Prostate cancer, like other cancers, develops as the result of multiple, complex molecular events of initiation, unregulated growth, invasion, and metastasis. These complex molecular events include both loss of specific genomic sequences that lead to inactivation of tumor suppressor genes and gain of specific chromosome regions that are associated with activation of oncogenes. In prostate carcinogenesis, androgen receptor is believed to play a central role. The most common chromosomal aberrations demonstrated in prostatic carcinoma are TMPRSS2: ETS gene fusions, PTEN deletion, TP53 gene mutation, gain of chromosome 7 (particularly 7q31), loss of 8p and gain of 8q, and loss of 10q, 16q, and 18q.
Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has remained the mainstay biomarker for the prostate cancer diagnosis and management since its widespread utilization as a screening tool almost 25 years ago. Although it has led to a dramatic increase in prostate cancer detection, PSA has substantial drawbacks both with sensitivity and specificity. Detection of clinically insignificant disease is another important issue. Together, these drawbacks of PSA emphasize the need for biomarkers that can supplement PSA as a diagnostic test, provide better cancer specificity than currently available tissue-based markers, reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies, and distinguish indolent from clinically significant prostate cancer. New genomic and bioinformatics technologies have discovered and enabled to study an expanding universe of novel tissue, urine, or body fluid-based biomarkers due to their higher cancer specificity or its prognostic or predictive utility. Such efforts have also produced several notable success stories that involve rapidly moving biomarkers from the bench to the clinic.
This chapter summarizes current understanding of molecular prostate carcinogenesis, types of PSA measurements utilized in clinical practice, and potential application of some of the most promising liquid biopsy and tissue-based biomarkers in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. For many of these proposed biomarkers, additional studies are needed to validate their clinical utility. In addition, it is important to keep in mind that biomarker development and validation is affected by many compounding pre-, intra-, and post-analytic factors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Nelson WG, Carter HG, DeWeese TL, Eisenberger MA. Prostate cancer. In: Abeloff MS, Armitage JO, Niederhuber JE, et al., editors. Abeloff’s clinical oncology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2008. p. 1653–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han B, Mehra R, Lonigro RJ, Wang L, Suleman K, Menon A, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization study shows association of PTEN deletion with ERG rearrangement during prostate cancer progression. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:1083–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim JH, Dhanasekaran SM, Mehra R, Tomlins SA, Gu W, Yu J, et al. Integrative analysis of genomic aberrations associated with prostate cancer progression. Cancer Res. 2007;67:8229–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri CE, Tomlins SA. The prostate cancer genome: perspectives and potential. Urol Oncol. 2014;32:53 e15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah RB, Bhalla R. New molecular markers of diagnosis and prognosis in prostate cancer. In: Magi-Galuzzi C, Przybycin CG, editors. Genitourinary pathology. Practical advances. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 2015.Google Scholar
Kristiansen G. Diagnostic and prognostic molecular biomarkers for prostate cancer. Histopathology. 2012;60:125–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotan TL, Carvalho FL, Peskoe SB, Hicks JL, Good J, Fedor H, et al. PTEN loss is associated with upgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:128–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotan TL, Gurel B, Sutcliffe S, Esopi D, Liu W, Xu J, et al. PTEN protein loss by immunostaining: analytic validation and prognostic indicator for a high risk surgical cohort of prostate cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:6563–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehra R, Tomlins SA, Shen R, Nadeem O, Wang L, Wei JT, et al. Comprehensive assessment of TMPRSS2 and ETS family gene aberrations in clinically localized prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2007;20:538–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithal P, Allott E, Gerber L, Reid J, Welbourn W, Tikishvili E, et al. PTEN loss in biopsy tissue predicts poor clinical outcomes in prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2014;21:1209–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah RB. Clinical applications of novel ERG immunohistochemistry in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. Adv Anat Pathol. 2013;20:117–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah RB, Bentley J, Jeffery Z, DeMarzo AM. Heterogeneity of PTEN and ERG expression in prostate cancer on core needle biopsies: implications for cancer risk stratification and biomarker sampling. Hum Pathol. 2015;46:698–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah RB, Chinnaiyan AM. The discovery of common recurrent transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2)-erythroblastosis virus E26 transforming sequence (ETS) gene fusions in prostate cancer: significance and clinical implications. Adv Anat Pathol. 2009;16:145–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah RB, Tadros Y, Brummell B, Zhou M. The diagnostic use of ERG in resolving an “atypical glands suspicious for cancer” diagnosis in prostate biopsies beyond that provided by basal cell and alpha-methylacyl-CoA-racemase markers. Hum Pathol. 2013;44:786–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, Dhanasekaran SM, Mehra R, Sun XW, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science. 2005;310:644–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah RB, Yoon J, Liu G, Tian W. Atypical intraductal proliferation and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on core needle biopsy: a comparative clinicopathological and molecular study with a proposal to expand the morphological spectrum of intraductal carcinoma. Histopathology. 2017;71:693–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri CE, Demichelis F, Rubin MA. Molecular genetics of prostate cancer: emerging appreciation of genetic complexity. Histopathology. 2012;60:187–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canfield SE, Kibel AS, Kemeter MJ, Febbo PG, Lawrence HJ, Moul JW. A guide for clinicians in the evaluation of emerging molecular diagnostics for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Rev Urol. 2014;16:172–80.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Donovan MJ, Cordon-Cardo C. Predicting high-risk disease using tissue biomarkers. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23:245–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Shah RB, Li J, Dhanani N, Mendrinos S. ERG overexpression and multifocality predict prostate cancer in subsequent biopsy for patients with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Urol Oncol. 2016;34:120 e121–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anceschi U, Tuderti G, Lugnani F, Biava P, Malossini G, Luciani L, et al. Novel diagnostic biomarkers of prostate cancer: an update. Curr Med Chem. 2018. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C, Simko JP, Falzarano SM, Maddala T, et al. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol. 2014;66:550–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommariva S, Tarricone R, Lazzeri M, Ricciardi W, Montorsi F. Prognostic value of the cell cycle progression score in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;69:107–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu J, Yu J, Rhodes DR Tomlins SA, Cao X, Chen G, et al. A polycomb repression signature in metastatic prostate cancer predicts cancer outcome. Cancer Res. 2007;67:10657–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahearn TU, Pettersson A, Ebot EM, Gerke T, Graff RE, Morais CL, et al. A prospective investigation of PTEN loss and ERG expression in lethal prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;108(2):djv346. Print 2016 Feb.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer 2017. Available at: www.NCCN.org.