Management of clinically localized prostate cancer

Critics of screening have stated that early detection of prostate cancer does not necessarily reflect a diminishing death rate from the disease. However, several recent reports have demonstrated that the death rate from prostate cancer is decreasing, representing the most compelling validation for aggressive screening. Prostate cancer can be halted only if there is no evidence of systemic or regional metastases and the disease is confined to the surgical field or the radiation template. Surgeons and radiation oncologists must make a concerted effort to exclude men with regional and systemic metastases who are unlikely to benefit from treatment. With the widespread acceptance of prostate-specific antigen screening, a greater proportion of men are being diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Both radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy are able to halt disease spread in this significant subset of men, but survival outcomes indicate that radical prostatectomy is a more reliable treatment than radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Overall, the immediate treatment-related morbidity of radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy in the modern era is quite low. Radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy appear to have a similar impact on continence and erectile function. There is a need for neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies that can be utilized in those cases where radical prostatectomy and radiation are less likely to completely eradicate or destroy the cancer.     

Place de la prostatectomie radicale dans le traitement du cancer de prostate

The screening of the prostate cancer with PSA has dramatically modified the circumstances of diagnosis. Nowadays, most of the patients have a localized disease. The treatment is based on prognostic factors and the spreading of the tumor. If the cancer is localized, some treatments are available. Among them, the radical prostatectomy can be performed either laparoscopically or by an open approach. Surgical treatment of prostate cancer is proven to be an effective way to decrease the occurrence of locoregional extension and metastatic disease. It has been proven that it allowed diminishing the mortality in patients who have a life expectancy more than 10 years. The side effects of the radical prostatectomy consist of impotency and incontinence which can be rehabilitated. The treatment of locally advanced cancer is a controversial issue that can consist in surgery as a unique treatment or in a multimodal treatment. This text summaries the recommendations of the French association of Urology.     

Evaluation and treatment of men with biochemical prostate-specific antigen recurrence following definitive therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer

Early detection and monitoring by serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement has increased the number of men presenting with potentially curable prostate cancer. Most will choose radical prostatectomy or some form of radiation therapy for treatment, but some will have evidence of biochemical disease recurrence following therapy, shown by a rising PSA level without other clinical evidence of disease. Radical prostatectomy involves the removal of all prostate tissue, causing the serum PSA to decline to undetectable levels within four to six weeks following surgery; a subsequent rise in the serum PSA to a detectable level indicates disease recurrence. Patients should be evaluated to assess whether rising PSA levels indicate local recurrence or early metastatic disease. The advantages of salvage radiation, endocrine therapy, and other treatment modalities in local disease recurrence must be weighed against potential side effects and the resulting decrease in quality of life. Radiation therapy does not immediately eradicate all PSA-producing cells; therefore the persistence of a detectable PSA does not necessarily imply residual cancer, but rising PSA levels indicate treatment failure. Salvage surgery can be performed after radiotherapy for the purpose of removing all viable cancer cells, but should be weighed against a higher incidence of surgical complications; cryoablation offers a less invasive therapeutic modality.     

Selecting treatment for high-risk, localized prostate cancer: the case for radical prostatectomy

The most common treatment options for men with clinically localized prostate cancer include radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy. The choice between these options is often controversial, and selecting the optimal treatment poses a great challenge for patients and physicians. Factors important to the decision include age and life expectancy of the patient, the natural history of the prostate cancer, how curable the disease is, and the morbidity of treatment. Use of these criteria to select treatment for a healthy, 70-year-old man presenting with a nonpalpable tumor, stage T1c disease, serum prostate-specific antigen of 12 ng/mL, and an adenocarcinoma with a Gleason score of 8 that is present in 2 of 12 biopsy cores would lead to the choice of radical prostatectomy over radiation therapy. Data show that such a patient has a life expectancy of more than 12.3 years if the prostate cancer can be cured and a high probability of dying from the disease if it is not cured. Data further show that radical prostatectomy in such a patient would confer a survival advantage over radiation therapy without resulting in greater complications or reduction in quality of life.     

Modern brachytherapy for localized prostate cancers: the northwest hospital (Seattle) experience

Modern ultrasound-guided prostate brachytherapy is rapidly changing the way localized prostate cancer is managed. With routine use of prostate-specific antigen screening, prostate cancer is being diagnosed in younger men, who are understandably concerned about the morbidity of radical treatments that may significantly decrease their quality of life. Numerous studies of prostate brachytherapy have shown the excellent disease control rates achieved while maintaining low levels of urinary and erectile difficulties. This report examines a modern implant method of brachytherapy; describes patient selection for brachytherapy, alone and in combination with external beam therapy; and presents results from a series of men followed for 12 years.     

UNINFORMED CONSENT: MASS SCREENING FOR PROSTATE CANCER

While medicine may agree in principle that cancer screening requires informed consent, such consent is not, in fact, common practice. In the case of prostate‐cancer screening this means that men in large numbers undergo PSA testing with little understanding of its liabilities – in particular, that it may or may not decrease mortality, often detects cancer of questionable significance, and may lead to unnecessary surgery. Given that prostate cancer is known to be overtreated and that family history is a risk factor, it follows that a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, even if it is of no clinical significance, automatically promotes his son into the high‐risk category; and given that those so categorized are subject to heightened medical surveillance and that the more diligently medicine searches for prostate cancer the more likely it is to find it, it follows that the sons of men diagnosed as a result of PSA testing are at risk of being overdiagnosed (and overtreated) precisely because their father was. Twenty years into the PSA revolution, its generational consequences have not been discussed in the medical literature.     

Prostate cancer association studies: pitfalls and solutions to cancer misclassification in the PSA era

Widespread screening of American men for elevated PSA has changed the characteristics of prostate cancer cases in the U.S. The influence of the changed nature of prostate cancer cases in the PSA era and the need for careful consideration of who is a "case" and who is a "control" on the ability to detect associations of risk factors with prostate cancer in etiologic epidemiologic studies merits discussion. Issue 1: prostate cancer cases diagnosed in the PSA era are enriched with a pool of early lesions, which may differ in etiology, and are deficient in advanced lesions, which are the most likely to be the product of promotion and progression events. By admixing the two types of cases (i.e., imperfect specificity), the associations previously detected using epidemiologic designs when the majority of cases were clinically detected may no longer be apparent in the PSA era when the majority of cases are now detected in the pre-clinical phase. Researchers must now tailor hypotheses such that they are testable using early stage cases or specifically augment the number of advanced cases when testing hypotheses related to extraprostatic growth and progression. Issue 2: even when controls are screened for elevated PSA to rule out the presence of prostate cancer, some proportion of those controls currently will have one or more foci of prostate cancer. The imperfect sensitivity of the PSA test coupled with diagnostic work-up may in part result from (a) lack of PSA elevation in some men with prostate cancer or (b) failure of biopsy to sample the tumor focus in men with elevated PSA. Misclassification of men with undetected prostate cancer as controls usually produces a bias that tends to deflate associations. Given this type of disease misclassification, whether an association still can be statistically detected depends on the extent of misclassification, the magnitude of the true association, the prevalence of the exposure in the true controls, and the sample size, although in general moderate nondifferential misclassification does not lead to profound attenuation. However, under the same scenario attenuation does not occur in cohort or case-cohort studies in which the rate or risk ratio (RR) is calculated. That prostate cancer cases diagnosed in the PSA era are enriched with early stage, minimally invasive disease in our opinion is likely to pose a far more serious obstacle to epidemiologic research on the etiology of clinically important prostate cancer than the issue of inclusion as controls some men who have undiagnosed prostate cancer because of imperfect sensitivity of PSA screening and biopsy sampling error.     

New techniques and management options for localized prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is diagnosed in younger men who want treatment that does not compromise their quality of life, take time away from work, or cause worrisome side effects. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and third-generation cryotherapy are modifications of previously used techniques in the treatment of prostate cancer and are presented in this article. Although some or all of the outcomes might be expected to change in the future, the urologic surgeon is left to select an approach, presumably on the basis of the experience, level of training, and care pathways at his or her institution.     

Cancer de la prostate : la maladie localisée

Localized prostate cancer is characterized by a tumor confined to the prostate gland at clinical evaluation. Since the onset of PSA screening, the detection of localized prostate cancer has increased. Prognosis factors are clinical stadification, PSA value, PSA doubling time, tumor volume related to needle biopsy pathologic findings (Gleason score, percentage biopsies involved). Treatment depends on tumor prognosis, symptoms and performance status of the patient. Localized prostate cancer can be treated by surgery (radical prostatectomy, high intensity focused ultrasound) or radiotherapy (conformational radiation therapy, brachytherapy). Active follow-up can be proposed to very low risk patients.     

Vascular Targeted Photodynamic Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

Survival for men diagnosed with prostate cancer directly depends on the stage and grade of the disease at diagnosis. Prostate cancer screening has greatly increased the ability to diagnose small and low-grade cancers that are amenable to cure. However, widespread prostate-specific antigen screening exposes many men with low-risk cancers to unnecessary complications associated with treatment for localized disease without any survival advantage. One challenge for urological surgeons is to develop effective treatment options for low-risk disease that are associated with fewer complications. Minimally invasive ablative treatments for localized prostate cancer are under development and may represent a preferred option for men with low-risk disease who want to balance the risks and benefits of treatment. Vascular targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) is a novel technique that is being developed for treating prostate cancer. Recent advances in photodynamic therapy have led to the development of photosynthesizers that are retained by the vascular system, which provides the opportunity to selectively ablate the prostate with minimal collateral damage to other structures. The rapid clearance of these new agents negates the need to avoid exposure to sunlight for long periods. Presented herein are the rationale and preliminary data for VTP for localized prostate cancer.Key words: Prostate cancer, localized; Minimally invasive ablative treatment for prostate cancer; Photodynamic therapy; WST-09; WST-11; Vascular targeted photodynamic therapy; Padoporfin; Palladium bacteriopheophorbideProstate cancer represents the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in American men; it is estimated that 27,000 men in the United States died from the disease in 2007.¹ Survival for men with prostate cancer directly depends on the stage and grade of the disease at the time of diagnosis.² These sobering mortality statistics and the more favorable prognosis associated with early detection provide the primary justification for prostate cancer screening, which is performed by measuring the level of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and conducting a digital rectal examination (DRE). It is estimated that 50% of men over the age of 50 years are screened annually for prostate cancer.³Despite widespread acceptance, prostate cancer screening is debated,^4,5 and recommendations for prostate cancer screening are inconsistent. Screening protagonists emphasize that radical prostatectomy increases prostate cancer survival in men with localized disease,⁶ and that the recently observed progressive and significant decline in prostate cancer mortality rates is the direct result of PSA screening and aggressive intervention.⁷ Screening antagonists emphasize the indolent natural history of most prostate cancers detected by screening,⁸ and that the vast majority of men who are treated for prostate cancer do not recognize any survival advantage from early detection and are simply left suffering the ravages of treatment.⁹Both sides of the screening debate have valid arguments. In the absence of widespread screening, many men are denied an opportunity to cure their disease. These men will experience the otherwise preventable consequences of disease progression, which include the development of androgen-insensitive disease¹⁰ and death. However, widespread screening exposes many men to unnecessary complications associated with treatment for localized disease. The challenges are to identify and treat only those cancers that have the biological potential to cause serious and preventable consequences, or to develop treatment options that are associated with fewer complications.     

A review of surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy

Since the early 20th century, radical prostatectomy has been used in the treatment of prostate cancer. However, before the widespread acceptance of prostate-specific antigen screening, the majority of cancers were clinically advanced and not amenable to cure, so relatively few men were candidates for this procedure. Modern advances have contributed dramatically to the reduction of complications and morbidity associated with radical prostatectomy. As a result, the procedure has become the most common treatment selected by men with localized prostate cancer. This article reviews several issues regarding radical prostatectomy, including surgical techniques, cancer control, intraoperative localization of the cavernous nerves, patient selection, and laparoscopic versus robotic approaches.     

The 4Kscore? Test Reduces Prostate Biopsy Rates in Community and Academic Urology Practices

There is significant concern regarding prostate cancer screening because of the potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment of men who are discovered to have abnormal prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels and/or digital rectal examination (DRE) results. The 4Kscore® Test (OPKO Diagnostics, LLC) is a blood test that utilizes four kallikrein levels plus clinical information in an algorithm to calculate an individual’s percentage risk (< 1% to > 95%) for aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 7) on prostate biopsy. The 4Kscore Test, as a follow-up test after abnormal PSA and/or DRE test results, has been shown to improve the specificity for predicting the risk of aggressive prostate cancer and reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies. A clinical utility study was conducted to assess the influence of the 4Kscore Test on the decision to perform prostate biopsies in men referred to urologists for abnormal PSA and/or DRE results. The study population included 611 patients seen by 35 academic and community urologists in the United States. Urologists ordered the 4Kscore Test as part of their assessment of men referred for abnormal PSA and/or DRE test results. Results for the patients were stratified into low risk (< 7.5%), intermediate risk (7.5%–19.9%), and high risk (≥ 20%) for aggressive prostate cancer. The 4Kscore Test results influenced biopsy decisions in 88.7% of the men. Performing the 4Kscore Test resulted in a 64.6% reduction in prostate biopsies in patients; the actual percentage of cases not proceeding to biopsy were 94.0%, 52.9%, and 19.0% for men who had low-, intermediate-, and high-risk 4Kscore Test results, respectively. A higher 4Kscore Test was associated with greater likelihood of having a prostate biopsy (P < 0.001). Among the 171 patients who had a biopsy, the 4Kscore risk category is strongly associated with biopsy pathology. The 4Kscore Test, as a follow-up test for an abnormal PSA and/or DRE results, significantly influenced the physician and patient shared decision in clinical practice, which led to a reduction in prostate biopsies while increasing the probability of detecting aggressive cancer.Key Words: Prostate cancer, Prostate-specific antigen, Digital rectal examination, Biopsy rate, Gleason score, 4Kscore Test, Prostate cancer prognosisWidespread screening for prostate cancer with serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) began in 1991, and subsequently a 45% decline in prostate cancer mortality has been observed.¹ A recent large European randomized clinical trial also reported a 29% reduction in death from prostate cancer in men undergoing routine screening.² However, because of a US study that showed no mortality benefits to organized PSA screening,³ and the net physical and psychologic burden of secondary adverse events triggered by PSA testing versus the number of lives saved, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently advised against routine PSA screening for prostate cancer.⁴ The concern of the USPSTF is based on the fact that most men diagnosed with prostate cancer have a tumor that is unlikely to pose a threat to life expectancy. A recent systematic analysis suggested that up to 60% of prostate cancers diagnosed in contemporary studies might be safely observed without a need for immediate intervention.⁵One of the primary challenges for urologists is the potential for under-grading of Gleason 6 prostate cancer due to biopsy sampling error; as a result, up to 90% of men with a Gleason 6 prostate cancer still proceed to prostate cancer treatment despite the advent of active surveillance programs. Approximately 66% of patients who are diagnosed with Gleason 6 disease at biopsy will be confirmed to have Gleason 6 cancer after radical prostatectomy.⁶ Some of these men are considered to have undergone overtreatment, because Gleason 6 cancer is not considered life threatening.⁷ This subset of men has the potential for developing complications following surgery, including erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and changes in health-related quality of life with disruption of psychologic, sexual, and urinary function.^8–12The prostate biopsy procedure is invasive, and has significant costs and complications such as bleeding, urinary retention, and life-threatening infection. A recent population-based study from Ontario, Canada, revealed a fourfold increase to 4.1% for the rate of hospital admissions after prostate biopsy from 1996 to 2005, with 72% of admissions due to infection.¹³ These risks, combined with the anxiety involved in undergoing the procedure, present a significant burden to any man considering prostate cancer screening.The impact of the USPSTF has been a decrease in overall biopsy rates with a subsequent decline in the detection rate of Gleason 7 to 10 high-grade prostate cancers.¹⁴ The elimination of PSA screening means that the 20% to 30% of men who would have presented with an abnormal PSA level and been found to have high-grade prostate cancer may lose an opportunity for a possible cure.¹⁵ Clearly, there is a need for better risk-stratification tools for men presenting with an abnormal PSA level and/or digital rectal examination (DRE) result in order to both reduce the number of prostate biopsies performed and decrease the rate of Gleason 6 diagnosis and treatment.⁶The 4Kscore® Test (OPKO Diagnostics, LLC) incorporates measured blood levels of four kallikrein proteins: total PSA, free PSA, intact PSA, and human kallikrein 2 plus clinical information (age, DRE findings, and a history of prior negative biopsy result) into a proprietary algorithm to calculate an individual man’s percentage risk (< 1% to > 95%) of having Gleason score ≥ 7 if a prostate biopsy were to be performed. The 4Kscore Test has been extensively validated through a total of 12 prospective and retrospective studies published in peer-reviewed journals involving over 22,000 patients from both the United States and Europe.^16–23 These studies of men with elevated PSA levels involved cohorts of unscreened and screened men, and those with negative prior prostate biopsy results. Based on analyses published in these studies, the 4Kscore Test would have theoretically resulted in a 45% reduction in prostate biopsies while delaying the diagnosis of aggressive prostate cancer in only a few men (1.3%–4.7%).The 4Kscore Test is used to accurately determine percentage risk for aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 7) and provide additional information for men being considered for prostate biopsy because of abnormal PSA levels and/or DRE results. This allows urologists to better risk stratify men for biopsy and ultimately results in more selective treatment of those men with aggressive disease. Conversely, those men not harboring life-threatening disease are able to safely avoid prostate biopsy and overtreatment of indolent disease.With the introduction of any new diagnostic test such as the 4Kscore Test into clinical practice, it is important to assess whether its implementation, in this case as a follow-up test for an abnormal PSA and/or DRE result, influences and changes the physician-patient shared decision-making process and leads to an actual reduction in prostate biopsies. Herein we evaluated the influence of the 4Kscore Test on urologist-patient decisions about proceeding with biopsy in men who have an abnormal PSA and/or DRE result from multiple academic and community urology clinical practices in the United States.     

Prostate cancer risk in testosterone-treated men

Men with classical androgen deficiency have reduced prostate volume and blood prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels compared with their age peers. As it is plausible that androgen deficiency partially protects against prostate disease, and that restoring androgen exposure increases risk to that of eugonadal men of the same age, men using ART should have age-appropriate surveillance for prostate disease. This should comprise rectal examination and blood PSA measurement at regular intervals (determined by age and family history) according to the recommendations, permanently revisited, published by ISSAM, EAU, Endocrine Society….

Testosterone replacement therapy is now being prescribed more often for aging men, the same population in which prostate cancer incidence increases; it has been suggested that administration in men with unrecognised prostate cancer might promote the development of clinically significant disease. In hypogonadal men who were candidates for testosterone therapy, a 14% incidence of occult cancer was found. A percentage (15.2%) of prostate cancer has been found in the placebo group (with normal DRE and PSA) in the prostate cancer prevention study investigating the chemoprevention potential of finasteride.

The hypothesis that high levels of circulating androgens is a risk factor for prostate cancer is supported by the dramatic regression, after castration, of tumour symptoms in men with advanced prostate cancer. However these effects, seen at a very late stage of cancer development, may not be relevant to reflect the effects of variations within a physiological range at an earlier stage.

Data from all published prospective studies on circulating level of total and free testosterone do not support the hypothesis that high levels of circulating androgens are associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. A study on a large prospective cohort of 10,049 men, contributes to the gathering evidence that the long standing “androgen hypothesis” of increasing risk with increasing androgen levels can be rejected, suggesting instead that high levels within the reference range of androgens, estrogens and adrenal androgens decrease aggressive prostate cancer risk. Indeed, high-grade prostate cancer has been associated with low plasma level of testosterone. Furthermore, pre-treatment total testosterone was an independent predictor of extraprostatic disease in patients with localized prostate cancer; as testosterone decreases, patients have an increased likelihood of non-organ confined disease and low serum testosterone levels are associated with positive surgical margins in radical retropubic prostatectomy.

A clinical implication of these results concerns androgen supplementation which has become easier to administer with the advent of transdermal preparations (patch or gel) that achieve physiological testosterone serum levels without supra physiological escape levels. During the clinical development of a new testosterone patch in more than 200 primary or secondary hypogonadal patients, no prostate cancer was diagnosed.     

Discovery and Validation of a Prostate Cancer Genomic Classifier that Predicts Early Metastasis Following Radical Prostatectomy

Purpose

Clinicopathologic features and biochemical recurrence are sensitive, but not specific, predictors of metastatic disease and lethal prostate cancer. We hypothesize that a genomic expression signature detected in the primary tumor represents true biological potential of aggressive disease and provides improved prediction of early prostate cancer metastasis.

Methods

A nested case-control design was used to select 639 patients from the Mayo Clinic tumor registry who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1987 and 2001. A genomic classifier (GC) was developed by modeling differential RNA expression using 1.4 million feature high-density expression arrays of men enriched for rising PSA after prostatectomy, including 213 who experienced early clinical metastasis after biochemical recurrence. A training set was used to develop a random forest classifier of 22 markers to predict for cases - men with early clinical metastasis after rising PSA. Performance of GC was compared to prognostic factors such as Gleason score and previous gene expression signatures in a withheld validation set.

Results

Expression profiles were generated from 545 unique patient samples, with median follow-up of 16.9 years. GC achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.75 (0.67–0.83) in validation, outperforming clinical variables and gene signatures. GC was the only significant prognostic factor in multivariable analyses. Within Gleason score groups, cases with high GC scores experienced earlier death from prostate cancer and reduced overall survival. The markers in the classifier were found to be associated with a number of key biological processes in prostate cancer metastatic disease progression.

Conclusion

A genomic classifier was developed and validated in a large patient cohort enriched with prostate cancer metastasis patients and a rising PSA that went on to experience metastatic disease. This early metastasis prediction model based on genomic expression in the primary tumor may be useful for identification of aggressive prostate cancer.     

Epidémiologie,diagnostic et pronostic du cancer de la prostate

Prostate cancer is the most frequent of cancers and represents the third leading cause of death by cancer, for men over 50 years, in France and Europe. The incidence decreases since about ten years. Mass screening is not recommended. Individual early diagnosis is based on a yearly exam including Prostate Specific Antigene (PSA) blood test and a digital rectal exam. The target for this diagnostic approach are men from 50 to 75 years with more than 10 years of life expectancy. A series of prostatic biopsy are carried out in case of clinical and/or biological prostate cancer suspicion. The additional examinations recommended in the assessment of extension of prostate cancer with intermediate and high risk are: MRI, bones scintigraphy, scan CAP (metastatic stage), and sometimes Choline PET-CT. Curative treatments are proposed to men with a probability of survival over 10 years, suffering from localized or locally advanced cancer. Gold standard treatments are: active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy, radiotherapy alone or with surgery and/or hormone therapy. Experimental treatments of localized tumors are: focal treatments (phototherapy dynamic, high intensity focused ultrasound). For the more advanced forms, the interest of early chemotherapy is extensively studied.     

The additional value of TGFβ1 and IL-7 to predict the course of prostate cancer progression

Background

Given the fact that prostate cancer incidence will increase in the coming years, new prognostic biomarkers are needed with regard to the biological aggressiveness of the prostate cancer diagnosed. Since cytokines have been associated with the biology of cancer and its prognosis, we determined whether transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGFβ1), interleukin-7 (IL-7) receptor and IL-7 levels add additional prognostic information with regard to prostate cancer-specific survival.

Materials and methods

Retrospective survival analysis of forty-four prostate cancer patients, that underwent radical prostatectomy, was performed (1989–2001). Age, Gleason score and pre-treatment PSA levels were collected. IL-7, IL-7 receptor and TGFβ1 levels in prostate cancer tissue were determined by quantitative real-time RT-PCR and their additional prognostic value analyzed with regard to prostate cancer survival. Hazard ratios and their confidence intervals were estimated, and Akaike’s information criterion was calculated for model comparison.

Results

The predictive ability of a model for prostate cancer survival more than doubled when TGFβ1 and IL-7 were added to a model containing only the Gleason score and pre-treatment PSA (AIC: 18.1 and AIC: 6.5, respectively).

Conclusion

IL-7 and TGFβ1 are promising markers to indicate those at risk for poor prostate cancer survival. This additional information may be of interest with regard to the biological aggressiveness of the diagnosed prostate cancer, especially for those patients screened for prostate cancer and their considered therapy.     

Current Clinical Applications of the In-capromab Pendetide Scan (ProstaScint(R) Scan, Cyt-356)

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been extremely helpful in the detection of new or recurrent prostate cancer. However, localization of the recurrent tumor has been challenging with currently available radiographic modalities. The (111)In-capromab pendetide scan was developed to diagnose accurately and, more importantly, localize and stage a new or recurrent prostate cancer. Studies suggest that the (111)In-capromab pendetide scan can provide more accurate staging of clinically localized prostate cancer prior to staging lymphadenectomy or definitive therapy. It can also provide valuable information when local adjuvant radiation therapy is considered in men with biochemical cancer recurrence following radical prostatectomy.     

Newer potential biomarkers in prostate cancer

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has led to a significant rise in the number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer and an associated increase in biopsies performed. Despite its limitations, including a positive predictive value of only 25%-40%, PSA remains the only generally accepted biomarker for prostate cancer. There is a need for better tools to not only identify men with prostate cancer, but also to recognize those with potentially lethal disease who will benefit from intervention. A great deal of work has been done worldwide to improve our knowledge of the genetics behind prostate cancer and the specificity of PSA by developing assays for different PSA isoforms. Common genetic alterations in prostate cancer patients have been identified, including CpG hypermethylation of GSPT1 and TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion. Serum and urine detection of RNA biomarkers (eg, PCA3) and prostate cancer tissue protein antibodies (eg, EPCA) are being evaluated for detection and prognostic tools. This article reviews some of the promising developments in biomarkers.     

Finding the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: The 4Kscore Is a Novel Blood Test That Can Accurately Identify the Risk of Aggressive Prostate Cancer

Better biomarkers that can discriminate between aggressive and indolent phenotypes of prostate cancer are urgently needed. In the first 20 years of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era, screening for prostate cancer has successfully reduced prostate cancer mortality, but has led to significant problems with overdiagnosis and overtreatment. As a result, many men are subjected to unnecessary prostate biopsies and overtreatment of indolent cancer in order to save one man from dying of prostate cancer. A novel blood test known as the 4Kscore® Test (OPKO Lab, Nashville, TN) incorporates a panel of four kallikrein protein biomarkers (total PSA, free PSA, intact PSA, and human kallikrein-related peptidase 2) and other clinical information in an algorithm that provides a percent risk for a high-grade (Gleason score ≥ 7) cancer on biopsy. In 10 peer-reviewed publications, the four kallikrein biomarkers and algorithm of the 4Kscore Test have been shown to improve the prediction not only of biopsy histopathology, but also surgical pathology and occurrence of aggressive, metastatic disease. Recently, a blinded prospective trial of the 4Kscore Test was conducted across the United States among 1012 men. The 4Kscore Test replicated previous European results showing accuracy in predicting biopsy outcome of Gleason score ≥ 7. In a recent case-control study nested within a population-based cohort from Västerbotten, Sweden, the four kallikrein biomarkers of the 4Kscore Test also predicted the risk for aggressive prostate cancer that metastasized within 20 years after the test was administered. These results indicate that men with an abnormal PSA or digital rectal examination result, and for whom an initial or repeat prostate biopsy is being considered, would benefit from a reflex 4Kscore Test to add important information to the clinical decision-making process. A high-risk 4Kscore Test result may be used to select men with a high probability of aggressive prostate cancer who would benefit from a biopsy of the prostate to prevent an adverse and potentially lethal outcome from prostate cancer. Men with a low 4Kscore Test result may safely defer biopsy.Key words: Prostate cancer, Biomarker, High-grade prostate cancer, ScreeningProstate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the United States, accounting for an estimated 27% of all newly diagnosed cancers in 2014.¹ Since the advent of screening for prostate cancer with serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), we have seen a significant decline in prostate cancer mortality.¹ Randomized clinical trials have reported a 20% to 40% reduction in death from prostate cancer in men undergoing routine screening compared with those who are not screened.^2,3 However, these trials, and a trial showing little difference between opportunistic and systematic screening,⁴ have raised the concern for overdiagnosis and overtreatment of indolent prostate cancer. The fundamental concern is that an overwhelming number of men are subjected to interventions such as prostate biopsy in order to prevent one man’s death from prostate cancer.^2,3Prostate biopsy is an invasive procedure with significant complications, such as bleeding, urinary retention, and life-threatening infection. A recent population-based study from Ontario, Canada, revealed a fourfold increase to 4.1% for the rate of hospital admissions after prostate biopsy from 1996 to 2005, with 72% of admissions being due to infection.⁵ These risks, combined with the enormous anxiety involved in undergoing the procedure, present a significant burden to any man considering prostate cancer screening.Today, most men diagnosed with prostate cancer have a tumor that is unlikely to pose a threat to their life expectancies. A recent systematic analysis suggested that up to 60% of prostate cancers diagnosed in contemporary studies can be safely observed without a need for immediate intervention.⁶ However, in the United States, because of the concern for possible undergrading of prostate cancer due to biopsy sampling error, 90% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer undergo treatment and approximately 66% will be confirmed to have indolent Gleason score 6 prostate cancer,⁷ suggesting a significant problem with overtreatment. Although treatment for localized prostate cancer provides excellent cancer control,^8,9 it comes at a significant detriment to health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Previous studies have reported significant changes in HRQoL after primary treatment for prostate cancer, primarily in the domains of sexual and urinary function and bother.^10–12 Given the physical and psychological burden of these secondary adverse events, many government agencies and patients are beginning to question the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening and treatment.¹³The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently advised against routine screening for prostate cancer, claiming that the risks of screening outweigh the benefits.¹³ However, 20% to 30% of men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer are found to have high-grade disease at presentation¹⁴; without screening, these men would lose their opportunity for cure. It is clear that new biomarkers or tests that promote the detection of both indolent and aggressive prostate cancer are unlikely to be helpful. We need tests that focus on the detection of aggressive tumors, not the indolent ones that are better left alone. Aggressive prostate cancer, for purposes of this review, is defined as cancer with a Gleason score ≥ 7 and tumors that are most likely to progress to metastatic disease and death. Targeted detection of aggressive prostate cancer would allow urologists to diagnose and treat those men most likely to benefit from aggressive intervention to avoid premature death. Conversely, those men harboring non-life-threatening disease would be able to avoid unnecessary interventions. The 4Kscore® Test (OPKO Lab, Nashville, TN) is a new blood test that accurately identifies the risk of aggressive prostate cancer. The 4Kscore Test plays an important clinical role as a reflex test prior to proceeding with initial prostate biopsy in men with an elevated PSA level or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) results, or after a prior negative biopsy and persistently abnormal PSA levels.     

Trends in Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing and prostate cancer incidence and mortality in Australia: A critical analysis

BackgroundPopulation trends in PSA testing and prostate cancer incidence do not perfectly correspond. We aimed to better understand relationships between trends in PSA testing, prostate cancer incidence and mortality in Australia and factors that influence them.MethodsWe calculated and described standardised time trends in PSA tests, prostate biopsies, treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) and prostate cancer incidence and mortality in Australia in men aged 45–74, 75–84, and 85 + years.ResultsPSA testing increased from its introduction in 1989 to a peak in 2008 before declining in men aged 45–84 years. Prostate biopsies and cancer incidence fell from 1995 to 2000 in parallel with decrease in trans-urethral resections of the prostate (TURP) and, latterly, changes in pharmaceutical management of BPH. After 2000, changes in biopsies and incidence paralleled changes in PSA screening in men 45–84 years, while in men ≥85 years biopsy rates stabilised, and incidence fell. Prostate cancer mortality in men aged 45–74 years remained low throughout. Mortality in men 75–84 years gradually increased until mid 1990s, then gradually decreased. Mortality in men ≥ 85 years increased until mid 1990s, then stabilised.ConclusionAge specific prostate cancer incidence largely mirrors PSA testing rates. Most deviation from this pattern may be explained by less use of TURP in management of BPH and consequent less incidental cancer detection in TURP tissue specimens. Mortality from prostate cancer initially rose and then fell below what it was when PSA testing began. Its initial rise and fall may be explained by a possible initial tendency to over-attribute deaths of uncertain cause in older men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer to prostate cancer. Decreases in mortality rates were many fold smaller than the increases in incidence, suggesting substantial overdiagnosis of prostate cancer after introduction of PSA testing.