Dataset Information

Urine Exosomal AMACR Is a Novel Biomarker for Prostate Cancer Detection at Initial Biopsy.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The aim of this study is to identify and validate urine exosomal AMACR (UE-A) as a novel biomarker to improve the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (Gleason score ≥ 7) at initial prostate biopsy.

Methods

A total of 289 first-catch urine samples after the digital rectal exam (DRE) were collected from patients who underwent prostatic biopsy, and 17 patients were excluded due to incomplete clinical information. Urine exosomes were purified, and urinary exosomal AMACR (UE-A) was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The diagnostic performance of UE-A was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, decision curve analysis (DCA), and waterfall plots.

Results

The expression of AMACR in PCa and csPCa was significantly higher than that in BPH and non-aggressive (p < 0.001). The UE-A presented good performance in distinguishing PCa from BPH or BPH plus non-significant PCa (nsPCa) from csPCa with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.832 and 0.78, respectively. The performance of UE-A was further validated in a multi-center cohort of patients with an AUC of 0.800 for detecting PCa and 0.749 for detecting csPCa. The clinical utility assessed by DCA showed that the benefit of patients using UE-A was superior to PSA, f/t PSA, and PSAD in both the training cohort and the validation cohort in terms of all threshold probabilities. Setting 95% sensitivity as the cutoff value, UE-A could avoid 27.57% of unnecessary biopsies, with only 4 (1.47%) csPCa patients missed.

Conclusions

We demonstrated the great performance of UE-A for the early diagnosis of PCa and csPCa. UE-A could be a novel non-invasive diagnostic biomarker to improve the detection of PCa and csPCa.

SUBMITTER: Jin X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9251007 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposePreclinical evaluation of PCA3 and AMACR transcript simultaneous detection in urine to diagnose clinical significant prostate cancer (prostate cancer with Gleason score ≥7) in a Russian cohort.Patients and methodsWe analyzed urine samples of patients with a total serum PSA ≥2 ng/mL: 31 men with prostate cancer scheduled for radical prostatectomy, 128 men scheduled for first diagnostic biopsy (prebiopsy cohort). PCA3, AMACR, PSA and GPI transcripts were detected by multiplex reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and the results were used for scores for calculation and statistical analysis.ResultsThere was no significant difference between clinically significant and nonsignificant prostate cancer PCA3 scores. However, there was a significant difference in the AMACR score (patients scheduled for radical prostatectomy p=0.0088, prebiopsy cohort p=0.029). We estimated AUCs, optimal cutoffs, sensitivities and specificities for PCa and csPCa detection in the prebiopsy cohort by tPSA, PCA3 score, PCPT Risk Calculator and classification models based on tPSA, PCA3 score and AMACR score. In the clinically significant prostate cancer ROC analysis, the PCA3 score AUC was 0.632 (95%CI: 0.511-0.752), the AMACR score AUC was 0.711 (95%CI: 0.617-0.806) and AUC of classification model based on the PCA3 score, the AMACR score and total PSA was 0.72 (95%CI: 0.58-0.83). In addition, the correlation of the AMACR score with the ratio of total RNA and RNA of prostate cells in urine was shown (tau=0.347, p=6.542e-09). Significant amounts of nonprostate RNA in urine may be a limitation for the AMACR score use.ConclusionThe AMACR score is a good predictor of clinically significant prostate cancer. Significant amounts of nonprostate RNA in urine may be a limitation for the AMACR score use. Evaluation of the AMACR score and classification models based on it for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with larger samples and a follow-up analysis is promising.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: There is no consensus on how to investigate men with negative transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-B) but ongoing suspicion of cancer. Three strategies used are transperineal (TP-B), transrectal saturation (TS-B) and MRI-guided biopsy (MRI-B). We compared cancer yields of these strategies. METHODS: Papers were identified by search of Pubmed, Embase and Ovid Medline. Included studies investigated biopsy diagnostic yield in men with at least one negative TRUS-B and ongoing suspicion of prostate cancer. Data including age, PSA, number of previous biopsy episodes, number of cores at re-biopsy, cancer yield, and Gleason score of detected cancers were extracted. Meta-regression analyses were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Forty-six studies were included; 12 of TS-B, 14 of TP-B, and 20 of MRI-B, representing 4,657 patients. Mean patient age, PSA and number of previous biopsy episodes were similar between the strategies. The mean number of biopsy cores obtained by TP-B and TS-B were greater than MRI-B. Cancer detection rates were 30·0%, 36·8%, and 37·6% for TS-B, TP-B, and MRI-B respectively. Meta-regression analysis showed that MRI-B had significantly higher cancer detection than TS-B. There were no significant differences however between MRI-B and TP-B, or TP-B and TS-B. In a sensitivity analysis incorporating number of previous biopsy episodes (36 studies) the difference between MRI-B and TP-B was not maintained resulting in no significant difference in cancer detection between the groups. There were no significant differences in median Gleason scores detected comparing the three strategies. CONCLUSIONS: In the re-biopsy setting, it is unclear which strategy offers the highest cancer detection rate. MRI-B may potentially detect more prostate cancers than other modalities and can achieve this with fewer biopsy cores. However, well-designed prospective studies with standardised outcome measures are needed to accurately compare modalities and define an optimum re-biopsy approach.

Project description:BackgroundProstate cancer diagnosis using the PSA test remains controversial because of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of potentially indolent cancers. There remains a need to increase the diagnostic lead time and to target treatment to patients with significant disease. One possible approach to overcome the limitations of PSA is to screen men for the molecular signature of early PCA, monitor the rate of disease progression and target treatment to patients who are likely to benefit from it. Such an approach requires a large panel of markers that define a molecular clock for PCA. We recently developed a panel of 19 markers for the non-invasive detection of PCA from urine DNA. It raised the possibility that additional methylation markers could be successfully analyzed from urine DNA, a prerequisite for increasing the diagnostic lead time and enabling disease monitoring.MethodsWe developed semi-quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays for 13 additional markers and determined their methylation status in 150 urine DNAs from 94 patients with elevated PSA. Eighty five samples were obtained following DRE and 65 samples were from first void. We combined the data of the 13 new markers with the previously reported 19 markers and calculated the sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values at every threshold from one to 32 positive markers.ResultsUsing 10of32 positive markers as the threshold to recommend a biopsy yields a sensitivity of 81% (95% CI 0.68-0.93) and 93% (95% CI 0.84-1.02) and a specificity of 76% (95% CI 0.63-0.88) and 77% (95% CI 0.63-0.91) from DRE and FV DNA, respectively. The PPV was 71% and 77% and the NPV was 85% and 93% from DRE and FV, respectively.ConclusionsThis study shows that large marker panels can be analyzed from urine DNA without loss of sensitivity or specificity. Using 32 markers improved the stratification of patients undergoing screening for PCA particularly for patients below the 10of32 threshold. The results show the utility of larger biomarker panels for PCA diagnosis and suggest that the development of the panels needed to monitor disease progression could be successfully accomplished.