Novel approaches for the identification of biomarkers of aggressive prostate cancer
- 5.5k Downloads
The ability to distinguish indolent from aggressive prostate tumors remains one of the greatest challenges in the management of this disease. Ongoing efforts to establish a panel of molecular signatures, comprising gene expression profiles, proteins, epigenetic patterns, or a combination of these alterations, are being propelled by rapid advancements in 'omics' technologies. The identification of such biomarkers in biological fluids is an especially attractive goal for clinical applications. Here, we summarize recent progress in the identification of candidate prognostic biomarkers of prostate cancer using biological fluid samples.
KeywordsProstate Cancer Gleason Score Prostate Cancer Patient Telomeric Repeat Amplification Protocol Aggressive Prostate Cancer
α-methylacyl-coenzyme A racemase
expressed prostatic secretions
E twenty-six (transcription factor)
tandem mass spectrometry
prostate cancer antigen 3
phosphatase and tensin homolog
selected reaction monitoring mass spectrometry
sequential window acquisition of all theoretical fragment ion spectra
single ion monitoring
transmembrane protease serine 2.
The search for prognostic biomarkers of prostate cancer
Accurate and timely assessment of prostate cancer prognosis remains one of the most significant clinical challenges in prostate cancer management. Rapid advances in molecular technologies are likely to lead to significant progress in the foreseeable future. Despite these technological strides and the overwhelming number of proposed biomarkers, prostate cancer is still over-diagnosed and many patients are treated in an unnecessarily aggressive manner. Possible reasons are the complex nature of this disease (which is multi-focal and heterogeneous) leading to frequent misclassification of patients, intra-institutional variability, and patient variability, all of which contribute to the lack of well-defined and validated prognostic biomarkers.
Elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels have been utilized as an indicator of prostatic disease, including prostate cancer. Although PSA screening has resulted in the detection of lower-risk prostate cancer at earlier and more treatable stages of disease , prostate cancer is still the most frequently diagnosed cancer in men in developed countries and remains the second most common cause of cancer-specific mortality . Furthermore, with the advent of large-scale screening for serum PSA, unnecessary biopsies and patient over-treatment are becoming increasingly evident [3, 4]. The US Preventative Services Task Force has recommended against PSA-based prostate cancer screening on the basis of high false-positive rates and the risks associated with biopsies and over-treatment . Aggressive or advanced cancers can spread quickly and warrant intensive treatment, but up to 90% of men who have prostate cancer harbor localized disease  and many patients are over-treated on the basis of PSA screening [4, 7]. The prospective demarcation of patients with indolent tumors from those with aggressive disease is therefore of paramount importance. The identification of biomarkers that can classify patients into high- and low-risk groups, before their cancers reach advanced or metastatic states, is a major area of ongoing research. A biomarker is a measurable biological indicator that can provide information about the presence or progression of a disease or the effects of a given treatment. A clinically useful biomarker should be safely obtainable from the patient by non-invasive means, have high sensitivity and specificity, high positive and negative predictive values, and facilitate clinical decisions that allow optimal care to be administered .
Proteomics and integrated genomics approaches have resulted in the identification of numerous putative prognostic biomarkers for prostate cancer. With the recent advances in mass spectrometry technologies especially, proteomes can now be analyzed with impressive coverage. Verification and validation platforms have also improved significantly; mass spectrometry-based assays with multiplexing capability can be established for the targeted quantification of specific peptides of interest. In this review, we begin by summarizing some of the efforts that have been made in various fields to identify prognostic biomarkers for prostate cancer. Following this, we introduce concepts for biomarker discovery in bio-fluids that are relevant to prostate cancer and highlight some emerging proteomic approaches and their application to biomarker discovery.
Prostate cancer prognostic biomarkers
Current and putative prognostic biomarkers for prostate cancer
Clinical or pathological characteristics
High-risk prostate cancer defined as: stage T2ca or higher and PSA >20 ng/ml, or Gleason 8-10
Tissue biopsy, serum
D'Amico et al. 
D'Amico et al. 
Circulating tumor cells
Prostate-specific membrane antigen
Urokinase plasminogen activator or Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1
Gupta et al. 
Transforming growth factor-β or interleukin-6 soluble receptor
Porkka et al. 
Post-prostate massage urinary cells
Meid et al. 
Post-prostate massage urine
Schostak et al. 
Matrix metalloproteinase 9, 2
Copy number variations
Taylor et al. 
Cottrell et al. 
Classic prognostic biomarkers
Currently, Gleason grading is considered to be the best predictor of outcome . When using this method, pathologists assign numerical grades (ranging from 1 to 5, with 5 being the poorest grade) to the two most commonly observed histological patterns, based on the degree of loss of normal glandular tissue. These two grades are summed into a Gleason score. Patients with Gleason scores 7 or higher are at increased risk of extraprostatic extension and recurrence after therapy [10, 11]; furthermore, individuals with Gleason 4+3 tumors (those where pattern 4 is most prevalent but some amount of pattern 3 is also observed) may be at greater risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality than Gleason 3+4 patients (pattern 3 most prevalent but some pattern 4 is also observed) . The multifocal nature of prostate cancer, whereby different genetic alterations may exist in different tumor foci of a prostate, however, increases the likelihood of missing a high-grade focus. Furthermore, the risks associated with biopsies, such as bleeding and increased risk of infections potentially leading to sepsis, underscore the need for alternative approaches for accurate prognosis . The change in PSA levels (that is, PSA velocity) has also been used as a predictor of outcome after treatment; a PSA velocity of greater than 2 ng/ml/year is associated with a significantly higher risk of prostate-cancer-specific mortality .
Ki-67 is a nuclear protein that is associated with cellular proliferation . Its immunohistochemical staining index has been correlated with outcome in treated patients [16, 17, 18, 19]. Heterogeneous immunohistochemical staining for α-methylacyl-coenzyme A racemase (AMACR) has been correlated with Gleason score , and low AMACR gene expression in localized prostate cancer has been linked to recurrence and metastasis . Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a transmembrane protein expressed in all types of prostatic tissue that is used in the diagnosis of prostate cancer . Its overexpression is associated with higher tumor grade, stage, PSA recurrence and metastatic disease [23, 24].
Genetic aberrations as prognostic biomarkers
Focusing on a specific pathway or a group of interrelated genes that are involved in fundamental tumor biology has also proven useful. Cuzick et al.  focused on genes involved in cell-cycle progression and measured the mRNA expression of 126 genes in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded prostate cancer tissues. A 31-gene signature was generated on the basis of their correlation with the mean expression of the entire panel of 126 genes. When used to retrospectively score patients who underwent prostatectomy and patients with localized disease, this signature was shown to predict recurrence after surgery and risk of death in conservatively managed patients, independently of Gleason score and other clinical factors. Using comparative transcriptomic analyses, Ding et al.  identified the robust activation of the Tgfβ/Bmp-Smad4 signaling pathway in indolent Pten-null mouse prostate tumors. Deletion of Smad4 in the Pten-null mouse prostate led to highly proliferative, invasive, metastatic and lethal tumors. When combined with expression levels of the key molecular players cyclin D1 and osteopontin, a four-gene expression signature (for PTEN, SMAD4 and genes coding for cyclin D1 and osteopontin) could predict biochemical recurrence and supplement the Gleason score in predicting lethal metastasis of prostate cancer in patients.
Genomic variations, such as copy number alterations, have also been linked to diseases including cancer. In a comprehensive genomic analysis of prostate cancer, Taylor and colleagues  analyzed copy number alterations in primary prostate tumors and found distinct patient clusters with varying degrees of relapse that had no association with Gleason score. Penney and colleagues  constructed a 157-gene signature based on the comparison of Gleason ≤6 and Gleason ≥8 patients. When applied to patients with Gleason 7 scores, their signature improved the prediction of lethality when compared to Gleason score alone.
DNA methylation patterns in prostate cancer may also provide insight into prostate cancer outcome. Cottrell et al.  performed a genome-wide scan in patients with early recurrence, high Gleason score or advanced stage; they identified 25 methylation markers that were significantly different between low- and high-Gleason-score patients. Furthermore, the methylation states of three markers (GPR7, ABHD9 and Chr3-EST) were significantly increased in patients whose tumors reoccurred, as measured by elevated post-prostatectomy PSA levels.
Urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) and its inhibitor, PAI-1, have been associated with aggressive prostate cancer exhibiting extraprostatic extension and seminal vesicle invasion, and with post-prostatectomy recurrence in patients with aggressive disease . Preoperative plasma levels of transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1) have been shown to be a predictor of biochemical recurrence  and, in conjunction with preoperative plasma levels of interleukin 6 receptor (IL-6sR), have been associated with metastasis and progression .
Disseminated tumor cells in the bone marrow, a common site of prostate cancer metastasis, have been shown to have an association with metastatic disease and high Gleason score [33, 34]. Although disseminated tumor cells may be a prognostic marker of unfavorable outcome in patients with localized disease at diagnosis, attention has shifted to tumor cells that have entered the peripheral blood as these are more easily accessible. The number of circulating tumor cells can be determined at the time of diagnosis and elevated numbers, as indicated by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for PSA, have been associated with advanced stage and increased Gleason score . Goodman et al.  determined that prior to treatment, a cut-off value of 4 circulating tumor cells per 7.5 ml of blood or more was negatively correlated with survival and could predict metastasis.
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are a class of small, non-coding RNA molecules that are involved in the negative regulation of gene expression. Porkka and colleagues  demonstrated distinct miRNA expression profiles of benign prostate hyperplasia, untreated prostate cancers, and hormone-refractory prostate cancers, suggesting a potential prognostic role for miRNAs. Mitchell et al.  demonstrated that tumor-derived miRNAs are present in plasma and could show that miR-141 was significantly elevated in the sera of prostate cancer patients, demonstrating the utility of miRNAs as blood-based cancer biomarkers. Khan et al.  analyzed localized prostate tumor and adjacent normal tissues, as well as samples from advanced cases, using isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification (iTRAQ) followed by mass spectrometry. Integrating their findings with a cancer microarray database, these authors identified differentially expressed proteins that are targets of miR-128, a finding that was further supported by in vitro experiments demonstrating a role for miR-128 in prostate cancer invasion .
Emerging 'omics' approaches
Alternative strategies for the identification of disease biomarkers include metabolomics and lipidomics. Sreekumar and colleagues  undertook a global metabolomic profiling study to look for alterations that are associated with prostate cancer progression using mass spectrometry. Over 1,000 metabolites were identified in over 250 prostate cancer samples (of urine, plasma, and tissue). Sarcosine, an N-methyl derivative of glycine, was found to be elevated in patients with metastatic disease when compared to those with organ-confined tumors and was shown to be involved in prostate cancer invasion. Using a lipidomics approach, Zhou et al.  profiled 390 lipid species in plasma from patients with prostate cancer and healthy controls. Of the 390 species, 35 were found to be significantly differentially expressed, and 12 of these were proposed as individual markers of prostate cancer based on a sensitivity above 80% and specificity above 50%.
Prostate-related proximal tissue fluids
Biomarkers in urine
Prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) is a prostate-specific non-coding RNA that was first identified in a comparative transcriptomics study looking at tumor and adjacent normal tissues . Subsequently, a RT-PCR based test was developed to detect PCA3 in urinary EPS . A ratio of the PCA3:PSA RNA, known as the PCA3 score, is used, in combination with other clinical information, to guide decisions on repeat biopsy in men who are 50 years of age or older and who have previously had at least one negative prostate biopsy. Interestingly, Nakanishi et al.  reported mean PCA3 score to be significantly lower in patients with low-volume and low-grade prostate tumors than in those with advanced tumors. The ability of the PCA3 test to predict aggressive prostate cancers is, however, under debate [48, 49, 50].
Tomlins et al.  first reported the occurrence of a recurrent TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcript (transmembrane protease serine 2 gene fusion with E twenty-six (ETS) transcription factors) in those with prostate tumors. These fusions were detectable in 42% of urinary EPS samples from men with prostate cancer , although their presence in urinary sediment was not correlated with biopsy Gleason scores . Telomerase is a ribonucleoprotein involved in telomere synthesis and repair . Its activity, which can be measured in urinary EPS using the telomeric repeat amplification protocol assay [55, 56], was found to be increased in prostate cancer and has been shown to be associated with Gleason score . Urinary annexin A3 and various matrix metalloproteinases have also been shown to have diagnostic and/or prognostic potential in prostate cancer [57, 58, 59, 60].
Approximately 3% of the total urinary protein content is composed of exosomal proteins , which thus represent a sub-fraction for the discovery of prostate cancer biomarkers [62, 63]. Exosomes are small vesicles (40 to 100 nm) containing protein, RNA and lipids that are secreted by various normal and tumor cells [63, 64]. Wang et al.  used shotgun proteomics to generate the largest catalogue of urinary exosome proteins to date. In their study, over 3,000 unique proteins were identified from samples derived from nine healthy individuals. Exosome secretion is elevated in the biofluids of cancer patients, including those with prostate cancer , and exosomes have been shown to be enriched in tumor-cell-specific transcripts [67, 68]. miRNA and mRNA can be transferred between cells via exosomes and have been shown to be functional in their new location . Nilsson et al.  showed, in a proof-of-concept study, that urinary exosomes derived from prostate cancer patients contained two known biomarkers (PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG) and thus could be used as sources of biomarkers for disease.
Proteomics in prostate cancer biomarker discovery
Recent (2010 to present) putative prognostic biomarkers of prostate cancer discovered using various mass spectrometry platforms
2D-PAGE + MALDI-TOF/TOF
Panel of 17 candidates
Tissue: Gleason score 5
(n = 4) compared with Gleason score 7 (n = 4)
Alaiya et al. 
Panel of 6 candidates
Tissue: localized (n = 7) compared with lymph node metastases (n = 1)
Pang et al. 
Tissue: low (n = 23) compared with
high (n = 23) Gleason
ROC AUCa = 0.88
Skvortsov et al. 
Serum: n = 4
Wang et al. 
Serum: n = 4
Wang et al. 
Panel of 5 markers
Tissue (n = unknown)
Drake et al. 
Panel of 3 markers
Pooled serum: metastases (n = 5) compared with progressing (n = 5)
Rehman et al. 
Panel of 7 candidates
Pooled serum: metastases (n = 5) compared with progressing (n = 5)
Rehman et al. 
Panel of 5 markers
Serum: Gleason <7 (n = 27) compared with ≤7 (n = 27)
ROC AUCa = 0.79
Cima et al. 
Acetyl-coenzyme A acetyltransferase
Cell lines: androgen-dependent compared with androgen-independent
Saraon et al. 
Pooled tissue: localized compared with metastases
Yocum et al. 
Enhancer of zeste homolog 2
Pooled tissue: localized compared with metastases
Yocum et al. 
Protein biomarker discovery in prostate-proximal fluids
Using mass spectrometry, Li et al.  identified 114 proteins in the direct-EPS from patients with low- and high-grade prostate cancers, benign prostate hyperplasia and one healthy individual. In a subsequent study, Drake and colleagues  used multidimensional protein identification technology [72, 73] to analyze direct-EPS from nine prostate cancer patients (Gleason 6 and 7 cancers). Over 900 proteins were identified by Drake et al., 94 of which were also identified in the study of Li and colleagues . Zhao and colleagues  used stable-isotope-labeled secretome standards, a technique in which prostate cancer cells (PC3 cell line) were grown in media labeled with heavy stable isotopes and the labeled secreted proteins subsequently used as a standard across 11 direct-EPS samples to identify and quantify 86 proteins simultaneously. Principe et al.  performed a comparative study of urine obtained from individuals with or without cancer before and after prostatic massage. A total of 1,022 proteins were identified, of which 49 were found to be prostate-enriched. Furthermore, proteomic analyses of urine by Adachi et al.  catalogued over 1,500 proteins in urine from 10 healthy individuals. Seminal fluid may also represent a source of proteins that may be informative about prostate cancer outcome, and thus should be explored for this purpose [77, 78]. These examples provide an important resource for future biomarker discovery efforts in these important classes of prostate-proximal fluids.
The validation of candidate protein biomarkers, which includes the task of selectively and reliably quantifying disease-related alterations in protein concentrations, remains a major bottleneck. Traditional workflows utilize antibodies for the targeted quantification of such candidates, but caveats associated with antibody development and validation significantly reduce the feasibility of relying on these types of assays for high-throughput biomarker validation. Selected reaction monitoring mass spectrometry (SRM-MS) can be used to develop highly quantitative assays that can complement the more traditional approaches. Although this method is reliably used for quantifying small molecules , it has recently been adopted as a robust, sensitive, reproducible and specific assay for protein quantification [80, 81, 82]. Several studies have developed SRM-MS for validation of cancer biomarkers, such as biomarkers of bladder cancer in urine , biomarkers of ovarian cancer in ascites and serum , human lung cancer xenograft lysates in mice , and biomarkers of prostate cancer in serum .
Quantification by SRM-MS can be achieved by spiking the sample with a known concentration of a stable heavy-isotope-labeled peptide standard, which has the same biophysical properties as the endogenous peptide but a difference in mass that is resolved by mass spectrometry. By comparing the peak areas of the endogenous and heavy peptides, the concentration of the endogenous peptide can be inferred. Highly purified and accurately quantified heavy peptides (AQUA™ Peptides, Thermo Scientific) can be used for the absolute quantification of endogenous peptides. These peptides are costly, however, so absolute quantification is reserved for the most promising biomarker candidates. Unlike antibody-based combinatorial detection systems, SRM-MS-based quantification approaches have the advantage of being easily multiplexable, and thus have great potential for success.
Hüttenhain et al.  developed a high-throughput workflow for the quantification of cancer-associated proteins in human urine and plasma. Their study, which utilized SRM-MS, tracked 408 urinary proteins. Interestingly, 169 of these were previously undetected in the datasets from the Human Protein Atlas and in the urinary proteome dataset from Adachi et al. . Furthermore, using SRM-MS assays of plasma from patients with ovarian cancer and benign ovarian tumors, Hüttenhain et al.  were able to demonstrate the reproducible differential expression of a number of candidates. In another study, Cima and colleagues  focused their analyses on the glycoproteome of Pten-null mouse serum and prostate. Label-free comparative analysis of the Pten-null animals and age-matched wild-type mice revealed 111 candidates from the prostate tissue and 12 candidates from the sera that were significantly differentially expressed. Next, these authors utilized SRM-MS assays to reliably quantify the 39 protein orthologs (selected on the basis of consistent quantification) in the sera of prostate cancer patients and controls, and used the resulting profiles to build predictive regression models for the diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer. Our group has also aimed to develop a proteomics-based platform for the discovery and subsequent verification of prostate cancer-related proteins [71, 75, 88]. Specifically focusing our attention on prostate-proximal fluids, we have recently identified over 100 protein candidates that are differentially expressed when patients with organ-confined and extraprostatic tumors are compared . A small number of these candidates were also found to be expressed differentially in urinary EPS from patients with recurrent disease (identified on the basis of elevated post-prostatectomy PSA levels) when assayed by stable isotope dilution-SRM-MS. Future studies will be dedicated to the verification of all differentially expressed candidates, using SRM-MS in a medium-sized cohort of urinary EPS samples from clinically stratified prostate cancer patients, in order to demonstrate the application of SRM-MS as a useful verification tool for protein biomarker candidates in these fluids.
Recently, sequential window acquisition of all theoretical fragment-ion spectra mass spectrometry (SWATH-MS) has come to the forefront of new developments in mass spectrometry. Relying on data-independent acquisition, and originally described by the Yates group , this approach records the fragment ion spectra of all analytes in a sample that fall within a predetermined m/z range and retention-time window [89, 90, 91]. This approach allows confident identification of peptides over a dynamic range of four orders of magnitude and detects precursor ions that have not been selected in the MS scan by data-dependent acquisition . Although the sensitivity of the targeted data analysis coupled to SWATH-MS method is slightly lower than that of SRM-MS, its quantification accuracy rivals that of SRM-MS [90, 91], and thus this method could prove to be a powerful platform for biomarker discovery and verification. Advances in mass spectrometry have also led to higher-resolution instruments that can allow for the systematic removal of interferences [92, 93, 94], allowing improved targeted analyses in complex backgrounds. This can be achieved by mass spectrometry in single ion monitoring (SIM) mode coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), which allows quantification at the MS/MS level. Gallien et al.  comparatively assessed the performance of SIM-MS and SRM-MS in analyzing urine and noted similar sensitivities, albeit the SIM-MS analysis was able to quantify a larger number of peptides at the lowest concentrations of spiked-in standards.
Biological fluids are highly complex and efforts in pursuit of complete proteome coverage are underway. Functionalized nanoparticles with high-affinity baits can be used to capture desired classes of proteins, including low-abundance proteins [95, 96, 97]. Alternatively, focusing analyses to specific sub-proteomes by exploiting post-translational modifications can also selectively enrich for desired classes of proteins. One such modification that is commonly used in biomarker discovery efforts is N-linked glycosylation, which is particularly abundant in secreted and membrane proteins. . N-linked glycosylated proteins are captured by a solid support via hydrazide chemistry and then enzymatically released by peptide N-glycosidase F [99, 100] (alternatively, various lectin-affinity approaches can be used). In addition, peptide antibody-based techniques, such as stable isotope standard capture with anti-peptide antibodies (SISCAPA®) [101, 102], can be coupled to SRM-MS to enrich and quantify target peptides selectively.
Into the clinic
According to the Early Detection Research Network , a biomarker should undergo five major phases of development before it can be confidently utilized under clinical settings for the benefit of the population. These phases are: i) preclinical exploratory studies, during which tumor- and/or aggressive-disease-associated samples are compared to non-tumor or indolent disease specimens in order to identify molecular characteristics that distinguish both cohorts and can be further explored; ii) clinical assay development and validation, during which an assay that can accurately measure the biomarker and can reliably segregate tumor from non-tumor specimens is developed; iii) retrospective longitudinal studies that utilize specimens from individuals who were monitored over time for the development or progression of disease (such as patients who progress from indolent to aggressive prostate cancer) are compared to individuals who do not develop disease or do not progress; iv) prospective screening studies that are performed using the assay in order to evaluate the extent of disease at the time of detection; and v) randomized control studies that are performed in order to determine the reduction of disease burden in the population as a result of performing the assay.
Emerging technologies that not only provide an in-depth look into the complex biology of tumors but also allow timely verification and validation will undoubtedly accelerate the progress of molecular markers through the biomarker development pipeline. We and others have shown that such technologies are applicable to a variety of sample types, including bio-fluids, and can enable rapid verification of exhaustive lists of candidate biomarkers.
The long path from biomarker discovery to validation and clinical use has resulted in exhaustive lists of biomarker candidates but relatively few are currently used in patient management. The consensus within the field is that candidate biomarkers need to be verified rapidly using large, well-annotated sample cohorts, standardized assays and multi-institutional validations. Rapidly improving targeted proteomics approaches could lay the foundations for such validation platforms in the near future. The use of proximal tissue fluids (such as EPS-urine) in combination with specific enrichment protocols (such as those for exosomes and glycoproteins) are especially exciting strategies that will need to be systematically evaluated. In the context of exosomes, additional cancer-specific biomolecular cargo, such as tumor-derived miRNAs and mRNAs and possible tumor-DNA, could complement these studies and provide powerful multidimensional biomarker panels for the accurate detection of aggressive prostate cancers (see Figure 1 for a summary of the various biomarker pipelines).
TK is supported through the Canadian Research Chairs Program. YK is a recipient of an Ontario Graduate Scholarship. This work was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institute of Health Research (MOP-93772) to TK. This research was funded in part by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the OMOHLTC.
- 4.Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Lilja H, Zappa M, Denis LJ, Recker F, Berenguer A, Määttänen L, Bangma CH, Aus G, Villers A, Rebillard X, van der Kwast T, Blijenberg BG, Moss SM, de Koning HJ, Auvinen A, ERSPC Investigators: Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009, 360: 1320-1328.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, Fouad MN, Gelmann EP, Kvale PA, Reding DJ, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, O'Brien B, Clapp JD, Rathmell JM, Riley TL, Hayes RB, Kramer BS, Izmirlian G, Miller AB, Pinsky PF, Prorok PC, Gohagan JK, Berg CD, PLCO Project Team: Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009, 360: 1310-1319.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ, Wein A: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998, 280: 969-974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Berney DM, Gopalan A, Kudahetti S, Fisher G, Ambroisine L, Foster CS, Reuter V, Eastham J, Moller H, Kattan MW, Gerald W, Cooper C, Scardino P, Cuzick J: Ki-67 and outcome in clinically localised prostate cancer: analysis of conservatively treated prostate cancer patients from the Trans-Atlantic Prostate Group study. Br J Cancer. 2009, 100: 888-893.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Khor LY, Bae K, Paulus R, Al-Saleem T, Hammond ME, Grignon DJ, Che M, Venkatesan V, Byhardt RW, Rotman M, Hanks GE, Sandler HM, Pollack A: MDM2 and Ki-67 predict for distant metastasis and mortality in men treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation for prostate cancer: RTOG 92-02. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 3177-3184.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Rubin MA, Bismar TA, Andren O, Mucci L, Kim R, Shen R, Ghosh D, Wei JT, Chinnaiyan AM, Adami HO, Kantoff PW, Johansson JE: Decreased alpha-methylacyl CoA racemase expression in localized prostate cancer is associated with an increased rate of biochemical recurrence and cancer-specific death. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005, 14: 1424-1432.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Cuzick J, Swanson GP, Fisher G, Brothman AR, Berney DM, Reid JE, Mesher D, Speights VO, Stankiewicz E, Foster CS, Møller H, Scardino P, Warren JD, Park J, Younus A, Flake DD, Wagner S, Gutin A, Lanchbury JS, Stone S, Transatlantic Prostate Group: Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2011, 12: 245-255.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Ding Z, Wu CJ, Chu GC, Xiao Y, Ho D, Zhang J, Perry SR, Labrot ES, Wu X, Lis R, Hoshida Y, Hiller D, Hu B, Jiang S, Zheng H, Stegh AH, Scott KL, Signoretti S, Bardeesy N, Wang YA, Hill DE, Golub TR, Stampfer MJ, Wong WH, Loda M, Mucci L, Chin L, DePinho RA: SMAD4-dependent barrier constrains prostate cancer growth and metastatic progression. Nature. 2011, 470: 269-273.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Taylor BS, Schultz N, Hieronymus H, Gopalan A, Xiao Y, Carver BS, Arora VK, Kaushik P, Cerami E, Reva B, Antipin Y, Mitsiades N, Landers T, Dolgalev I, Major JE, Wilson M, Socci ND, Lash AE, Heguy A, Eastham JA, Scher HI, Reuter VE, Scardino PT, Sander C, Sawyers CL, Gerald WL: Integrative genomic profiling of human prostate cancer. Cancer Cell. 2010, 18: 11-22.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Penney KL, Sinnott JA, Fall K, Pawitan Y, Hoshida Y, Kraft P, Stark JR, Fiorentino M, Perner S, Finn S, Calza S, Flavin R, Freedman ML, Setlur S, Sesso HD, Andersson SO, Martin N, Kantoff PW, Johansson JE, Adami HO, Rubin MA, Loda M, Golub TR, Andrén O, Stampfer MJ, Mucci LA: mRNA expression signature of Gleason grade predicts lethal prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011, 29: 2391-2396.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Shariat SF, Menesses-Diaz A, Kim IY, Muramoto M, Wheeler TM, Slawin KM: Tissue expression of transforming growth factor-beta1 and its receptors: correlation with pathologic features and biochemical progression in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2004, 63: 1191-1197.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Goodman OB, Fink LM, Symanowski JT, Wong B, Grobaski B, Pomerantz D, Ma Y, Ward DC, Vogelzang NJ: Circulating tumor cells in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer baseline values and correlation with prognostic factors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009, 18: 1904-1913.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Mitchell PS, Parkin RK, Kroh EM, Fritz BR, Wyman SK, Pogosova-Agadjanyan EL, Peterson A, Noteboom J, O'Briant KC, Allen A, Lin DW, Urban N, Drescher CW, Knudsen BS, Stirewalt DL, Gentleman R, Vessella RL, Nelson PS, Martin DB, Tewari M: Circulating microRNAs as stable blood-based markers for cancer detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008, 105: 10513-10518.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Khan AP, Poisson LM, Bhat VB, Fermin D, Zhao R, Kalyana-Sundaram S, Michailidis G, Nesvizhskii AI, Omenn GS, Chinnaiyan AM, Sreekumar A: Quantitative proteomic profiling of prostate cancer reveals a role for miR-128 in prostate cancer. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2010, 9: 298-312.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Sreekumar A, Poisson LM, Rajendiran TM, Khan AP, Cao Q, Yu J, Laxman B, Mehra R, Lonigro RJ, Li Y, Nyati MK, Ahsan A, Kalyana-Sundaram S, Han B, Cao X, Byun J, Omenn GS, Ghosh D, Pennathur S, Alexander DC, Berger A, Shuster JR, Wei JT, Varambally S, Beecher C, Chinnaiyan AM: Metabolomic profiles delineate potential role for sarcosine in prostate cancer progression. Nature. 2009, 457: 910-914.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 47.Groskopf J, Aubin SM, Deras IL, Blase A, Bodrug S, Clark C, Brentano S, Mathis J, Pham J, Meyer T, Cass M, Hodge P, Macairan ML, Marks LS, Rittenhouse H: APTIMA PCA3 molecular urine test: development of a method to aid in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Clin Chem. 2006, 52: 1089-1095.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 48.Nakanishi H, Groskopf J, Fritsche HA, Bhadkamkar V, Blase A, Kumar SV, Davis JW, Troncoso P, Rittenhouse H, Babaian RJ: PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate cancer tumor volume: implication in selecting candidates for active surveillance. J Urol. 2008, 179: 1804-1809. discussion 1809-1810PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 49.Whitman EJ, Groskopf J, Ali A, Chen Y, Blase A, Furusato B, Petrovics G, Ibrahim M, Elsamanoudi S, Cullen J, Sesterhenn IA, Brassell S, Rittenhouse H, Srivastava S, McLeod DG: PCA3 score before radical prostatectomy predicts extracapsular extension and tumor volume. J Urol. 2008, 180: 1975-1978. discussion 1978-1979PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 51.Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, Dhanasekaran SM, Mehra R, Sun XW, Varambally S, Cao X, Tchinda J, Kuefer R, Lee C, Montie JE, Shah RB, Pienta KJ, Rubin MA, Chinnaiyan AM: Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science. 2005, 310: 644-648.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 57.Schostak M, Schwall GP, Poznanovic S, Groebe K, Muller M, Messinger D, Miller K, Krause H, Pelzer A, Horninger W, Klocker H, Hennenlotter J, Feyerabend S, Stenzl A, Schrattenholz A: Annexin A3 in urine: a highly specific noninvasive marker for prostate cancer early detection. J Urol. 2009, 181: 343-353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 59.Roy R, Louis G, Loughlin KR, Wiederschain D, Kilroy SM, Lamb CC, Zurakowski D, Moses MA: Tumor-specific urinary matrix metalloproteinase fingerprinting: identification of high molecular weight urinary matrix metalloproteinase species. Clin Cancer Res. 2008, 14: 6610-6617.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 67.Skog J, Wurdinger T, van Rijn S, Meijer DH, Gainche L, Sena-Esteves M, Curry WT, Carter BS, Krichevsky AM, Breakefield XO: Glioblastoma microvesicles transport RNA and proteins that promote tumour growth and provide diagnostic biomarkers. Nat Cell Biol. 2008, 10: 1470-1476.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 71.Drake RR, Elschenbroich S, Lopez-Perez O, Kim Y, Ignatchenko V, Ignatchenko A, Nyalwidhe JO, Basu G, Wilkins CE, Gjurich B, Lance RS, Semmes OJ, Medin JA, Kislinger T: In-depth proteomic analyses of direct expressed prostatic secretions. J Proteome Res. 2010, 9: 2109-2116.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 75.Principe S, Kim Y, Fontana S, Ignatchenko V, Nyalwidhe JO, Lance RS, Troyer DA, Alessandro R, Semmes OJ, Kislinger T, Drake RR, Medin JA: Identification of prostate-enriched proteins by in-depth proteomic analyses of expressed prostatic secretions in urine. J Proteome Res. 2012, 11: 2386-2396.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 79.Kondrat KL, McClusky GA, Cooks RG: Multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry for direct analysis of complex mixtures. Anal Chem. 1978, 2017-2021.Google Scholar
- 82.Addona TA, Abbatiello SE, Schilling B, Skates SJ, Mani DR, Bunk DM, Spiegelman CH, Zimmerman LJ, Ham AJ, Keshishian H, Hall SC, Allen S, Blackman RK, Borchers CH, Buck C, Cardasis HL, Cusack MP, Dodder NG, Gibson BW, Held JM, Hiltke T, Jackson A, Johansen EB, Kinsinger CR, Li J, Mesri M, Neubert TA, Niles RK, Pulsipher TC, Ransohoff D, et al: Multi-site assessment of the precision and reproducibility of multiple reaction monitoring-based measurements of proteins in plasma. Nat Biotechnol. 2009, 27: 633-641.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 85.Wei Y, Tong J, Taylor P, Strumpf D, Ignatchenko V, Pham NA, Yanagawa N, Liu G, Jurisica I, Shepherd FA, Tsao MS, Kislinger T, Moran MF: Primary tumor xenografts of human lung adeno and squamous cell carcinoma express distinct proteomic signatures. J Proteome Res. 2011, 10: 161-174.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 86.Cima I, Schiess R, Wild P, Kaelin M, Schüffler P, Lange V, Picotti P, Ossola R, Templeton A, Schubert O, Fuchs T, Leippold T, Wyler S, Zehetner J, Jochum W, Buhmann J, Cerny T, Moch H, Gillessen S, Aebersold R, Krek W: Cancer genetics-guided discovery of serum biomarker signatures for diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011, 108: 3342-3347.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 87.Hüttenhain R, Soste M, Selevsek N, Röst H, Sethi A, Carapito C, Farrah T, Deutsch EW, Kusebauch U, Moritz RL, Niméus-Malmström E, Rinner O, Aebersold R: Reproducible quantification of cancer-associated proteins in body fluids using targeted proteomics. Sci Transl Med. 2012, 4: 142ra194-Google Scholar
- 88.Kim Y, Ignatchenko V, Yao CQ, Kalatskaya I, Nyalwidhe JO, Lance RS, Gramolini AO, Troyer DA, Stein LD, Boutros PC, Medin JA, Semmes OJ, Drake RR, Kislinger T: Identification of differentially expressed proteins in direct expressed prostatic secretions of men with organ-confined versus extracapsular prostate cancer. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2012, 11: 1870-1884.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 90.Gillet LC, Navarro P, Tate S, Rost H, Selevsek N, Reiter L, Bonner R, Aebersold R: Targeted data extraction of the MS/MS spectra generated by data-independent acquisition: a new concept for consistent and accurate proteome analysis. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2012, 11: O111 016717-PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 95.Fredolini C, Meani F, Luchini A, Zhou W, Russo P, Ross M, Patanarut A, Tamburro D, Gambara G, Ornstein D, Odicino F, Ragnoli M, Ravaggi A, Novelli F, Collura D, D'Urso L, Muto G, Belluco C, Pecorelli S, Liotta L, Petricoin EF: Investigation of the ovarian and prostate cancer peptidome for candidate early detection markers using a novel nanoparticle biomarker capture technology. AAPS J. 2010, 12: 504-518.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 97.Tamburro D, Fredolini C, Espina V, Douglas TA, Ranganathan A, Ilag L, Zhou W, Russo P, Espina BH, Muto G, Petricoin EF, Liotta LA, Luchini A: Multifunctional core-shell nanoparticles: discovery of previously invisible biomarkers. J Am Chem Soc. 2011, 133: 19178-19188.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 108.Drake JM, Graham NA, Stoyanova T, Sedghi A, Goldstein AS, Cai H, Smith DA, Zhang H, Komisopoulou E, Huang J, Graeber TG, Witte ON: Oncogene-specific activation of tyrosine kinase networks during prostate cancer progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012, 109: 1643-1648.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 110.Saraon P, Cretu D, Musrap N, Karagiannis GS, Batruch I, Drabovich AP, van der Kwast T, Mizokami A, Morrissey C, Jarvi K, Diamandis EP: Quantitative proteomics reveals that enzymes of the ketogenic pathway are associated with prostate cancer progression. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2013, 12: 1589-1601.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar