Urinary TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in an Active Surveillance Cohort: Results from a Baseline Analysis in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study

Purpose: Active surveillance is used to manage low-risk prostate cancer. Both PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG are promising biomarkers that may be associated with aggressive disease. This study examines the correlation of these biomarkers with higher cancer volume and grade determined at the time of biopsy in an active surveillance cohort. Experimental Design: Urine was collected after digital rectal examination prospectively as part of the multi-institutional Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS). PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG levels were analyzed in urine collected at study entry. Biomarker scores were correlated to clinical and pathologic variables. Results: In 387 men, both PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG scores were significantly associated with higher volume disease. For a negative repeat biopsy, and 1% to 10%, 11% to 33%, 34% or more positive cores, median PCA3, and TMPRSS2:ERG scores increased incrementally (P < 0.005). Both PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG scores were also significantly associated with the presence of high-grade disease. For a negative repeat biopsy, Gleason 6 and Gleason ≥7 cancers, the median PCA3, and TMPRSS2:ERG scores also increased incrementally (P = 0.02 and P = 0.001, respectively). Using the marker scores as continuous variables, the ORs for a biopsy in which cancer was detected versus a negative repeat biopsy (ref) on modeling was 1.41 (95% CI: 1.07–1.85), P = 0.01 for PCA3 and 1.28 (95% CI: 1.10–1.49), P = 0.001 for TMPRSS2:ERG. Conclusions: For men on active surveillance, both PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG seem to stratify the risk of having aggressive cancer as defined by tumor volume or Gleason score. Clin Cancer Res; 19(9); 2442–50. ©2013 AACR.

[1]  T. Wilt,et al.  Screening for prostate cancer. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[2]  J. Stanford,et al.  Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. , 2012, European urology.

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

[5]  V. Moyer,et al.  Screening for Prostate Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[6]  T. Klatte,et al.  Age-specific PCA3 score reference values for diagnosis of prostate cancer , 2012, World Journal of Urology.

[7]  P. Corso,et al.  National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: Role of Active Surveillance in the Management of Men With Localized Prostate Cancer , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  T. Gomes,et al.  National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. , 2012 .

[9]  Mesut Remzi,et al.  The relationship between Prostate CAncer gene 3 (PCA3) and prostate cancer significance , 2012, BJU international.

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

[11]  Ladan Fazli,et al.  The potential impact of reproducibility of Gleason grading in men with early stage prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a multi-institutional study. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[12]  Alan W Partin,et al.  Active Surveillance Program for Prostate Cancer: An Update of the Johns Hopkins Experience , 2011 .

[13]  L. Salomon,et al.  Prostate cancer antigen 3 score accurately predicts tumour volume and might help in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. , 2011, European urology.

[14]  Kirsten L. Greene,et al.  Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  Matthew R Cooperberg,et al.  Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[17]  P. Carroll,et al.  Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study: design of a multi-institutional active surveillance cohort and biorepository. , 2010, Urology.

[18]  David Chia,et al.  Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

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

[20]  M. Rubin,et al.  ETS gene fusions in prostate cancer: from discovery to daily clinical practice. , 2009, European urology.

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

[22]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort , 2008, Cancer.

[23]  P. Troncoso,et al.  PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate cancer tumor volume: implication in selecting candidates for active surveillance. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[24]  Seongjoon Koo,et al.  PCA3: a molecular urine assay for predicting prostate biopsy outcome. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[25]  J Cuzick,et al.  Duplication of the fusion of TMPRSS2 to ERG sequences identifies fatal human prostate cancer , 2008, Oncogene.

[26]  E. Metter,et al.  Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience , 2007 .

[27]  E. Metter,et al.  Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[28]  A. Zisman,et al.  Does prostate biopsy Gleason score accurately express the biologic features of prostate cancer? , 2007, Urologic oncology.

[29]  Matthew R Cooperberg,et al.  Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[30]  Y Pawitan,et al.  TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion associated with lethal prostate cancer in a watchful waiting cohort , 2007, Oncogene.

[31]  John T. Wei,et al.  Incidence of initial local therapy among men with lower-risk prostate cancer in the United States. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[32]  Leonard S. Marks,et al.  APTIMA PCA3 molecular urine test: development of a method to aid in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. , 2006, Clinical chemistry.

[33]  J. Tchinda,et al.  Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. , 2006, Science.

[34]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[35]  James A Hanley,et al.  20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2005, JAMA.

[36]  T. Tsuzuki,et al.  Prediction of extraprostatic extension in the neurovascular bundle based on prostate needle biopsy pathology, serum prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[37]  Jaime Pujadas Oláno,et al.  Natural history of early localized prostate cancer. , 2004, JAMA.

[38]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[39]  P. Troncoso,et al.  Tumor length and location of cancer on biopsy predict for side specific extraprostatic cancer extension. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[40]  L. Kiemeney,et al.  DD3PCA3-based Molecular Urine Analysis for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer , 2003 .

[41]  Christopher J Kane,et al.  Percent of prostate needle biopsy cores with cancer is significant independent predictor of prostate specific antigen recurrence following radical prostatectomy: results from SEARCH database. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[42]  P. Walsh,et al.  Expectant Management of Prostate Cancer with Curative Intent , 2001, European Urology.

[43]  W. Isaacs,et al.  DD3: a new prostate-specific gene, highly overexpressed in prostate cancer. , 1999, Cancer research.

[44]  G. Miller,et al.  Morphology of prostate cancer: the effects of multifocality on histological grade, tumor volume and capsule penetration. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[45]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[46]  M. Jordá,et al.  Prostate sampling by 12-core biopsy: comparison of the biopsy results with tumor location in prostatectomy specimens. , 2012, Urology.

[47]  M. Bremer.  [Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer]. , 2012, Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al].

[48]  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.

[49]  J Alfred Witjes,et al.  DD3(PCA3)-based molecular urine analysis for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. , 2003, European urology.

[50]  M. Peyromaure,et al.  Pain and morbidity of an extensive prostate 10-biopsy protocol: a prospective study in 289 patients. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[51]  D. Ornstein,et al.  Pain and morbidity of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized trial of 6 versus 12 cores. , 2000, The Journal of urology.