International Journal of Inflammation, Cancer and Integrative Therapy
Open Access

Prostate cancer; Biomarkers; Prostate-specific antigen; Genomic markers, Liquid biopsy

Introduction

Prostate cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality among men globally. Traditional diagnostic methods, primarily the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test and digital rectal examination (DRE), have limitations in specificity and sensitivity, often leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The development of biomarkers has introduced new possibilities for enhancing the accuracy of prostate cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Biomarkers can provide insights into the biological behavior of tumors, aiding in distinguishing aggressive from indolent forms of the disease [1]. This article explores the landscape of prostate cancer biomarkers, their current status, and future prospects in clinical practice.

Current diagnostic challenges

Traditional diagnostic approaches for prostate cancer primarily include the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test and digital rectal examination (DRE). The PSA test, introduced in the late 1980s, has been instrumental in increasing the detection rates of prostate cancer. However, its clinical utility is hindered by several limitations. Elevated PSA levels are not specific to prostate cancer and can result from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), prostatitis, and other non-malignant conditions. Consequently, the reliance on PSA testing alone often leads to false positives, overdiagnosis, and subsequent overtreatment, which can cause significant physical and psychological distress to patients [2].

The need for improved biomarkers

The limitations of current diagnostic methods underscore the urgent need for more accurate and specific biomarkers in prostate cancer. Biomarkers are biological molecules found in blood, other body fluids, or tissues that can be a sign of a normal or abnormal process, or of a condition or disease. In the context of prostate cancer, biomarkers can provide critical information regarding the presence, aggressiveness, and potential progression of the disease [3].

The ideal biomarker for prostate cancer would not only enhance early detection but also aid in distinguishing between indolent and aggressive forms of the disease, thereby guiding treatment decisions and improving patient outcomes. The advent of high-throughput technologies, such as genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics, has paved the way for the discovery and validation of novel biomarkers that hold promise in achieving these goals.

Emerging biomarkers and personalized medicine

Recent advancements in biomarker research have led to the identification of several promising candidates that may improve the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer [4]. These biomarkers span a range of biological molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, and metabolites, and are derived from various sources such as tissue, blood, and urine. Notable examples include PCA3, TMPRSS2-ERG fusion, Prostate Health Index (PHI), and liquid biopsy components like circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and cell-free DNA (cfDNA).

The integration of these emerging biomarkers into clinical practice represents a significant stride towards personalized medicine in prostate cancer. Personalized medicine involves tailoring medical treatment to the individual characteristics of each patient, with biomarkers playing a crucial role in identifying the most appropriate therapeutic strategies based on the unique molecular profile of a patient's tumor.

Discussion

Traditional biomarkers

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)

PSA is the most widely used biomarker for prostate cancer screening. While it has significantly improved early detection, its lack of specificity often results in false positives, leading to unnecessary biopsies and treatments. Efforts to refine PSA testing, such as using PSA density and PSA velocity, aim to improve its diagnostic accuracy [5].

Emerging biomarkers

Genomic and molecular markers

PCA3 (Prostate Cancer Antigen 3): PCA3 is a non-coding RNA that is overexpressed in prostate cancer tissue. The PCA3 urine test has shown promise in enhancing the specificity of prostate cancer diagnosis, particularly in patients with elevated PSA levels [6].

TMPRSS2-ERG fusion: The fusion of TMPRSS2 and ERG genes is present in approximately 50% of prostate cancer cases. This genomic alteration can be detected in urine and tissue samples, providing a potential marker for early detection and risk stratification.

Genomic classifier tests: Tests like Oncotype DX and Prolaris analyze the expression of multiple genes to predict the aggressiveness of prostate cancer. These tests help in guiding treatment decisions, particularly in cases of low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Protein markers

Prostate health index (PHI): The PHI combines total PSA, free PSA, and proPSA to improve specificity for prostate cancer detection. Studies have shown that PHI can better differentiate between prostate cancer and benign prostatic conditions compared to PSA alone.

4Kscore: The 4Kscore test measures four kallikrein protein levels (total PSA, free PSA, intact PSA, and human kallikrein 2) to assess the risk of aggressive prostate cancer. This test has demonstrated superior accuracy in predicting high-grade prostate cancer.

Liquid biopsies

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs): The presence of CTCs in the blood correlates with prostate cancer progression and prognosis. Advanced technologies for CTC detection are being developed to monitor disease status and response to therapy.

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA): cfDNA analysis involves detecting genetic mutations and alterations in DNA fragments shed by tumor cells into the bloodstream. This approach holds promise for non-invasive monitoring of tumor dynamics and treatment resistance [7].

Challenges and future directions

Despite the advancements in biomarker research, several challenges remain in translating these discoveries into routine clinical practice. Standardization of biomarker assays, validation in large, diverse patient cohorts, and integration into clinical workflows are critical steps needed to realize the full potential of biomarkers in prostate cancer management. Additionally, ethical considerations regarding genetic testing and data privacy must be addressed [8].

Conclusion

Prostate cancer biomarkers represent a rapidly evolving field with significant potential to improve diagnosis and prognosis. Emerging biomarkers, including genomic, protein, and liquid biopsy markers, offer promising avenues for more precise and personalized care. Continued research and clinical validation are essential to overcome current challenges and integrate these biomarkers into standard practice, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and quality of life.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

References

1. Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA, Yap YS, Sonke GS, et al. (2022) Overall survival with ribociclib plus letrozole in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 386: 942-950.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Pedersen RN, Esen Bo, Mellemkjær L, Christiansen P, Ejlertsen B, et al. (2022) The Incidence of breast cancer recurrence 10-32 years after primary diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 114: 391.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Shepherd JH, Ballman K, Polley MC, Campbell JD, Fan C, et al. (2022) CALGB 40603 (Alliance): Long-term outcomes and genomic correlates of response and survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without carboplatin and bevacizumab in triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 40: 1323.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Kwan ML, Cheng RK, Iribarren C (2022) Risk of cardiometabolic risk factors in women with and without a history of breast cancer: The Pathways heart study. J Clin Oncol 21.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Cortes J, Cescon DW, Rugo HS, Nowecki Z, Im S-Ah, et al. (2020) Final results of KEYNOTE-355: randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs placebo + chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triplenegative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 27: 2481-2493.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Bradley R, Braybrooke J, Gray R, Hills RK, Liu Z (2022) Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in premenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer treated with ovarian suppression: A Patient-level meta-analysis of 7030 women from four randomised trials. Lancet Oncol 23: 382-392.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Conforti F, Pala L, Sala I, Oriecuia C, De Pas T, et al. (2021) Evaluation of pathological complete response as surrogate endpoint in neoadjuvant randomized clinical trials of early stage breast cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 375: 381.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Yau C, Osdoit M, van der Noordaa M, Shad S, Wei J, et al. (2022) Residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and long-term survival outcomes in breast cancer: A Multi-center pooled analysis of 5161 patients. Lancet Oncol 23: 149-160.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref