Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:30:36.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A review of current clinical biomarkers for prostate cancer: towards personalised and targeted therapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2020

Ernest Osei Open the ORCID record for Ernest Osei [Opens in a new window]  and
Steph Swanson
Ernest Osei*
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, Grand River Regional Cancer Centre, Kitchener, ON, Canada Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, GuelphON, Canada
Steph Swanson
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, Grand River Regional Cancer Centre, Kitchener, ON, Canada Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Ernest Osei, Grand River Regional Cancer Centre, Medical Physics, 835 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G1G3. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men and it is responsible for about 10% of all cancer mortality in Canadian men. The current ‘gold standard’ for the diagnosis of prostate cancer is a prostate biopsy and the decision on when to biopsy a patient with non-suspicious Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) result and total prostate specific antigen (tPSA) of 4–10 ng/ml can be challenging. In order to shift the treatment paradigm of prostate cancer toward more personalised and targeted therapy, there is the need for a clear system that makes its detection binary so as to decrease the rate of inaccurate detections. Therefore in recent years, there have been several investigations into the development of various biomarkers with high sensitivity and specificity for screening, early detection and personalised patient-specific targeted medicine from diagnosis to treatment of the disease.

Materials and methods:

This paper reports on nine currently available clinical biomarkers used in screening for early detection and diagnosis, to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies, in risk assessment of aggressive disease and in monitoring treatment response of prostate cancer.

Conclusion:

Current clinical prostate cancer biomarkers have the potential for a personalised risk assessment of aggressive disease and the risk of developing distant metastatic disease and have been proven to be useful tools to guide clinicians in personalised patient-specific targeted treatment and in the shared decision making between patients and their physicians regarding prostate biopsy and treatment. Using biomarkers to select patients with a significant probability of aggressive prostate cancer would potentially avoid premature death from the disease, while at the same time would safely preclude patients who do not require unnecessary invasive intervention.

Keywords

Biomarkersdigital rectal examinationpersonalised treatmentprostate cancerprostate specific antigen
Type
Literature Review
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 277 - 286
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Canadian Cancer Society. Prostate Cancer Statistics. https://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-type/prostate/statistics/?region=on. Accessed on 17th September 2020.Google Scholar
Brenner, DR, Weir, HK, Demers, AA et al. Projected estimates of cancer in Canada in 2020. Can Med Assoc J 2020; 192: E199–E205. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.191292 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, J, Shenoy, BV, Tutrone, RF et al. Clinical utility of the Prostate Health Index (phi) for biopsy decision management in a large group urology practice setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2017; 21 (1): 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, RW, Gorman, L, Sharifi, N et al. Improving multivariable prostate cancer risk assessment using the Prostate Health Index. BJU Int 2016; 117 (3): 409–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lazzeri, M, Haese, A, Abrate, A et al. Clinical performance of serum prostate-specific antigen isoform [-2]proPSA (p2PSA) and its derivatives, %p2PSA and the prostate health index (PHI), in men with a family history of prostate cancer: results from a multicentre European study, the PROMEtheuS project. BJU Int 2013; 112 (3): 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zappala, SM, Dong, Y, Linder, V et al. The 4Kscore blood test accurately identifies men with aggressive prostate cancer prior to prostate biopsy with or without DRE information. Int J Clin Pract 2017; 71 (6): e12943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Cancer Society. Understanding Your Pathology Report: Prostate Cancer. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/CRC/PDF/Public/7942.00.pdf. Accessed on September 17 2020 Google Scholar
Bourdoumis, A, Papatsoris, AG, Chrisofos, M, Efstathiou, E, Skolarikos, A, Deliveliotis, C. The novel prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) biomarker. Int Braz J Urol 2010; 36 (6): 665–669.10.1590/S1677-55382010000600003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cao, L, Lee, CH, Ning, J, Handy, BC, Wagar, EA, Meng, QH. Combination of prostate cancer antigen 3 and prostate-specific antigen improves diagnostic accuracy in men at risk of prostate cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med (1976) 2018; 142 (9): 1106–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, AB, Parekh, DJ Biomarkers for prostate cancer detection. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2010; 10: 103–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hessels, D, van Gils, MP, van Hooij, O et al. Predictive value of PCA3 in urinary sediments in determining clinico-pathological characteristics of prostate cancer. Prostate 2010; 70: 10–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Filella, X, Fernández-Galan, E, Fernández Bonifacio, R, Foj, L. Emerging biomarkers in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Pharmgenomics Pers Med 2018; 11: 83–94. doi: 10.2147/PGPM.S136026. PMID: 29844697; PMCID: PMC5961643.Google ScholarPubMed
Alford, AV, Brito, JM, Yadav, KK, Yadav, SS, Tewari, AK, Renzulli, J. The use of biomarkers in prostate cancer screening and treatment. Rev Urol 2017; 19 (4): 221–234. doi: 10.3909/riu0772. PMID: 29472826; PMCID: PMC5811879.Google ScholarPubMed
Hong, SK. Kallikreins as biomarkers for prostate cancer. BioMed Res Int 2014; 2014: 526341-10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Punnen, S, Pavan, N, Parekh, DJ. Finding the wolf in sheep’s clothing: the 4Kscore is a novel blood test that can accurately identify the risk of aggressive prostate cancer. Rev Urol 2015; 17 (1): 3–13.Google ScholarPubMed
Ferro, M, Bruzzese, D, Perdonà, S et al. Prostate Health Index (Phi) and Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 (PCA3) significantly improve prostate cancer detection at initial biopsy in a total PSA Range of 2–10 ng/ml. PLoS One 2013; 8 (7): e67687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fossati, N, Lazzeri, M, Haese, A et al. Clinical performance of serum isoform [-2]proPSA (p2PSA), and its derivatives %p2PSA and the Prostate Health Index, in men aged <60 years: results from a multicentric European study. BJU Int 2015; 115 (6): 913–920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsieh, PF, Chang, CH, Yang, CR et al. Prostate Health Index (PHI) improves prostate cancer detection at initial biopsy in Taiwanese men with PSA 4-10 ng/mL. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2018; 34 (8): 461–466. doi: 10.1016/j.kjms.2018.02.007. Epub 2018 Apr 4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lepor, A, Catalona, WJ, Loeb, S. The prostate health index: its utility in prostate cancer detection. Urol Clin North Am 2016; 43 (1): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loeb, S, Catalona, WJ. The Prostate Health Index: a new test for the detection of prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol 2014; 6 (2): 74–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cui, Y, Cao, W, Li, Q et al. Evaluation of prostate cancer antigen 3 for detecting prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2016; 6 (1): 25776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kornberg, Z, Cooperberg, MR, Spratt, DE, Feng, FY. Genomic biomarkers in prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2018; 7 (3): 459–471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auprich, M, Bjartell, A, Chun, FK et al. Contemporary role of prostate cancer antigen 3 in the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011; 60 (5): 1045–1054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auprich, M, Chun, FK, Ward, JF et al. Critical assessment of preoperative urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 on the accuracy of prostate cancer staging. Eur Urol 2010; 59 (1): 96–105.10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.024CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, LS, Bostwick, DG. Prostate Cancer Specificity of PCA3 gene testing: examples from clinical practice. Rev Urol 2008; 10 (3): 175–181.Google ScholarPubMed
Merola, R, Tomao, L, Antenucci, A et al. PCA3 in prostate cancer and tumor aggressiveness detection on 407 high-risk patients: a National Cancer Institute experience. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2015; 34 (1): 15.10.1186/s13046-015-0127-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ye, L, He, S, Wu, X et al. Detection of Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 and prostate cancer susceptibility candidate in non-DRE urine improves diagnosis of prostate cancer in Chinese population. Prostate Cancer 2020; 2019: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salameh, A, Lee, AK, Cardó-Vila, M et al. PRUNE2 is a human prostate cancer suppressor regulated by the intronic long noncoding RNA PCA3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015; 112 (27): 8403–8408. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1507882112 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bussemakers, MJ, van Bokhoven, A, Verhaegh, GW, et al. DD3: a new prostate-specific gene, highly overexpressed in prostate cancer. Cancer Res 1999; 59: 5975–5979.Google ScholarPubMed
Wang, F, Chen, R, Ren, S, Shi, X, Zhu, Y, Zhang, W. Prostate cancer antigen 3 moderately improves diagnostic accuracy in Chinese patients undergoing first prostate biopsy. Asian J Androl 2017; 19 (2): 238–243.Google ScholarPubMed
Hu, B, Yang, H, Yang, H. Diagnostic value of urine prostate cancer antigen 3 test using a cutoff value of 35 μg/L in patients with prostate cancer. Tumor Biol 2014; 35 (9): 8573–8580.10.1007/s13277-014-2109-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Konety, B, Zappala, SM, Parekh, DJ et al. The 4Kscore® test reduces prostate biopsy rates in community and academic urology practices. Rev Urol 2015; 17 (4): 231–240.Google ScholarPubMed
Zhuang, L, Johnson, MT. How precisely can prostate cancer be managed? Int Neurourol J 2016; 20 (Suppl 2): S120–S130. doi: 10.5213/inj.1632724.362. Epub 2016 Nov 22. PMID: 27915475; PMCID: PMC5169088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vickers, A, Cronin, A, Roobol, M et al. Reducing unnecessary biopsy during prostate cancer screening using a Four-Kallikrein Panel: an independent replication. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28 (15): 2493–2498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 Göteborg, Sweden. BMC Med 2008; 6 (1): 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loeb, S, Shin, SS, Broyles, DL et al. Prostate Health Index improves multivariable risk prediction of aggressive prostate cancer. BJU Int 2017; 120 (1): 61–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedersdorff, F, Groß, B, Maxeiner, A et al. Does the prostate health index depend on tumor volume?—A study on 196 patients after radical prostatectomy. Int J Mol Sci 2017; 18 (3): 488.10.3390/ijms18030488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrate, A, Lazzeri, M, Lughezzani, G et al. Clinical performance of the Prostate Health Index (PHI) for the prediction of prostate cancer in obese men: data from the PROMEtheuS project, a multicentre European prospective study. BJU Int 2015; 115 (4): 537–545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loeb, S, Sanda, MG, Broyles, DL et al. The Prostate Health Index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 2015; 193 (4): 1163–1169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hossain, D, Bostwick, DG. Significance of the TMPRSS2: ERG gene fusion in prostate cancer. BJU Int 2013; 111 (5): 834–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kulda, V, Topolcan, O, Kucera, R et al. Prognostic significance of TMPRSS2-ERG fusion gene in prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 2016; 36 (9): 4787–4793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magi-Galluzzi, C, Tsusuki, T, Elson, P et al. TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion prevalence and class are significantly different in prostate cancer of caucasian, african-american and japanese patients. The Prostate 2011; 71 (5): 489–497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nam, RK, Sugar, L, Wang, Z et al. Expression of TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion in prostate cancer cells is an important prognostic factor for cancer progression. Cancer Biol Ther 2007; 6 (1): 40–45.10.4161/cbt.6.1.3489CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demichelis, F, Fall, K, Perner, S et al. TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion associated with lethal prostate cancer in a watchful waiting cohort. Oncogene 2007; 26 (31): 4596–4599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, J, Yu, J, Mani, R et al. An integrated network of androgen receptor, polycomb, and TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusions in prostate cancer progression. Cancer Cell 2010; 17 (5): 443–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hägglöf, C, Hammarsten, P, Strömvall, K et al. TMPRSS2-ERG expression predicts prostate cancer survival and associates with stromal biomarkers. PLoS One 2014; 9 (2): e86824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, H, Lee, D, Park, JH et al. High throughput differential identification of TMPRSS2-ERG fusion genes in prostate cancer patient urine. Biomaterials 2017; 135: 23–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salagierski, M, Schalken, JA. Molecular diagnosis of prostate cancer: PCA3 and TMPRSS2: ERG gene fusion. J Urol 2012; 187 (3): 795–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomlins, SA, Laxman, B, Varambally, S et al. Role of the TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion in prostate cancer. Neoplasia 2008; 10 (2): 177–188. doi: 10.1593/neo.07822. PMID: 18283340; PMCID: PMC2244693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Z, Wang, Y, Zhang, J et al. Significance of the TMPRSS2: ERG gene fusion in prostate cancer. Mol Med Rep 2017; 16 (4): 5450–5458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, F, Gao, S, Han, D et al. TMPRSS2-ERG activates NO-cGMP signaling in prostate cancer cells. Oncogene 2019; 38 (22): 4397–4411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FitzGerald, LM, Agalliu, I, Johnson, K et al. Association of TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion with clinical characteristics and outcomes: results from a population-based study of prostate cancer. BMC Cancer 2008; 8 (1): 230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broncy, L, Paterlini-Bréchot, P. Clinical impact of circulating tumor cells in patients with localized prostate cancer. Cells (Basel, Switzerland) 2019; 8 (7): 676.Google ScholarPubMed
Chen, J, Lu, Y, Cheng, S, Tseng, H, Figlin, RA, Posadas, EM. Circulating tumor cells in prostate cancer: beyond enumeration. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 2017; 15 (1): 63.Google ScholarPubMed
Choi, SY, Lim, B, Kyung, YS et al. Circulating tumor cell counts in patients with localized prostate cancer including those under active surveillance. In vivo (Athens) 2019; 33 (5): 1615–1620.Google ScholarPubMed
Danila, DC, Fleisher, M, Scher, HI. Circulating tumor cells as biomarkers in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17 (12): 3903–3912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hegemann, M, Stenzl, A, Bedke, J, Chi, KN, Black, PC, Todenhöfer, T. Liquid biopsy: ready to guide therapy in advanced prostate cancer? BJU International 2016; 118 (6): 855–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galletti, G, Portella, L, Tagawa, S, Kirby, B, Giannakakou, P, Nanus, D. Circulating tumor cells in prostate cancer diagnosis and monitoring: an appraisal of clinical potential. Mol Diagn Ther 2014; 18 (4): 389–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salami, SS, Singhal, U, Spratt, DE et al. Circulating tumor cells as a predictor of treatment response in clinically localized prostate cancer. JCO Precis Oncol 2019; 3: 1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Lorente, D, Olmos, D, Mateo, J et al. Circulating tumour cell increase as a biomarker of disease progression in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with low baseline CTC counts. Ann Oncol 2018; 29 (7): 1554–1560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pourmand, G, Ziaee, A, Abedi, AR et al. Role of PTEN gene in progression of prostate cancer. Urol J 2007; 4 (2): 95–100.Google ScholarPubMed
Ye, X, Zhao, L, Kang, J. Expression and significance of PTEN and Claudin-3 in prostate cancer. Oncol Lett 2019; 17 (6): 5628–5634.Google ScholarPubMed
Ahearn, TU, Pettersson, A, Ebot, EM et al. A prospective investigation of PTEN loss and ERG expression in lethal prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 108 (2): djv346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jamaspishvili, T, Berman, DM, Ross, AE et al. Clinical implications of PTEN loss in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2018; 15 (4): 222–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stefano, S, Giovanni, S. The PTEN tumor suppressor gene in soft tissue sarcoma. Cancers (Basel) 2019; 11 (8): 1169. doi: 10.3390/cancers11081169. PMID: 31416195; PMCID: PMC6721622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tosoian, JJ, Guedes, LB, Morais, CL et al. PTEN status assessment in the Johns Hopkins active surveillance cohort. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2019; 22 (1): 176–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lotan, TL, Heumann, A, Rico, SD et al. PTEN loss detection in prostate cancer: comparison of PTEN immunohistochemistry and PTEN FISH in a large retrospective prostatectomy cohort. Oncotarget 2017; 8 (39): 65566–65576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Neste, L, Bigley, J, Toll, A et al. A tissue biopsy-based epigenetic multiplex PCR assay for prostate cancer detection. BMC Urol 2012; 12 (1): 16.10.1186/1471-2490-12-16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, GD, Van Neste, L, Delvenne, P et al. Clinical utility of an epigenetic assay to detect occult prostate cancer in histopathologically negative biopsies: results of the MATLOC study. J Urol 2013; 189 (3): 1110–1116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Partin, AW, Van Neste, L, Klein, EA et al. Clinical validation of an epigenetic assay to predict negative histopathological results in repeat prostate biopsies. J Urol 2014; 192 (4): 1081–1087.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Neste, L, Partin, AW, Stewart, GD, Epstein, JI, Harrison, DJ, Van Criekinge, W. Risk score predicts high-grade prostate cancer in DNA-methylation positive, histopathologically negative biopsies. The Prostate 2016; 76 (12): 1078–1087.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wojno, KJ, Costa, FJ, Cornell, RJ et al. Reduced rate of repeated prostate biopsies observed in confirmMDx clinical utility field study. Am Health Drug Benefits 2014; 7 (3): 129–134.Google ScholarPubMed
Mahon, KL, Qu, W, Lin, H et al. Serum free methylated glutathione S-transferase 1 DNA levels, survival, and response to docetaxel in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer: post hoc analyses of data from a phase 3 trial. Eur Urol 2019; 76 (3): 306–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yonover, P, Steyaert, S, Cohen, J et al. Clinical utility study of confirms mdx for prostate cancer in a community urology practice. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2019; 37, no. 7_suppl pp 94–94.Google Scholar
Wadosky, KM, Koochekpour, S. Androgen receptor splice variants and prostate cancer: From bench to bedside. Oncotarget 2017; 8 (11): 18550–18576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, T, Karsh, LI, Nissenblatt, MJ, Canfield, SE. Androgen receptor splice variant, AR-V7, as a biomarker of resistance to androgen axis-targeted therapies in advanced prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2020; 18 (1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Armstrong, AJ, Halabi, S, Luo, J et al. Prospective multicenter validation of androgen receptor splice variant 7 and hormone therapy resistance in high-risk castration-resistant prostate cancer: the PROPHECY study. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37 (13): 1120–1129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scher, HI, Graf, RP, Schreiber, NA et al. Assessment of the validity of nuclear-localized androgen receptor splice variant 7 in circulating tumor cells as a predictive biomarker for castration-resistant prostate cancer. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4 (9): 1179–1186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markowski, MC, Silberstein, JL, Eshleman, JR, Eisenberger, MA, Luo, J, Antonarakis, ES. Clinical utility of CLIA-Grade AR-V7 testing in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. JCO Precis Oncol 2017; 2017 (1): 1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Xu, J, Qiu, Y. Role of androgen receptor splice variants in prostate cancer metastasis. Asian J Urol 2016; 3 (4): 177–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antonarakis, ES, Lu, C, Wang, H et al. AR-V7 and resistance to enzalutamide and abiraterone in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 371 (11): 1028–1038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antonarakis, ES, Lu, C, Luber, B et al. Clinical significance of androgen receptor splice variant-7 mRNA detection in circulating tumor cells of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with first- and second-line abiraterone and enzalutamide. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35 (19): 2149–2156.10.1200/JCO.2016.70.1961CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tutrone, R, Donovan, MJ, Torkler, P et al. Clinical utility of the exosome based ExoDx Prostate(IntelliScore) EPI test in men presenting for initial Biopsy with a PSA 2-10 ng/mL. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2020; 23: 607–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKiernan, J, Donovan, MJ, Margolis, E et al. A prospective adaptive utility trial to validate performance of a novel urine exosome gene expression assay to predict high-grade prostate cancer in patients with prostate-specific antigen 2–10 ng/ml at initial biopsy. Eur Urol 2018; 74 (6): 731–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 Oncol 2016; 2 (7): 882–889.10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.0097CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donovan, MJ, Noerholm, M, Bentink, S et al. A molecular signature of PCA3 and ERG exosomal RNA from non-DRE urine is predictive of initial prostate biopsy result. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2015; 18 (4): 370–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Press, B, Schulster, M, Bjurlin, MA. Differentiating molecular risk assessments for prostate cancer. Rev Urol 2018; 20 (1): 12.Google ScholarPubMed
Adamo, P, Ladomery, MR. The oncogene ERG: a key factor in prostate cancer. Oncogene 2015; 35 (4): 403–414.10.1038/onc.2015.109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, X, Black, M, Ustiyan, V et al. SPDEF inhibits prostate carcinogenesis by disrupting a positive feedback loop in regulation of the Foxm1 oncogene. PLoS Genet 2014; 10 (9): e1004656.10.1371/journal.pgen.1004656CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nilsson, J, Skog, J, Nordstrand, A et al. Prostate cancer-derived urine exosomes: a novel approach to biomarkers for prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 2009; 100 (10): 1603–1607.10.1038/sj.bjc.6605058CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed