Axel Semjonow

Phase III Postoperative Adjuvant Radiotherapy After Radical Prostatectomy Compared With Radical Prostatectomy Alone in pT3 Prostate Cancer With Postoperative Undetectable Prostate-Specific Antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95

PURPOSE Local failure after radical prostatectomy (RP) is common in patients with cancer extending beyond the capsule. Two randomized trials demonstrated an advantage for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) compared with a wait-and-see policy. We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare RP followed by immediate RT with RP alone for patients with pT3 prostate cancer and an undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after RP. METHODS After RP, 192 men were randomly assigned to a wait-and-see policy, and 193 men were assigned to immediate postoperative RT. Eligible patients had pT3 pN0 tumors. Patients who did not achieve an undetectable PSA after RP were excluded from treatment according to random assignment (n = 78; 20%). Of the remaining 307 patients, 34 patients on the RT arm did not receive RT and five patients on the wait-and-see arm received RT. Therefore, 114 patients underwent RT and 154 patients were treated with a wait-and-see policy. The primary end point was biochemical progression-free survival. RESULTS Biochemical progression-free survival after 5 years in patients with undetectable PSA after RP was significantly improved in the RT group (72%; 95% CI, 65% to 81%; v 54%, 95% CI, 45% to 63%; hazard ratio = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79; P = .0015). On univariate analysis, Gleason score more than 6 and less than 7, PSA before RP, tumor stage, and positive surgical margins were predictors of outcome. The rate of grade 3 to 4 late adverse effects was 0.3%. CONCLUSION Adjuvant RT for pT3 prostate cancer with postoperatively undetectable PSA significantly reduces the risk of biochemical progression. Further follow-up is needed to assess the effect on metastases-free and overall survival.

National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for use of tumor markers in testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancers

BACKGROUND Updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for the use of tumor markers in the clinic have been developed. METHODS Published reports relevant to use of tumor markers for 5 cancer sites--testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian--were critically reviewed. RESULTS For testicular cancer, alpha-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase are recommended for diagnosis/case finding, staging, prognosis determination, recurrence detection, and therapy monitoring. alpha-Fetoprotein is also recommended for differential diagnosis of nonseminomatous and seminomatous germ cell tumors. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is not recommended for prostate cancer screening, but may be used for detecting disease recurrence and monitoring therapy. Free PSA measurement data are useful for distinguishing malignant from benign prostatic disease when total PSA is <10 microg/L. In colorectal cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen is recommended (with some caveats) for prognosis determination, postoperative surveillance, and therapy monitoring in advanced disease. Fecal occult blood testing may be used for screening asymptomatic adults 50 years or older. For breast cancer, estrogen and progesterone receptors are mandatory for predicting response to hormone therapy, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 measurement is mandatory for predicting response to trastuzumab, and urokinase plasminogen activator/plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 may be used for determining prognosis in lymph node-negative patients. CA15-3/BR27-29 or carcinoembryonic antigen may be used for therapy monitoring in advanced disease. CA125 is recommended (with transvaginal ultrasound) for early detection of ovarian cancer in women at high risk for this disease. CA125 is also recommended for differential diagnosis of suspicious pelvic masses in postmenopausal women, as well as for detection of recurrence, monitoring of therapy, and determination of prognosis in women with ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of these recommendations should encourage optimal use of tumor markers.

Comparison of 10 serum bone turnover markers in prostate carcinoma patients with bone metastatic spread: Diagnostic and prognostic implications

Our aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of bone markers in serum of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) for early detection of bone metastases and their usefulness as predictors of PCa‐caused mortality. In sera of 117 PCa patients (pN0M0, n = 39; pN1M0, n = 34; M1, n = 44), 35 healthy men and 35 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia, bone formation markers [total and bone‐specific alkaline phosphatase (tALP, bALP), amino‐terminal procollagen propeptides of type I collagen (P1NP), osteocalcin (OC)], bone resorption markers [bone sialoprotein (BSP), cross‐linked C‐terminal (CTX) and cross‐linked N‐terminal (NTX) telopeptides of type I collagen, tartrate‐resistant acid phosphatase isoenzyme 5b (TRAP)] and osteoclastogenesis markers [osteoprotegerin (OPG), receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand (RANKL)] were measured. tALP, bALP, BSP, P1NP, TRAP, NTX and OPG were significantly increased in PCa patients with bone metastases compared to patients without metastases. OPG showed the best discriminatory power to differentiate between these patients. Logistic regression analysis resulted in a model with OPG and TRAP as variables that predicted bone metastasis with an overall correct classification of 93%. Patients with concentrations of OPG, P1NP, tALP, bALP, BSP, NTX, TRAP and CTX above cut‐off levels showed significantly shorter survival than patients with low marker concentrations. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression revealed that only OPG and BSP were independent prognostic factors for PCa‐related death. Thus, the importance of serum OPG in detecting bone metastatic spread, alone or in combination with other bone markers, and predicting survival in PCa patients has been clearly demonstrated.

Multiple recognition assay reveals prostasomes as promising plasma biomarkers for prostate cancer

Prostasomes are microvesicles (mean diameter, 150 nm) that are produced and secreted by normal and malignant prostate acinar cells. It has been hypothesized that invasive growth of malignant prostate cells may cause these microvesicles, normally released into seminal fluid, to appear in interstitial space and therewith into peripheral circulation. The suitability of prostasomes as blood biomarkers in patients with prostate cancer was tested by using an expanded variant of the proximity ligation assay (PLA). We developed an extremely sensitive and specific assay (4PLA) for detection of complex target structures such as microvesicles in which the target is first captured via an immobilized antibody and subsequently detected by using four other antibodies with attached DNA strands. The requirement for coincident binding by five antibodies to generate an amplifiable reporter results in both increased specificity and sensitivity. The assay successfully detected significantly elevated levels of prostasomes in blood samples from patients with prostate cancer before radical prostatectomy, compared with controls and men with benign biopsy results. The medians for prostasome levels in blood plasma of patients with prostate cancer were 2.5 to sevenfold higher compared with control samples in two independent studies, and the assay also distinguished patients with high and medium prostatectomy Gleason scores (8/9 and 7, respectively) from those with low score (≤6), thus reflecting disease aggressiveness. This approach that enables detection of prostasomes in peripheral blood may be useful for early diagnosis and assessment of prognosis in organ-confined prostate cancer.

Adjuvant Radiotherapy Versus Wait-and-See After Radical Prostatectomy: 10-year Follow-up of the ARO 96–02/AUO AP 09/95 Trial

BACKGROUND Local failure after radical prostatectomy (RP) is common in patients with cancer extending beyond the capsule. Three prospectively randomized trials demonstrated an advantage for adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) compared with a wait-and-see (WS) policy. OBJECTIVE To determine the efficiency of ART after a 10-yr follow-up in the ARO 96-02 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS After RP, 388 patients with pT3 pN0 prostate cancer (PCa) were randomized to WS or three-dimensional conformal ART with 60 Gy. The present analysis focuses on intent-to-treat patients who achieved an undetectable prostate-specific antigen after RP (ITT2 population)--that is, 159 WS plus 148 ART men. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary end point of the study was progression-free survival (PFS) (events: biochemical recurrence, clinical recurrence, or death). Outcomes were compared by log-rank test. Cox regression analysis served to identify variables influencing the course of disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The median follow-up was 111 mo for ART and 113 mo for WS. At 10 yr, PFS was 56% for ART and 35% for WS (p<0.0001). In pT3b and R1 patients, the rates for WS even dropped to 28% and 27%, respectively. Of all 307 ITT2 patients, 15 died from PCa, and 28 died for other or unknown reasons. Neither metastasis-free survival nor overall survival was significantly improved by ART. However, the study was underpowered for these end points. The worst late sequelae in the ART cohort were one grade 3 and three grade 2 cases of bladder toxicity and two grade 2 cases of rectum toxicity. No grade 4 events occurred. CONCLUSIONS Compared with WS, ART reduced the risk of (biochemical) progression with a hazard ratio of 0.51 in pT3 PCa. With only one grade 3 case of late toxicity, ART was safe. PATIENT SUMMARY Precautionary radiotherapy counteracts relapse after surgery for prostate cancer with specific risk factors.

Tumor markers in prostate cancer I: Blood-based markers

Abstract The introduction of total prostate specific antigen (total PSA) testing in blood has revolutionized the detection and management of men with prostate cancer (PCa). The objective of this review was to discuss the challenges of PCa biomarker research, definition of the type of PCa biomarkers, the statistical considerations for biomarker discovery and validation, and to review the literature regarding total PSA velocity and novel blood-based biomarkers. Methods. An English-language literature review of the Medline database (1990 to August 2010) of published data on blood-based biomarkers and PCa was undertaken. Results. The inherent biological variability of total PSA levels affects the interpretation of any single result. Men who will eventually develop PCa have increased total PSA levels years or decades before the cancer is diagnosed. Total PSA velocity improves predictiveness of total PSA only marginally, limiting its value for PCa screening and prognostication. The combination of PSA molecular forms and other biomarkers improve PCa detection substantially. Several novel blood-based biomarkers such as human glandular kallikrein 2 (hK2), urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) and its receptor (uPAR), transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-β1); interleukin-6 (IL-6) and its receptor (IL-6R) may help PCa diagnosis, staging, prognostication, and monitoring. Panels of biomarkers that capture the biologic potential of PCa are in the process of being validated for PCa prognostication. Conclusions. PSA is a strong prognostic marker for long-term risk of clinically relevant cancer. However, there is a need for novel biomarkers that aid clinical decision making about biopsy and initial treatment. There is no doubt that progress will continue based on the integrated collaboration of researchers, clinicians and biomedical firms.

Discordance of assay methods creates pitfalls for the interpretation of prostate-specific antigen values

The availability of numerous different assays for the determination of prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) has created substantial problems in the interpretation of PSA concentrations. Currently over 60 assays are commercially offered on the European market. The majority of the recently marketed assays are based on the commonly used reference range (<4 ng/ml), although this rarely has been verified. Some manufacturers avoid specifying the range altogether, while others derive the data from very small collectives. Reference ranges established with sera of young males or even with an unspecified proportion of sera of females are not suitable for assessing the specificity of PSA assays for detecting prostate cancer among males older than age 50 years. Most manufacturers recommend that their assays not be used for diagnostic purposes but only for following up patients previously diagnosed with prostate cancer. Usually the physician remains unaware of this warning as well as of the name of the assay used. Since PSA concentrations may vary in identical samples by a factor of two depending on the assay used, the clinician in charge of interpreting the results needs to be aware of the method used and must have detailed information on the assay‐specific reference range.

Pre-analytical in-vitro stability of [-2]proPSA in blood and serum.

OBJECTIVES [-2]proPSA may discriminate prostate cancer from benign biopsy results. We characterized the pre-analytical stability of [-2]proPSA. DESIGN AND METHODS 22 volunteers, total PSA of 4.5-19.3microg/L, had blood drawn simultaneously. Baseline measurements were performed and samples were stored under various conditions prior to measurements. Freeze-thaw cycles were performed. [-2]proPSA was measured with the p2PSA automated research use only immunoassay on the Access analyzer. RESULTS Mean [-2]proPSA increases with clotting time, exceeding 10% change in recovery after 3h. In serum, [-2]proPSA values decline over time under investigated storage conditions. Serum samples kept frozen show less than 10% variation in recoveries over the course of 2 freeze-thaw cycles. CONCLUSIONS For proper measurement of [-2]proPSA, blood samples should be centrifuged within 3h of blood draw. Serum may be stored at RT or refrigerated (+4 degrees C) for a maximum of 48h and should be frozen if stored for a longer period. Two freeze-thaw cycles have no effect on [-2]proPSA stability.

Comparative Assessment of Urinary Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 and TMPRSS2:ERG Gene Fusion with the Serum [−2]Proprostate-Specific Antigen–Based Prostate Health Index for Detection of Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND We compared urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMPRSS2):v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (avian) (ERG) gene fusion (T2:ERG), and the serum [-2]proprostate-specific antigen ([-2]proPSA)-based prostate health index (Phi) for predicting biopsy outcome. METHODS Serum samples and first-catch urine samples were collected after digital rectal examination (DRE) from consented outpatients with PSA 0.5-20 μg/L who were scheduled for prostate biopsy. The PCA3 score (PROGENSA PCA3, Hologic Gen-Probe) and T2:ERG score (Hologic Gen-Probe) were determined. Measurements of serum PSA, free PSA, and [-2]proPSA (Beckman Coulter) were performed, and the percentages of free PSA (%fPSA) and Phi ([-2]proPSA/fPSA × √PSA) were determined. RESULTS Of 246 enrolled men, prostate cancer (PCa) was diagnosed in 110 (45%) and there was no evidence of malignancy (NEM) in 136 (55%). A first set of biopsies was performed in 136 (55%) of all men, and 110 (45%) had ≥1 repeat biopsies. PCA3, Phi, and T2:ERG differed significantly between men with PCa and NEM, and these markers showed the largest areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) (0.74, 0.68, and 0.63, respectively). PCA3 had the largest AUC of all parameters, albeit not statistically different from Phi. Phi showed somewhat lower specificities than PCA3 at 90% sensitivity. Combination of both markers enhanced diagnostic power with modest AUC gains of 0.01-0.04. Although PCA3 had the highest AUC in the repeat-biopsy cohort, the highest AUC for Phi was observed in DRE-negative patients with PSA in the 2-10 μg/L range. CONCLUSIONS PCA3 and Phi were superior to the other evaluated parameters but their combination gave only moderate enhancements in diagnostic accuracy for PCa at first or repeat prostate biopsy.

Multicenter Evaluation of [−2]Proprostate-Specific Antigen and the Prostate Health Index for Detecting Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND Total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) is flawed for prostate cancer (PCa) detection. [-2]proprostate-specific antigen (p2PSA), a molecular isoform of free PSA (fPSA), shows higher specificity compared with tPSA or percentage of free PSA (%fPSA). The prostate health index (Phi), a measure based on p2PSA and calculated as p2PSA/fPSA × √tPSA, was evaluated in a multicenter study for detecting PCa. METHODS A total of 1362 patients from 4 different study sites who had tPSA values of 1.6-8.0 μg/L (668 patients with PCa, 694 without PCa) underwent ≥10 core biopsies. Serum concentrations of tPSA, fPSA (both calibrated against a WHO reference material), and p2PSA were measured on Access2 or DxI800 analyzers (Beckman Coulter). RESULTS The percentage ratio of p2PSA to fPSA (%p2PSA) and Phi were significantly higher in all PCa subcohorts (positive initial or repeat biopsy result or negative digital rectal examination) (P < 0.0001) compared with patients without PCa. Phi had the largest area under the ROC curve (AUC) (AUC = 0.74) and provided significantly better clinical performance for predicting PCa compared with %p2PSA (AUC = 0.72, P = 0.018), p2PSA (AUC = 0.63, P < 0.0001), %fPSA (AUC = 0.61) or tPSA (AUC = 0.56). Significantly higher median values of Phi were observed for patients with a Gleason score ≥7 (Phi = 60) compared with a Gleason score <7 (Phi = 53; P = 0.0018). The proportion of aggressive PCa (Gleason score ≥7) increased with the Phi score. CONCLUSIONS The results of this multicenter study show that Phi, compared with tPSA or %fPSA, demonstrated superior clinical performance in detecting PCa at tPSA 1.6-8.0 μg/L (i.e., approximately 2-10 μg/L in traditional calibration) and is better able to detect aggressive PCa.