Prospective validation study of a combined urine and plasma test for predicting high-grade prostate cancer in biopsy naïve men
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.42752Keywords:
Prostate neoplasms, prostate specific antigen, diagnosis, validation, biomarkersAbstract
Objective: Early and accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer (PC) is crucial for effective treatment. Diagnosing clinically insignificant cancers can lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, highlighting the importance of accurately selecting patients for further evaluation based on improved risk prediction tools. Novel biomarkers offer promise for enhancing this diagnostic process. In this study, we aimed to externally validate a previously developed urine and plasma biomarker test in a biopsy-naïve population.
Materials and methods: Urine and blood samples were prospectively collected from 362 biopsy-naïve men with suspected PC before they underwent transrectal prostate biopsies. The expression levels of a 10-gene mRNA panel were quantified using reverse transcription/quantitative polymerase chain reaction of both urine and plasma. These gene expression levels, combined with clinical features and plasma prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, were used to predict the presence of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥ 2 PC.
Results: Complete data were available for 314 patients. The sensitivity and specificity of the biomarker test were 87% (95% CI: 79–93%) and 42% (95% CI: 36–49%), respectively. The area under the curve was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.7–0.82) for the biomarker test probability and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.59–0.72) for PSA (p = 0.02). The test’s negative predictive value was 89% (CI: 81–94%).
Conclusion: This study did not replicate the previously reported high accuracy of the biomarker test, highlighting the need for further refinement and robust external validation to ensure reliable performance across diverse patient populations.
Downloads
References
van Leenders GJLH, van der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ, et al. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020;44:e87–e99. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001497 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001497
Oba A, Nakaya N, Saito-Nakaya K, et al. Psychological distress in men with prostate cancer and their partners before and after cancer diagnosis: a longitudinal study. Japanese J Clin Oncol. 2017;47:735–742. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyx066 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyx066
Watts S, Leydon G, Birch B, et al. Depression and anxiety in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence rates. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e003901. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003901 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003901
Preisser F, Cooperberg MR, Crook J, et al. Intermediate-risk prostate cancer: stratification and management. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3:270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.03.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.03.002
James ND, Tannock I, N’Dow J, et al. The Lancet Commission on prostate cancer: planning for the surge in cases. Lancet (London, England). 2024;403:1683–1722. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00651-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00651-2
Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer – 2024 update. Part I: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2024;86:148–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027
Drost F-JH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2019;4:CD012663. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2
Launer BM, Ellis TA, Scarpato KR. A contemporary review: mpMRI in prostate cancer screening and diagnosis. Urol Oncol. 2025;43:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.05.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.05.012
Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017;72:250–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026
Jain MA, Leslie SW, Sapra A. Prostate cancer screening. StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2024.
Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, et al. Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013:CD004720. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3
Wagaskar VG, Sobotka S, Ratnani P, et al. A 4K score/MRI-based nomogram for predicting prostate cancer, clinically significant prostate cancer, and unfavorable prostate cancer. Cancer Reports (Hoboken, NJ). 2021;4:e1357. https://doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1357 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1357
Nordström T, Vickers A, Assel M, et al. Comparison between the four-kallikrein panel and prostate health index for predicting prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.010
Klein EA, Partin A, Lotan Y, et al. Clinical validation of IsoPSA, a single parameter, structure-focused assay for improved detection of prostate cancer: a prospective, multicenter study. Urol Oncol. 2022;40:408.e9–408.e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.06.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.06.002
Nordström T, Discacciati A, Bergman M, et al. Prostate cancer screening using a combination of risk-prediction, MRI, and targeted prostate biopsies (STHLM3-MRI): a prospective, population-based, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:1240–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00348-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00348-X
Campistol M, Morote J, Regis L, et al. Proclarix, a new biomarker for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer: a systematic review. Mol Diagn Ther. 2022;26:273–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-022-00584-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-022-00584-4
Ploussard G, de la Taille A. The role of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) in prostate cancer detection. Exp Rev Anticancer Ther. 2018;18:1013–1020. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737140.2018.1502086 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737140.2018.1502086
Hendriks RJ, van der Leest MMG, Israël B, et al. Clinical use of the SelectMDx urinary-biomarker test with or without mpMRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: a prospective, multicenter study in biopsy-naïve men. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24:1110–1119. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00367-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00367-8
Albitar M, Ma W, Lund L, et al. A multi-center prospective study to validate an algorithm using urine and plasma biomarkers for predicting Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 prostate cancer on biopsy. J Cancer. 2017;8:2554–2560. https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.20031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.20031
Albitar M, Ma W, Lund L, et al. Prostatectomy-based validation of combined urine and plasma test for predicting high grade prostate cancer. Prostate. 2018;78:294–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23473 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23473
Albitar M, Ma W, Lund L, et al. Predicting prostate biopsy results using a panel of plasma and urine biomarkers combined in a scoring system. J Cancer. 2016;7:297–303. https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.12771 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.12771
Poulsen MH, Feddersen S, Albitar M, et al. A prospective study of a urine and plasma biomarker test for the prediction of gleason ≥ 3 + 4 prostate cancer in a mixed cohort. Scand J Urol. 2020;54:323–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2020.1782979 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2020.1782979
Ma W, Diep K, Fritsche HA, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic scoring system for prostate cancer using urine and plasma biomarkers. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2014;18:156–163. https://doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2013.0424 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2013.0424
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2024.
Ankerst DP, Straubinger J, Selig K, et al. A contemporary prostate biopsy risk calculator based on multiple heterogeneous cohorts. Eur Urol. 2018;74:197–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.003
Auprich M, Haese A, Walz J, et al. External validation of urinary PCA3-based nomograms to individually predict prostate biopsy outcome. Eur Urol. 2010;58:727–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.038
Lepor A, Catalona WJ, Loeb S. The prostate health index: its utility in prostate cancer detection. Urol Clin North Am. 2016;43:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2015.08.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2015.08.001
Ström P, Nordström T, Aly M, et al. The Stockholm-3 model for prostate cancer detection: algorithm update, biomarker contribution, and reflex test potential. Eur Urol. 2018;74:204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.12.028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.12.028
Grönberg H, Adolfsson J, Aly M, et al. Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50-69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1667–1676. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00361-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00361-7
Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Aus G, et al. A panel of kallikrein markers can reduce unnecessary biopsy for prostate cancer: data from the European randomized study of prostate cancer screening in Göteborg, Sweden. BMC Med. 2008;6:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-6-19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-6-19
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Torben Brøchner Pedersen, Mads Hvid Poulsen, Martin Lund, Søren Feddersen, Maher Albitar, Charlotte Aaberg Poulsen, Lars Lund
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As from Volume 59 (2024) all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY license, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
