Biomarkers in Active Surveillance

Overview

Journal Transl Androl Urol

Date 2018 Mar 30

PMID 29594029

Citations 9

Authors

Stacy Loeb

Jeffrey J Tosoian

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The use of active surveillance (AS) is increasing for favorable-risk prostate cancer. However, there remain challenges in patient selection for AS, due to the limitations of current clinical staging. In addition, monitoring protocols relying on serial biopsies is invasive and presents risks such as infection. For these reasons, there is substantial interest in identifying markers that can be used to improve AS selection and monitoring. In this article, we review the evidence on serum, urine and tissue markers in AS.

Citing Articles

Validation of a prognostic blood-based sphingolipid panel for men with localized prostate cancer followed on active surveillance.

Gregg J, Newcomb L, Wu R, Dennison J, Davis J, Pettaway C Biomark Res. 2024; 12(1):134.

PMID: 39522029 PMC: 11550521. DOI: 10.1186/s40364-024-00678-7.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Shill D, Roobol M, Ehdaie B, Vickers A, Carlsson S Transl Androl Urol. 2021; 10(6):2809-2819.

PMID: 34295763 PMC: 8261451. DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1370.

Doubling of Decipher Biopsy Genomic Score Is Related to Disease Reclassification on Subsequent Surveillance Biopsy but Not Adverse Features on Radical Prostatectomy.

Ghabili K, Paulson N, Syed J, Nawaf C, Khajir G, Martin D Case Rep Urol. 2021; 2021:2687416.

PMID: 33936831 PMC: 8054861. DOI: 10.1155/2021/2687416.

Advances in the selection of patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance.

Liu J, Patel H, Haney N, Epstein J, Partin A Nat Rev Urol. 2021; 18(4):197-208.

PMID: 33623103 DOI: 10.1038/s41585-021-00432-w.

Computer Extracted Features from Initial H&E Tissue Biopsies Predict Disease Progression for Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance.

Chandramouli S, Leo P, Lee G, Elliott R, Davis C, Zhu G Cancers (Basel). 2020; 12(9).

PMID: 32967377 PMC: 7563653. DOI: 10.3390/cancers12092708.

References

Tosoian J, Loeb S, Epstein J, Turkbey B, Choyke P, Schaeffer E . Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016; 35:e235-45. PMC: 4917301. DOI: 10.1200/EDBK_159244. View

Erho N, Crisan A, Vergara I, Mitra A, Ghadessi M, Buerki C . Discovery and validation of a prostate cancer genomic classifier that predicts early metastasis following radical prostatectomy. PLoS One. 2013; 8(6):e66855. PMC: 3691249. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066855. View

Zhao F, Olkhov-Mitsel E, van der Kwast T, Sykes J, Zdravic D, Venkateswaran V . Urinary DNA Methylation Biomarkers for Noninvasive Prediction of Aggressive Disease in Patients with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2016; 197(2):335-341. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.081. View

Hirama H, Sugimoto M, Ito K, Shiraishi T, Kakehi Y . 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. 2013; 140(2):257-63. PMC: 3895184. DOI: 10.1007/s00432-013-1566-2. View

Cuzick J, Swanson G, Fisher G, Brothman A, Berney D, Reid J . Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12(3):245-55. PMC: 3091030. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70295-3. View

Patel H, Feng Z, Landis P, Trock B, Epstein J, Carter H . Prostate specific antigen velocity risk count predicts biopsy reclassification for men with very low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013; 191(3):629-37. PMC: 4711358. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.09.029. View

Tosoian J, Druskin S, Andreas D, Mullane P, Chappidi M, Joo S . Prostate Health Index density improves detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017; 120(6):793-798. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13762. View

Lokman U, Erickson A, Vasarainen H, Rannikko A, Mirtti T . PTEN Loss but Not ERG Expression in Diagnostic Biopsies Is Associated with Increased Risk of Progression and Adverse Surgical Findings in Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. Eur Urol Focus. 2017; 4(6):867-873. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.03.004. View

Tosoian J, Patel H, Mamawala M, Landis P, Wolf S, Elliott D . Longitudinal assessment of urinary PCA3 for predicting prostate cancer grade reclassification in favorable-risk men during active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017; 20(3):339-342. PMC: 5555773. DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2017.16. View

10.

Loeb S, Curnyn C, Fagerlin A, Braithwaite R, Schwartz M, Lepor H . Qualitative study on decision-making by prostate cancer physicians during active surveillance. BJU Int. 2016; 120(1):32-39. PMC: 5555310. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13651. View

11.

Fradet V, Toren P, Nguile-Makao M, Lodde M, Levesque J, Leger C . Prognostic value of urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) during active surveillance of patients with low-risk prostate cancer receiving 5α-reductase inhibitors. BJU Int. 2017; 121(3):399-404. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14041. View

12.

Liss M, Ehdaie B, Loeb S, Meng M, Raman J, Spears V . An Update of the American Urological Association White Paper on the Prevention and Treatment of the More Common Complications Related to Prostate Biopsy. J Urol. 2017; 198(2):329-334. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.103. View

13.

Loeb S . Shift from protocol-based to personalized medicine in active surveillance: beginning of a new era. BJU Int. 2017; 120(1):3-4. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13677. View

14.

Mamawala M, Rao K, Landis P, Epstein J, Trock B, Tosoian J . Risk prediction tool for grade re-classification in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance. BJU Int. 2016; 120(1):25-31. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13608. View

15.

Lin D, Newcomb L, Brown M, Sjoberg D, Dong Y, Brooks J . 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. 2016; 72(3):448-454. PMC: 7327706. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.017. View

16.

San Francisco I, Werner L, Regan M, Garnick M, Bubley G, DeWolf W . 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. 2010; 185(2):471-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.115. View

17.

Tosoian J, Loeb S, Feng Z, Isharwal S, Landis P, Elliot D . Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012; 188(4):1131-6. PMC: 3976250. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.06.009. View

18.

Chen R, Rumble R, Loblaw D, Finelli A, Ehdaie B, Cooperberg M . Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(18):2182-90. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7759. View

19.

Lin D, Newcomb L, Brown E, Brooks J, Carroll P, Feng Z . Urinary TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in an active surveillance cohort: results from a baseline analysis in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. Clin Cancer Res. 2013; 19(9):2442-50. PMC: 3674574. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-3283. View

20.

Nguyen P, Haddad Z, Ross A, Martin N, Deheshi S, Lam L . Ability of a Genomic Classifier to Predict Metastasis and Prostate Cancer-specific Mortality after Radiation or Surgery based on Needle Biopsy Specimens. Eur Urol. 2017; 72(5):845-852. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.05.009. View