, Brimo F, Begin LR, et al. Factors influencing disease progression of prostate cancer under active surveillance: a McGill University Health Center cohort. BJU Int 2014; 114: E99–E104.

41. Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Feng Z, et al. Association of [-2]proPSA with Biopsy Reclassification During Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2012; 188: 1131–1136.

42. Hirama H, Sugimoto M, Ito K, et al. The impact of baseline [-2]proPSA‑related indices on the prediction of pathological reclassification at 1 year during active surveillance for low‑risk prostate cancer: the Japanese multicenter study cohort. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2014; 140: 257–263.

43. Ankerst DP, Xia J, Thompson IM, Jr, et al. Precision Medicine in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Development of the Canary‑Early Detection Research Network Active Surveillance Biopsy Risk Calculator. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 1083–1088.

44. Mamawala MM, Rao K, Landis P, et al. Risk prediction tool for grade re‑classification in men with favourable‑risk prostate cancer on active surveillance. BJU Int 2017; 120: 25–31.

45. Loeb S. Shift from protocol‑based to personalized medicine in active surveillance: beginning of a new era. BJU Int 2017; 120: 3–4.

46. N Mottet RCN, van den Bergh, E Briers, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Barcelona 2019. ISBN 978-94-92671-05-9.

47. Zincke H, Oesterling JE, Blute ML, et al. Long‑term (15 years) results after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized (stage T2c or lower) prostate cancer. J Urol. 1994; 152: 1850–1857.

48. Amling CL, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, et al. Long‑term hazard of progression after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: continued risk of biochemical silure after 5 years. J Urol. 2000; 164: 101–105.

49. Vesely S, Jarolim L, Schmidt M, et al. M. Stratification model based on early postprostatectomy prostate‑specific antigen kinetics may help to reduce the risk of overtreatment in candidates for adjuvant radiotherapy. Scand J Urol. 2017; 51(2): 114–119.

50. Sasaki T, Sugimura Y. The Importance of Time to Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Nadir after Primary Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Hormone‑Naive Prostate Cancer Patients. J Clin Med. 2018; 7(12): 166–169.