Grading Evolution and Contemporary Prognostic Biomarkers of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

Overview

Journal Cancers (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Specialty Oncology

Date 2021 Feb 10

PMID 33562508

Citations 6

Authors

Konrad Sopyllo

Andrew M Erickson

Tuomas Mirtti

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Gleason grading remains the strongest prognostic parameter in localized prostate adenocarcinoma. We have here outlined the evolution and contemporary practices in pathological evaluation of prostate tissue samples for Gleason score and Grade group. The state of more observer-independent grading methods with the aid of artificial intelligence is also reviewed. Additionally, we conducted a systematic review of biomarkers that hold promise in adding independent prognostic or predictive value on top of clinical parameters, Grade group and PSA. We especially focused on hard end points during the follow-up, i.e., occurrence of metastasis, disease-specific mortality and overall mortality. In peripheral blood, biopsy-detected prostate cancer or in surgical specimens, we can conclude that there are more than sixty biomarkers that have been shown to have independent prognostic significance when adjusted to conventional risk assessment or grouping. Our search brought up some known putative markers and panels, as expected. Also, the synthesis in the systematic review indicated markers that ought to be further studied as part of prospective trials and in well characterized patient cohorts in order to increase the resolution of the current clinico-pathological prognostic factors.

Citing Articles

Biochemical Recurrence Surrogacy for Clinical Outcomes After Radiotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate.

Roy S, Romero T, Michalski J, Feng F, Efstathiou J, Lawton C J Clin Oncol. 2023; 41(32):5005-5014.

PMID: 37639648 PMC: 10642893. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00617.

Characterization and evaluation of gene fusions as a measure of genetic instability and disease prognosis in prostate cancer.

Schimmelpfennig C, Rade M, Fussel S, Loffler D, Blumert C, Bertram C BMC Cancer. 2023; 23(1):575.

PMID: 37349736 PMC: 10286324. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11019-6.

The roles of proteases in prostate cancer.

Koistinen H, Kovanen R, Hollenberg M, Dufour A, Radisky E, Stenman U IUBMB Life. 2023; 75(6):493-513.

PMID: 36598826 PMC: 10159896. DOI: 10.1002/iub.2700.

Oncogenic ACSM1 in prostate cancer is through metabolic and extracellular matrix-receptor interaction signaling pathways.

Guo Y, Ren C, Huang W, Yang W, Bao Y Am J Cancer Res. 2022; 12(4):1824-1842.

PMID: 35530294 PMC: 9077067.

Impact of Surgeon's Experience in Rigid versus Elastic MRI/TRUS-Fusion Biopsy to Detect Significant Prostate Cancer Using Targeted and Systematic Cores.

Gortz M, Nyarangi-Dix J, Pursche L, Schutz V, Reimold P, Schwab C Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(4).

PMID: 35205634 PMC: 8870088. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14040886.

References

Rajabi H, Ahmad R, Jin C, Joshi M, Guha M, Alam M . MUC1-C oncoprotein confers androgen-independent growth of human prostate cancer cells. Prostate. 2012; 72(15):1659-68. PMC: 3413781. DOI: 10.1002/pros.22519. View

Richardsen E, Andersen S, Al-Saad S, Rakaee M, Nordby Y, Pedersen M . Low Expression of miR-424-3p is Highly Correlated with Clinical Failure in Prostate Cancer. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):10662. PMC: 6650397. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-47234-0. View

Scott K, Kabbarah O, Liang M, Ivanova E, Anagnostou V, Wu J . GOLPH3 modulates mTOR signalling and rapamycin sensitivity in cancer. Nature. 2009; 459(7250):1085-90. PMC: 2753613. DOI: 10.1038/nature08109. View

SHELLEY H, AUERBACH S, CLASSEN K, MARKS C, WIEDERANDERS R . Carcinoma of the prostate: a new system of classification. AMA Arch Surg. 1958; 77(5):751-6. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.1958.01290040099012. View

Liu R, Yang K, Meng C, Zhang Z, Xu Y . Vasculogenic mimicry is a marker of poor prognosis in prostate cancer. Cancer Biol Ther. 2012; 13(7):527-33. DOI: 10.4161/cbt.19602. View

Kornberg Z, Cowan J, Westphalen A, Cooperberg M, Chan J, Zhao S . Genomic Prostate Score, PI-RADS™ version 2 and Progression in Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2018; 201(2):300-307. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.08.047. View

Ness N, Andersen S, Rakaee Khanehkenari M, Nordbakken C, Valkov A, Paulsen E . The prognostic role of immune checkpoint markers programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) in a large, multicenter prostate cancer cohort. Oncotarget. 2017; 8(16):26789-26801. PMC: 5432297. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.15817. View

Lotan T, Tomlins S, Bismar T, van der Kwast T, Grignon D, Egevad L . Report From the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consultation Conference on Molecular Pathology of Urogenital Cancers. I. Molecular Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020; 44(7):e15-e29. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001450. View

Penney K, Sinnott J, Fall K, Pawitan Y, Hoshida Y, Kraft P . mRNA expression signature of Gleason grade predicts lethal prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(17):2391-6. PMC: 3107753. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.6421. View

10.

Strom P, Kartasalo K, Olsson H, Solorzano L, Delahunt B, Berney D . Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer in biopsies: a population-based, diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2020; 21(2):222-232. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30738-7. View

11.

Na R, Zheng S, Han M, Yu H, Jiang D, Shah S . Germline Mutations in ATM and BRCA1/2 Distinguish Risk for Lethal and Indolent Prostate Cancer and are Associated with Early Age at Death. Eur Urol. 2016; 71(5):740-747. PMC: 5535082. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.033. View

12.

Hamid A, Gray K, Huang Y, Bowden M, Pomerantz M, Loda M . Loss of PTEN Expression Detected by Fluorescence Immunohistochemistry Predicts Lethal Prostate Cancer in Men Treated with Prostatectomy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 2(5):475-482. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.003. View

13.

Jiao L, Shen D, Liu G, Jia J, Geng J, Wang H . PPM1D as a novel biomarker for prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Anticancer Res. 2014; 34(6):2919-25. View

14.

Sauter G, Clauditz T, Steurer S, Wittmer C, Buscheck F, Krech T . Integrating Tertiary Gleason 5 Patterns into Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens. Eur Urol. 2017; 73(5):674-683. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.015. View

15.

Visser W, de Jong H, Melchers W, Mulders P, Schalken J . Commercialized Blood-, Urinary- and Tissue-Based Biomarker Tests for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis. Cancers (Basel). 2020; 12(12). PMC: 7765473. DOI: 10.3390/cancers12123790. View

16.

Hernandez D, Nielsen M, Han M, Partin A . Contemporary evaluation of the D'amico risk classification of prostate cancer. Urology. 2007; 70(5):931-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.08.055. View

17.

Cooperberg M, Pasta D, Elkin E, Litwin M, Latini D, Du Chane J . The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005; 173(6):1938-42. PMC: 2948569. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000158155.33890.e7. View

18.

Kweldam C, Wildhagen M, Steyerberg E, Bangma C, van der Kwast T, van Leenders G . Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2014; 28(3):457-64. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2014.116. View

19.

Tradonsky A, Rubin T, Beck R, Ring B, Seitz R, Mair S . A search for reliable molecular markers of prognosis in prostate cancer: a study of 240 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012; 137(6):918-30. DOI: 10.1309/AJCPF3QWIG8FWXIH. View

20.

Eifler J, Feng Z, Lin B, Partin M, Humphreys E, Han M . An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int. 2012; 111(1):22-9. PMC: 3876476. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11324.x. View