Clinical use of the SelectMDx urinary-biomarker test with or without mpMRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: a prospective, multicenter study in biopsy-naïve men.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification in men with suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) requires reliable diagnostic tests, not only to identify high-grade PCa, also to minimize the overdetection of low-grade PCa, and reduction of "unnecessary" prostate MRIs and biopsies. This study aimed to evaluate the SelectMDx test to detect high-grade PCa in biopsy-naïve men. Subsequently, to assess combinations of SelectMDx test and multi-parametric (mp) MRI and its potential impact on patient selection for prostate biopsy. METHODS: This prospective multicenter diagnostic study included 599 biopsy-naïve patients with prostate-specific antigen level ≥3 ng/ml. All patients underwent a SelectMDx test and mpMRI before systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB). Patients with a suspicious mpMRI also had an in-bore MR-guided biopsy (MRGB). Histopathologic outcome of TRUSGB and MRGB was used as reference standard. High-grade PCa was defined as ISUP Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2. The primary outcome was the detection rates of low- and high-grade PCa and number of biopsies avoided in four strategies, i.e., (1) SelectMDx test-only, (2) mpMRI-only, (3) SelectMDx test followed by mpMRI when SelectMDx test was positive (conditional strategy), and (4) SelectMDx test and mpMRI in all (joint strategy). A positive SelectMDx test outcome was a risk score of ≥-2.8. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to assess clinical utility. RESULTS: Prevalence of high-grade PCa was 31% (183/599). Thirty-eight percent (227/599) of patients had negative SelectMDx test in whom biopsy could be avoided. Low-grade PCa was not detected in 35% (48/138) with missing 10% (18/183) high-grade PCa. Yet, mpMRI-only could avoid 49% of biopsies, not detecting 4.9% (9/183) of high-grade PCa. The conditional strategy reduces the number of mpMRIs by 38% (227/599), avoiding biopsy in 60% (357/599) and missing 13% (24/183) high-grade PCa. Low-grade PCa was not detected in 58% (80/138). DCA showed the highest net benefit for the mpMRI-only strategy, followed by the conditional strategy at-risk thresholds >10%. CONCLUSIONS: SelectMDx test as a risk stratification tool for biopsy-naïve men avoids unnecessary biopsies in 38%, minimizes low-grade PCa detection, and misses only 10% high-grade PCa. Yet, using mpMRI in all patients had the highest net benefit, avoiding biopsy in 49% and missing 4.9% of high-risk PCa. However, if mpMRI availability is limited or expensive, using mpMRI-only in SelectMDx test positive patients is a good alternative strategy.

Epigenetic markers in circulating cell-free DNA as prognostic markers for survival of castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive biomarkers to guide personalized treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) are needed. In this study, we analyzed hypermethylation patterns of two genes (GSTP1 and APC) in plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) of CRPC patients. The aim of this study was to analyze the cfDNA concentrations and levels of the epigenetic markers and to assess the value of these biomarkers for prognosis. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients were included before starting new treatment after developing CRPC. The blood samples were collected prior to start of the treatment and at three time points thereafter. cfDNA was extracted from 1.5 mL of plasma and before performing a methylation-specific PCR, bisulfate modification was carried out. RESULTS: The median levels of cfDNA, GSTP1, and APC copies in the baseline samples of CRPC patients (n = 47) were higher than in controls (n = 30). In the survival analysis, the group with baseline marker levels below median had significant less PCa-related deaths (P-values <0.02) and did not reach the median survival point. The survival distributions for the groups were statistically significant for the cfDNA concentration, GSTP1 and APC copies, as well as PSA combined with GSTP1 + APC (P-values <0.03). Furthermore, there were strong positive correlations between PSA and marker response after starting treatment (P-values <0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this study showed the kinetics of methylated cfDNA (GSTP1 and APC) in plasma of CRPC patients after starting treatment. Furthermore, the value of the markers before treatment is prognostic for overall survival. These results are promising for developing a test to guide treatment-decision-making for CRPC patients.

A urinary biomarker-based risk score correlates with multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics would greatly benefit from more accurate, non-invasive techniques for the detection of clinically significant disease, leading to a reduction of over-diagnosis and over-treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the association between a novel urinary biomarker-based risk score (SelectMDx), multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) outcomes, and biopsy results for PCa detection. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used data from the validation study of the SelectMDx score, in which urine was collected after digital rectal examination from men undergoing prostate biopsies. A subset of these patients also underwent a mpMRI scan of the prostate. The indications for performing mpMRI were based on persistent clinical suspicion of PCa or local staging after PCa was found upon biopsy. All mpMRI images were centrally reviewed in 2016 by an experienced radiologist blinded for the urine test results and biopsy outcome. The PI-RADS version 2 was used. RESULTS: In total, 172 patients were included for analysis. Hundred (58%) patients had PCa detected upon prostate biopsy, of which 52 (52%) had high-grade disease correlated with a significantly higher SelectMDx score (P < 0.01). The median SelectMDx score was significantly higher in patients with a suspicious significant lesion on mpMRI compared to no suspicion of significant PCa (P < 0.01). For the prediction of mpMRI outcome, the area-under-the-curve of SelectMDx was 0.83 compared to 0.66 for PSA and 0.65 for PCA3. There was a positive association between SelectMDx score and the final PI-RADS grade. There was a statistically significant difference in SelectMDx score between PI-RADS 3 and 4 (P < 0.01) and between PI-RADS 4 and 5 (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The novel urinary biomarker-based SelectMDx score is a promising tool in PCa detection. This study showed promising results regarding the correlation between the SelectMDx score and mpMRI outcomes, outperforming PCA3. Our results suggest that this risk score could guide clinicians in identifying patients at risk for significant PCa and selecting patients for further radiological diagnostics to reduce unnecessary procedures.

Cost-effectiveness of a new urinary biomarker-based risk score compared to standard of care in prostate cancer diagnostics - a decision analytical model.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a new urinary biomarker-based risk score (SelectMDx; MDxHealth, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) to identify patients for transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy and to compare this with the current standard of care (SOC), using only prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to select for TRUS-guided biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision tree and Markov model were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SelectMDx as a reflex test vs SOC in men with a PSA level of >3 ng/mL. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs were derived from the literature and expert opinion. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare costs of both diagnostic strategies, simulating the course of patients over a time horizon representing 18 years. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty in assumptions. RESULTS: A diagnostic strategy including SelectMDx with a cut-off chosen at a sensitivity of 95.7% for high-grade prostate cancer resulted in savings of €128 and a gain of 0.025 QALY per patient compared to the SOC strategy. The sensitivity analyses showed that the disutility assigned to active surveillance had a high impact on the QALYs gained and the disutility attributed to TRUS-guided biopsy only slightly influenced the outcome of the model. CONCLUSION: Based on the currently available evidence, the reduction of over diagnosis and overtreatment due to the use of the SelectMDx test in men with PSA levels of >3 ng/mL may lead to a reduction in total costs per patient and a gain in QALYs.

Pharmacokinetic Aspects of the Two Novel Oral Drugs Used for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Abiraterone Acetate and Enzalutamide.

Two novel oral drugs that target androgen signaling have recently become available for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Abiraterone acetate inhibits the synthesis of the natural ligands of the androgen receptor, whereas enzalutamide directly inhibits the androgen receptor by several mechanisms. Abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide appear to be equally effective for patients with mCRPC pre- and postchemotherapy. Rational decision making for either one of these drugs is therefore potentially driven by individual patient characteristics. In this review, an overview of the pharmacokinetic characteristics is given for both drugs and potential and proven drug-drug interactions are presented. Additionally, the effect of patient-related factors on drug disposition are summarized and the limited data on the exposure-response relationships are described. The most important pharmacological feature of enzalutamide that needs to be recognized is its capacity to induce several key enzymes in drug metabolism. The potency to cause drug-drug interactions needs to be addressed in patients who are treated with multiple drugs simultaneously. Abiraterone has a much smaller drug-drug interaction potential; however, it is poorly absorbed, which is affected by food intake, and a large interpatient variability in drug exposure is observed. Dose reductions of abiraterone or, alternatively, the selection of enzalutamide, should be considered in patients with hepatic dysfunction. Understanding the pharmacological characteristics and challenges of both drugs could facilitate decision making for either one of the drugs.

Detection of High-grade Prostate Cancer Using a Urinary Molecular Biomarker-Based Risk Score.

BACKGROUND: To reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment, a test is urgently needed to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To develop a multimodal model, incorporating previously identified messenger RNA (mRNA) biomarkers and traditional risk factors that could be used to identify patients with high-grade PCa (Gleason score ≥7) on prostate biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In two prospective multicenter studies, urine was collected for mRNA profiling after digital rectal examination (DRE) and prior to prostate biopsy. The multimodal risk score was developed on a first cohort (n=519) and subsequently validated clinically in an independent cohort (n=386). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The mRNA levels were measured using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Logistic regression was used to model patient risk and combine risk factors. Models were compared using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic, and clinical utility was evaluated with a decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: HOXC6 and DLX1 mRNA levels were shown to be good predictors for the detection of high-grade PCa. The multimodal approach reached an overall AUC of 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.95) in the validation cohort (AUC 0.86 in the training cohort), with the mRNA signature, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density, and previous cancer-negative prostate biopsies as the strongest, most significant components, in addition to nonsignificant model contributions of PSA, age, and family history. For another model, which included DRE as an additional risk factor, an AUC of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92) was obtained (AUC 0.90 in the training cohort). Both models were successfully validated, with no significant change in AUC in the validation cohort, and DCA indicated a strong net benefit and the best reduction in unnecessary biopsies compared with other clinical decision-making tools, such as the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator and the PCA3 assay. CONCLUSIONS: The risk score based on the mRNA liquid biopsy assay combined with traditional clinical risk factors identified men at risk of harboring high-grade PCa and resulted in a better patient risk stratification compared with current methods in clinical practice. Therefore, the risk score could reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study evaluated a novel urine-based assay that could be used as a noninvasive diagnostic aid for high-grade prostate cancer (PCa). When results of this assay are combined with traditional clinical risk factors, risk stratification for high-grade PCa and biopsy decision making are improved.

Comparative analysis of prostate cancer specific biomarkers PCA3 and ERG in whole urine, urinary sediments and exosomes.

BACKGROUND: PCA3 and ERG are mRNA-based prostate cancer (PCa) specific biomarkers that can be detected in urine. However, urine is a complex substrate that can be separated in several fractions. In this study we compared the levels of PCa-specific biomarkers (PCA3 and ERG) and KLK3 as prostate-specific reference gene in three urine substrates-whole urine, urinary sediment (cell pellet) and exosomes-and evaluated the influence of performing a digital rectal examination (DRE) prior to urine sampling. METHODS: First-voided urine samples were prospectively obtained before and after DRE from 29 men undergoing prostate biopsies. The urine was separated in whole urine, cell pellet and exosomes and the biomarker levels were measured with RT-qPCR. RESULTS: PCa was identified in 52% (15/29) of men. In several samples the mRNA levels were below the analytical limit of detection (BDL). The biomarker levels were highest in whole urine and significantly higher after DRE in all substrates. In PCa patients higher levels of PCA3 and ERG were found in all urine substrates after DRE compared to non-PCa patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in which urinary PCa-specific biomarker levels were compared directly in three separate urine fractions. These results suggest that whole urine could be the urine substrate of choice for PCa-diagnostics based on analytical sensitivity, which is reflected directly in the high informative rate. Moreover, the significant positive effect of performing a DRE prior to urine sampling is confirmed. These findings could be of influence in the development of PCa-diagnostic urine tests.