Urine biomarkers can predict prostate cancer and PI-RADS score prior to biopsy.

Publisher: Nature Publishing Group Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101563288 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2045-2322 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 20452322 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Sci Rep Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: London : Nature Publishing Group, copyright 2011-

Prostatic Neoplasms*/urine ; Prostatic Neoplasms*/pathology ; Prostatic Neoplasms*/diagnosis ; Biomarkers, Tumor*/urine ; Prostate-Specific Antigen*/urine; Humans ; Male ; Aged ; Middle Aged ; Biopsy ; Prostate/pathology ; Prostate/diagnostic imaging

Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) based screening of prostate cancer (PCa) needs refinement. The aim of this study was the identification of urinary biomarkers to predict the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score and the presence of PCa prior to prostate biopsy. Urine samples from patients with elevated PSA were collected prior to prostate biopsy (cohort = 99). The re-analysis of mass spectrometry data from 45 samples was performed to identify urinary biomarkers to predict the PI-RADS score and the presence of PCa. The most promising candidates, i.e. SPARC-like protein 1 (SPARCL1), Lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptor 1 (LYVE1), Alpha-1-microglobulin/bikunin precursor (AMBP), keratin 13 (KRT13), cluster of differentiation 99 (CD99) and hornerin (HRNR), were quantified by ELISA and validated in an independent cohort of 54 samples. Various biomarker combinations showed the ability to predict the PI-RADS score (AUC = 0.79). In combination with the PI-RADS score, the biomarkers improve the detection of prostate carcinoma-free men (AUC = 0.89) and of those with clinically significant PCa (AUC = 0.93). We have uncovered the potential of urinary biomarkers for a test that allows a more stringent prioritization of mpMRI use and improves the decision criteria for prostate biopsy, minimizing patient burden by decreasing the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)

Draisma, G. et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: Estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 95(12), 868–878 (2003). (PMID: 1281317010.1093/jnci/95.12.868)
Walz, J. et al. Clinicians are poor raters of life-expectancy before radical prostatectomy or definitive radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 100(6), 1254–1258 (2007). (PMID: 1797992510.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07130.x)
Loeb, S. et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 65(6), 1046–1055 (2014). (PMID: 24439788411333810.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062)
Chun, F. K. et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: Predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int. 98(2), 329–334 (2006). (PMID: 1687967310.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06262.x)
Shariat, S. F., Kattan, M. W., Vickers, A. J., Karakiewicz, P. I. & Scardino, P. T. Critical review of prostate cancer predictive tools. Future Oncol. 5(10), 1555–1584 (2009). (PMID: 2000179610.2217/fon.09.121)
Thompson, I. M. et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or = 4.0 ng per milliliter. N. Engl. J. Med. 350(22), 2239–2246 (2004). (PMID: 1516377310.1056/NEJMoa031918)
Klotz, L. et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(3), 272–277 (2015). (PMID: 2551246510.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192)
Polanec, S. H. et al. Can the addition of clinical information improve the accuracy of PI-RADS version 2 for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in positive MRI?. Clin. Radiol. 75(2), 157.e151-157.e157 (2020). (PMID: 10.1016/j.crad.2019.09.139)
Weinreb, J. C. et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging—Reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur. Urol. 69(1), 16–40 (2016). (PMID: 2642756610.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052)
Esen, T., Turkbey, B., Patel, A. & Futterer, J. Multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 296810 (2014). (PMID: 25525596426699710.1155/2014/296810)
Turkbey, B. et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur. Urol. 76(3), 340–351 (2019). (PMID: 3089840610.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033)
Rico, L. et al. PI-RADS 3 lesions: Does the association of the lesion volume with the prostate-specific antigen density matter in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer?. Urol. Oncol. 39(7), 431.e439-431.e413 (2021). (PMID: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.11.010)
Zhang, Y., Zeng, N., Zhang, F., Huang, Y. & Tian, Y. How to make clinical decisions to avoid unnecessary prostate screening in biopsy-naïve men with PI-RADs v2 score ≤ 3?. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 25(1), 175–186 (2020). (PMID: 3147388410.1007/s10147-019-01524-9)
Rozas, G. Q., Saad, L. S., Melo, H., Gabrielle, H. A. A. & Szejnfeld, J. Impact of PI-RADS v2 on indication of prostate biopsy. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 45(3), 486–494 (2019). (PMID: 31038866678611810.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0564)
Borofsky, S. et al. What are we missing? False-negative cancers at multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate. Radiology 286(1), 186–195 (2018). (PMID: 2905340210.1148/radiol.2017152877)
Kitajima, K. et al. Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: Comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 31(3), 625–631 (2010). (PMID: 2018720610.1002/jmri.22075)
Selnæs, K. M. et al. Peripheral zone prostate cancer localization by multiparametric magnetic resonance at 3 T: Unbiased cancer identification by matching to histopathology. Investig. Radiol. 47(11), 624–633 (2012). (PMID: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318263f0fd)
de Rooij, M., Hamoen, E. H., Fütterer, J. J., Barentsz, J. O. & Rovers, M. M. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: A meta-analysis. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 202(2), 343–351 (2014). (PMID: 2445067510.2214/AJR.13.11046)
Gaziev, G. et al. Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int. 117(1), 80–86 (2016). (PMID: 2509918210.1111/bju.12892)
Zhu, J. et al. Can the combination of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and PSA-related indicators predict the prostate biopsy outcome?. Andrologia 52(10), e13734 (2020). (PMID: 3260939710.1111/and.13734)
Polanec, S. H. et al. Can the addition of clinical information improve the accuracy of PI-RADS version 2 for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in positive MRI?. Clin. Radiol. 75(2), 157 e151-157 e157 (2020). (PMID: 10.1016/j.crad.2019.09.139)
Roumiguié, M. et al. Independent evaluation of the respective predictive values for high-grade prostate cancer of clinical information and RNA biomarkers after upfront MRI and image-guided biopsies. Cancers (Basel) 12(2), 285 (2020). (PMID: 3199159110.3390/cancers12020285)
Liu, X., Deng, L., Zhou, L. & Peng, W. Combining prostate imaging reporting and data system, histogram analysis, and prostate-specific antigen density to determine the risk of prostate cancer in patients with prostate-specific antigen of 4 to 20 ng/mL. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 43(4), 645–651 (2019). (PMID: 3126887510.1097/RCT.0000000000000872)
Fan, Y. H. et al. Prostate Health Index outperforms other PSA derivatives in predicting a positive biopsy in men with tPSA <10 ng/mL: Largest prospective cohort in Taiwan. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 82(10), 772–777 (2019). (PMID: 3135656610.1097/JCMA.0000000000000160)
Friedl, A. et al. Prostate-specific antigen parameters and prostate health index enhance prostate cancer prediction with the in-bore 3-T magnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal targeted prostate biopsy after negative 12-core biopsy. Urology 110, 148–153 (2017). (PMID: 2884460010.1016/j.urology.2017.08.019)
Porpiglia, F. et al. In-parallel comparative evaluation between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, prostate cancer antigen 3 and the prostate health index in predicting pathologically confirmed significant prostate cancer in men eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int. 118(4), 527–534 (2016). (PMID: 2635095510.1111/bju.13318)
Druskin, S. C. et al. Combining Prostate Health Index density, magnetic resonance imaging and prior negative biopsy status to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 121(4), 619–626 (2018). (PMID: 2923203710.1111/bju.14098)
de la Calle, C. M. et al. Clinical utility of 4Kscore(®), ExosomeDx™ and magnetic resonance imaging for the early detection of high grade prostate cancer. J. Urol. 205(2), 452–460 (2021). (PMID: 3289780210.1097/JU.0000000000001361)
Trevethan, R. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values: Foundations, pliabilities, and pitfalls in research and practice. Front. Public Health 5, 307 (2017). (PMID: 29209603570193010.3389/fpubh.2017.00307)
Mortezavi, A. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion guided targeted biopsy evaluated by transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy for the detection and characterization of prostate cancer. J. Urol. 200(2), 309–318 (2018). (PMID: 2947484610.1016/j.juro.2018.02.067)
Alijaj, N. et al. Identification of urine biomarkers to improve eligibility for prostate biopsy and detect high-grade prostate cancer. Cancers (Basel) 14(5), 1135 (2022). (PMID: 3526744510.3390/cancers14051135)
Storey, J. D. & Tibshirani, R. Statistical significance for genomewide studies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100(16), 9440–9445 (2003). (PMID: 1288300517093710.1073/pnas.1530509100)
Vittinghoff, E. & McCulloch, C. E. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and cox regression. Am. J. Epidemiol. 165(6), 710–718 (2006). (PMID: 1718298110.1093/aje/kwk052)
Grossman, D. C. et al. Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 319(18), 1901–1913 (2018). (PMID: 2980101710.1001/jama.2018.3710)
Tosoian, J. J. et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: An update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J. Clin. Oncol. 29(16), 2185–2190 (2011). (PMID: 2146441610.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112)
Eggener, S. E. et al. A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J. Urol. 189(1 Suppl), S19-25 (2013). (PMID: 23234624)
Popiolek, M. et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer: A final report from three decades of follow-up. Eur. Urol. 63(3), 428–435 (2013). (PMID: 2308432910.1016/j.eururo.2012.10.002)
Bul, M. et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: The PRIAS study. Eur. Urol. 63(4), 597–603 (2013). (PMID: 2315945210.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005)
Dall’Era, M. A. et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 112(12), 2664–2670 (2008). (PMID: 1843301310.1002/cncr.23502)
Sheridan, T. B., Carter, H. B., Wang, W., Landis, P. B. & Epstein, J. I. Change in prostate cancer grade over time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease. J. Urol. 179(3), 901–904 (2008). (PMID: 18207195425142610.1016/j.juro.2007.10.062)
Lin, K., Szabo, Z., Chin, B. B. & Civelek, A. C. The value of a baseline bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Clin. Nucl. Med. 24(8), 579–582 (1999). (PMID: 1043917810.1097/00003072-199908000-00007)
Hurley, P. J. et al. Secreted protein, acidic and rich in cysteine-like 1 (SPARCL1) is down regulated in aggressive prostate cancers and is prognostic for poor clinical outcome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109(37), 14977–14982 (2012). (PMID: 22927397344312310.1073/pnas.1203525109)
Xiang, Y. et al. SPARCL1 suppresses metastasis in prostate cancer. Mol. Oncol. 7(6), 1019–1030 (2013). (PMID: 23916135383849110.1016/j.molonc.2013.07.008)
Sekikawa, S. et al. Underexpression of alpha-1-microglobulin/bikunin precursor predicts a poor prognosis in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Int. J. Oncol. 53(6), 2605–2614 (2018). (PMID: 30272341)
Huang, H. et al. High level of serum AMBP is associated with poor response to paclitaxel-capecitabine chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer patients. Med. Oncol. 30(4), 748 (2013). (PMID: 2413586810.1007/s12032-013-0748-8)
Fujita, K. et al. Proteomic analysis of urinary extracellular vesicles from high Gleason score prostate cancer. Sci. Rep. 7, 42961 (2017). (PMID: 28211531531432310.1038/srep42961)
Hamm, A. et al. Frequent expression loss of Inter-alpha-trypsin inhibitor heavy chain (ITIH) genes in multiple human solid tumors: A systematic expression analysis. BMC Cancer 8, 25 (2008). (PMID: 18226209226894610.1186/1471-2407-8-25)
Lima, T. et al. Application of proteogenomics to urine analysis towards the identification of novel biomarkers of prostate cancer: An exploratory study. Cancers (Basel) 14(8), 2001 (2022). (PMID: 3545490710.3390/cancers14082001)
Trojan, L. et al. Lymph and blood vessel architecture in benign and malignant prostatic tissue: Lack of lymphangiogenesis in prostate carcinoma assessed with novel lymphatic marker lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptor (LYVE-1). J. Urol. 172(1), 103–107 (2004). (PMID: 1520174710.1097/01.ju.0000128860.00639.9c)
Jiang, W. G. et al. The potential lymphangiogenic effects of hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor in vitro and in vivo. Int. J. Mol. Med. 16(4), 723–728 (2005). (PMID: 16142411)
Latil, A. et al. Gene expression profiling in clinically localized prostate cancer: A four-gene expression model predicts clinical behavior. Clin. Cancer Res. 9(15), 5477–5485 (2003). (PMID: 14654526)
Sakai, Y. et al. Bcl-2 mediated modulation of vascularization in prostate cancer xenografts. Prostate 69(5), 459–470 (2009). (PMID: 1910786110.1002/pros.20888)
Vermassen, T. et al. Urinary prostate protein glycosylation profiling as a diagnostic biomarker for prostate cancer. Prostate 75(3), 314–322 (2015). (PMID: 2535859010.1002/pros.22918)
Vermassen, T. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of urinary prostate protein glycosylation profiling in prostatitis diagnosis. Biochem. Med. (Zagreb) 25(3), 439–449 (2015). (PMID: 2652633010.11613/BM.2015.045)
Lih, T. M., Dong, M., Mangold, L., Partin, A. & Zhang, H. Urinary marker panels for aggressive prostate cancer detection. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 14837 (2022). (PMID: 36050450943703010.1038/s41598-022-19134-3)
Occhipinti, S. et al. Low levels of urinary PSA better identify prostate cancer patients. Cancers (Basel) 13(14), 3570 (2021). (PMID: 3429878410.3390/cancers13143570)
Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. Points of significance: Model selection and overfitting. Nat. Methods 13(9), 703–704 (2016). (PMID: 10.1038/nmeth.3968)
Eskra, J. N., Rabizadeh, D., Pavlovich, C. P., Catalona, W. J. & Luo, J. Approaches to urinary detection of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 22(3), 362–381 (2019). (PMID: 30655600664007810.1038/s41391-019-0127-4)

40242.1 IP-LS Innosuisse - Schweizerische Agentur für Innovationsförderung; MEDEF 20018 Universität Zürich; 40B1-0_203684/1 Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

Keywords: Early detection; Non-invasive; PI-RADS score; PSA; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Prostate specific antigen; Screening of prostate cancer; Urinary biomarker; mpMRI

0 (Biomarkers, Tumor)
EC 3.4.21.77 (Prostate-Specific Antigen)

Date Created: 20240805 Date Completed: 20240805 Latest Revision: 20240812

20250114

PMC11300834

10.1038/s41598-024-68026-1

39103428