EPS Biomarkers Improve Stratification of NCCN Active Surveillance Candidates: Performance of Secretion Capacity and TMPRSS2:ERG Models

Purpose—Active surveillance (AS) is a viable patient option for prostate cancer where a clinical determination of low-risk and presumably organ-confined disease can be made. In an effort to standardize risk stratification schemes, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has provided guidelines for the AS option. Our purpose was to determine the effectiveness of expressed prostatic secretion (EPS) biomarkers in detecting occult risk factors in NCCN AS candidates. Materials and Methods—EPS specimens were obtained prior to Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP). Secretion capacity biomarkers: total RNA and EPS specimen volume were measured by standard techniques. RNA expression biomarkers: TXNRD1-mRNA, PSAmRNA, TMPRSS2:ERG fusion mRNA and PCA3-mRNAs were measured by quantitative reverse-transcription PCR. Results—Of the 528 patients from whom EPS was collected, 216 were eligible for AS under NCCN guidelines. Variable Selection in logistic regression identified two models, one featuring Type III and Type VI TMPRSS2:ERG variants, and one featuring two secretion capacity biomarkers. Of the two high performing models, the secretion capacity model was the most effective in detecting patients within this group that were upstaged or both upstaged and upgraded. It reduced the risk of upstaging in patients with a negative test by nearly 8 fold, and reduced the risk of being both upstaged and upgraded by about 5 fold, while doubling the prevalence upstaging in the positive test group. Conclusions—Non-invasive EPS testing may improve patient acceptance of AS by dramatically reducing the presence of occult risk factors among patients eligible for AS under NCCN guidelines. © 2013 American Urological Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Corresponding Author: Steven S. Smith, Ph.D., City of Hope, Familian Science Bldg, Room 1100, 1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte CA, USA, Phone: (626) 301-8316, Fax: (626) 256-8774, ssmith@coh.org. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access Author Manuscript J Urol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 January 01. Published in final edited form as: J Urol. 2014 January ; 191(1): 220–226. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.019. N IH PA Athor M anscript N IH PA Athor M anscript N IH PA Athor M anscript

[1]  Timothy J Wilt,et al.  Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  H Ballentine Carter,et al.  Management of low (favourable)‐risk prostate cancer , 2011, BJU international.

[3]  Nallasivam Palanisamy,et al.  Urine TMPRSS2:ERG Fusion Transcript Stratifies Prostate Cancer Risk in Men with Elevated Serum PSA , 2011, Science Translational Medicine.

[4]  Steven S. Smith,et al.  Biomarker identification with ligand-targeted nucleoprotein assemblies. , 2011, Nanomedicine.

[5]  G. Andriole,et al.  PCA3 molecular urine test for predicting repeat prostate biopsy outcome in populations at risk: validation in the placebo arm of the dutasteride REDUCE trial. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[6]  J. Tosoian,et al.  PSA and Beyond: The Past, Present, and Future of Investigative Biomarkers for Prostate Cancer , 2010, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[7]  Sudhir Srivastava,et al.  A Prospective, Multicenter, National Cancer Institute Early Detection Research Network Study of [−2]proPSA: Improving Prostate Cancer Detection and Correlating with Cancer Aggressiveness , 2010, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[8]  A. Partin,et al.  Accuracy of PCA3 measurement in predicting short-term biopsy progression in an active surveillance program. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[9]  B. G. Blijenberg,et al.  Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  Laura Esserman,et al.  Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. , 2009, JAMA.

[11]  Peter C Albertsen,et al.  Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005. , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[12]  Ziding Feng,et al.  Performance of a single assay for both type III and type VI TMPRSS2:ERG fusions in noninvasive prediction of prostate biopsy outcome. , 2008, Clinical chemistry.

[13]  S. Srivastava,et al.  PCA3 score before radical prostatectomy predicts extracapsular extension and tumor volume. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[14]  Jianjun Yu,et al.  A first-generation multiplex biomarker analysis of urine for the early detection of prostate cancer. , 2008, Cancer research.

[15]  Donna P. Ankerst,et al.  Prostate-specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer , 2007, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[16]  Steven S. Smith,et al.  Recovery of bisulfite-converted genomic sequences in the methylation-sensitive QPCR , 2007, Nucleic acids research.

[17]  W. Catalona,et al.  Complications of open radical retropubic prostatectomy in potential candidates for active monitoring. , 2007, Urology.

[18]  Steven S. Smith,et al.  Prostate cancer molecular markers GSTP1 and hTERT in expressed prostatic secretions as predictors of biopsy results. , 2004, Urology.

[19]  W. Nelson,et al.  Prostate cancer detection by GSTP1 methylation analysis of postbiopsy urine specimens. , 2003, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[20]  Neil Fleshner,et al.  Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[21]  R W Veltri,et al.  Analysis of repeated biopsy results within 1 year after a noncancer diagnosis. , 2000, Urology.

[22]  É. Lechevallier,et al.  Effect of digital rectal examination on serum complexed and free prostate-specific antigen and percentage of free prostate-specific antigen. , 1999, Urology.

[23]  S B Malkowicz,et al.  Biochemical Outcome After Radical Prostatectomy , External Beam Radiation Therapy , or Interstitial Radiation Therapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer , 2000 .

[24]  P. Walsh,et al.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. , 1994, JAMA.

[25]  A. Prando Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program , 2010 .

[26]  P. Carroll,et al.  Eligibility for active surveillance and pathological outcomes for men undergoing radical prostatectomy in a large, community based cohort. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[27]  Alexandre Mamedov,et al.  Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.