Predicting high-grade prostate cancer at initial biopsy: clinical performance of the ExoDx (EPI) Prostate Intelliscore test in three independent prospective studies.
Journal
Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases
ISSN: 1476-5608
Titre abrégé: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815755
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
received:
19
04
2021
accepted:
09
09
2021
revised:
21
08
2021
pubmed:
2
10
2021
medline:
14
6
2022
entrez:
1
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The ability to discriminate indolent from clinically significant prostate cancer (PC) at the initial biopsy remains a challenge. The ExoDx Prostate (IntelliScore) (EPI) test is a noninvasive liquid biopsy that quantifies three RNA targets in urine exosomes. The EPI test stratifies patients for risk of high-grade prostate cancer (HGPC; ≥ Grade Group 2 [GG] PC) in men ≥ 50 years with equivocal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (2-10 ng/mL). Here, we present a pooled meta-analysis from three independent prospective-validation studies in men presenting for initial biopsy decision. Pooled data from two prospective multi-site validation studies and the control arm of a clinical utility study were analyzed. Performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity for discriminating ≥ GG2 from GG1 and benign pathology. The combined cohort (n = 1212) of initial-biopsy subjects had a median age of 63 years and median PSA of 5.2 ng/mL. The EPI AUC (0.70) was superior to PSA (0.56), Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPT-RC) (0.62), and The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) (0.59), (all p-values <0.001) for discriminating GG2 from GG1 and benign histology. The validated cutoff of 15.6 would avoid 23% of all prostate biopsies and 30% of "unnecessary" (benign or Gleason 6/GG1) biopsies, with an NPV of 90%. EPI is a noninvasive, easy-to-use, urine exosome-RNA assay that has been validated across 3 independent prospective multicenter clinical trials with 1212 subjects. The test can discriminate high-grade (≥GG2) from low-grade (GG1) cancer and benign disease. EPI effectively guides the biopsy-decision process independent of PSA and other standard-of-care factors.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The ability to discriminate indolent from clinically significant prostate cancer (PC) at the initial biopsy remains a challenge. The ExoDx Prostate (IntelliScore) (EPI) test is a noninvasive liquid biopsy that quantifies three RNA targets in urine exosomes. The EPI test stratifies patients for risk of high-grade prostate cancer (HGPC; ≥ Grade Group 2 [GG] PC) in men ≥ 50 years with equivocal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (2-10 ng/mL). Here, we present a pooled meta-analysis from three independent prospective-validation studies in men presenting for initial biopsy decision.
METHODS
Pooled data from two prospective multi-site validation studies and the control arm of a clinical utility study were analyzed. Performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity for discriminating ≥ GG2 from GG1 and benign pathology.
RESULTS
The combined cohort (n = 1212) of initial-biopsy subjects had a median age of 63 years and median PSA of 5.2 ng/mL. The EPI AUC (0.70) was superior to PSA (0.56), Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPT-RC) (0.62), and The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) (0.59), (all p-values <0.001) for discriminating GG2 from GG1 and benign histology. The validated cutoff of 15.6 would avoid 23% of all prostate biopsies and 30% of "unnecessary" (benign or Gleason 6/GG1) biopsies, with an NPV of 90%.
CONCLUSIONS
EPI is a noninvasive, easy-to-use, urine exosome-RNA assay that has been validated across 3 independent prospective multicenter clinical trials with 1212 subjects. The test can discriminate high-grade (≥GG2) from low-grade (GG1) cancer and benign disease. EPI effectively guides the biopsy-decision process independent of PSA and other standard-of-care factors.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34593984
doi: 10.1038/s41391-021-00456-8
pii: 10.1038/s41391-021-00456-8
pmc: PMC9184274
doi:
Substances chimiques
RNA
63231-63-0
Prostate-Specific Antigen
EC 3.4.21.77
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
296-301Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Siegel RI, Miller KD, Fuchs H, Jemal A. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:7–33.
pubmed: 33433946
Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2011;186:1830–4.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.06.057
Lavallee LT, Binette A, Witiuk K, Cnossen S, Mallick R, Fergusson DA, et al. Reducing the harm of prostate cancer screening: repeated prostate-specific antigen testing. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91:17–22.
doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.07.030
Van Vugt HA, Roobol MJ, Hranse R, Maattanen L, Finne P, Hugosson J, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer in unscreened men: external validation of a risk calculator. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:903–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.11.012
Loeb S. Guideline of guidelines: prostate cancer screening. BHU Int. 2014;114:323–5.
Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, Ward E, Ferlay J, Brawley O, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1079–92.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.054
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:876–92.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049
McKiernan J, Donovan MJ, O’Neill V, Bentink S, Noerholm M, Belzer S, et al. A novel urine exosome gene expression assay to predict high-grade prostate cancer at initial biopsy. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:882–9.
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.0097
McKiernan J, Donovan MJ, Margolis E, Partin A, Carter B, Brown G, et al. A prospective adaptive utility trial to validate performance of a novel urine exosome gene expression assay to predict high-grade prostate cancer in patients with prostate-specific antigen 2-10ng/mL at initial biopsy. Eur Urol. 2018;74:731–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.019
Tutrone R, Donovan MJ, Torkler P, Tadigotla V, McLain T, Noerholm M, et al. Clinical utility of the exosome based ExoDx Prostate (IntelliScore) EPI test in men presenting for initial biopsy with PSA 2-10 ng/mL. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:607–14.
doi: 10.1038/s41391-020-0237-z
Donovan MJ, Noerholm M, Bentink S, Belzer S, Skog J, O’Neill V, et al. A molecular signature of PCA3 and ERG exosomal RNA from non-DRE urine is predictive of initial prostate biopsy result. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015;18:370–5.
doi: 10.1038/pcan.2015.40
Loeb S, Hasan D. Whom to biopsy: prediagnostic risk stratification with biomarkers, nomograms, and risk calculators. Urol Clin North Am. 2017;44:517–24.
doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2017.07.001
Konety B, Zappala SM, Parekh DJ, Osterhout D, Schock J, Chudler R, et al. The 4Kscore® test reduce prostate biopsy rates in community and academic urology practices. Rev Urol. 2015;17:231–40.
pubmed: 26839521
pmcid: 4735670
Haese A, Trooskens G, Steyaert S, Hessels D, Brawer M, Vlaeminck-Guillem V, et al. Multicenter optimization and validation of a 2-gene mRNA urine test for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer before initial prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2019;202:256–63.
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000293
Fenton J, Weyrich M, Durbin S, Liu Y, Bang H, Melnikow J. Prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer. Evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319:1914–31.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.3712
Ankerst DP, Hoefler J, Bock S, Goodman P, Vickers A, Hernandez J, et al. Prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low vs. high-grade prostate cancer. Urology. 2014;83:1362–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.035
Moyer VA. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:120–34.
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459
Ahmed H, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown L, Gabe R, KaplanR, Parmar M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389:815–22.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
Grummer J, Gorin M, Popert R, O’Brien T, Lamb A, Hadaschik B, et al. TREXIT 2020: why the time to abandon transrectal prostate biopsy starts now. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:62–65.
doi: 10.1038/s41391-020-0204-8
Johansen TEB, Zahl PH, Baco E, Batoletti R, Bonkat G, Bruyere F, et al. Antibiotic resistance, hospitalizations and mortality related to prostate biopsy: first report from the Norwegian Patient Registry. World J Urol. 2020;38:17–26.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02837-0
Loeb S, Sanda MG, Broyles DL, Shin SS, Bangma CH, Wei JT, et al. The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193:1163–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.121
Cooperberg M, Cowan JE, Hilton JF, Reese AC, Zaid HB, Porten SP, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:228–34.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.4252
Klotz L. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16:24.
doi: 10.1007/s11934-015-0492-z