[Update on the diagnosis of PCa in urine. The current role of urine markers]. / Actualización en el diagnóstico del CaP en orina. Papel actual de los marcadores urinarios.

Prostate cancer (PCa) is still a main health issue, in fact it is responsible for 10% of cancer deaths across Europe. The morphology of the prostate gland makes urine an ideal sample, non invasive, for determination both diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. We use urinary PCA3 levels to indicate a prostate biopsy, and it is the only urinary biomarkers in PCa with FDA approval for clinical use. Many other biomarkers based on the expression of specific genes of PCa are being studied and validated, for instance the fusion gene TMPRSS2-ERG with a commercial kit available, while another approach is to test the expression of a panel of genes. An emerging focus of research, which deserves attention, is miRNAs. Other newer approaches such as epigenetics, proteomics and metabolomics also would be very useful in the future for the development and validation of new biomarkers. In this paper we review the state of the art in the field of urinary biomarkers in PCa.

External validation of FXYD3 and KRT20 as predictive biomarkers for the presence of micrometastasis in muscle invasive bladder cancer lymph nodes.

INTRODUCTION: Recent studies have proposed that FXYD3 and KRT20 mRNA quantified by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) in paraffin could be biomarkers to detect lymph nodes with micrometastases that avoid detection by conventional analysis with hematoxylin-eosin (HE). A validation study was conducted on the lymph nodes of patients who underwent radical cystectomy. OBJECTIVE: To classify the adenopathic state of a sample of patients who underwent cystectomy, based on the lymph node expression of FXYD3 and KRT20. The secondary objective was to assess whether there is a differential oncologic evolution for the patients, depending on the lymph node expression of these proteins. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The study included lymph nodes from 64 patients who underwent cystectomy for infiltrating bladder tumor: The model was developed using metastatic lymph nodes from 15 patients and lymph nodes from 4 patients with no known tumor. Genetic expression was measured using real-time qRT-PCR. We calculated (using qRT-PCR) the median expression of FXYD3 and KRT20 mRNA in the lymph node tissue. We then analyzed the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, according to the function y=0.1400+0.250FXYD3-2.532. The cutoff was established using an ROC curve. The formula was applied to the remaining lymph node tissue, based on the previously established cutoff. The sample was classified into 4 subgroups: HE- qRT-PCR-, HE- qRT-PCR+, HE+ qRT-PCR+ y HE+, qRT-PCR-. A descriptive, comparative analysis was performed, as well as a metastatic progression-free survival analysis, calculating the Kaplan and Meyer curves for the 3 established subgroups. The test results were considered statistically significant at P<.05. RESULTS: Using qRT-PCR, we verified that there were differences in the median expression of FXYD3 (P=.05) and KRT20 (P=.009) between the lymph node tissues of patients with benign prostate hyperplasia and those of patients with lymph node metastasis. A cutoff was assigned to 0.377. The sample was classified as follows: 37.5% of the patients were pN0 by HE and pN0 by qRT-PCR (-HE -qRT-PCR), 39.1% were pN0 by HE but metastatic by qRT-PCR (-HE +qRT-PCR), and 15 patients (23.4%) were metastatic by both techniques (+HE +qRT-PCR). The Kaplan and Meyer curves showed poorer metastatic progression-free survival for the patients who were +HE and +qRT-PCR than for the other subgroups, with no significant differences between -HE +qRT-PCR and -HE -qRT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: According to our results, 39.1% of the patients with infiltrating vesical tumors overexpressed the FXYD3 and KRT20 biomarkers and were N0 by HE. We observed no differential clinical behavior among the patients who underwent cystectomy according to their expression of FXYD3 and KRT20 when they were N0 by HE.

Optimizing prostate cancer screening; prospective randomized controlled study of the role of PSA and PCA3 testing in a sequential manner in an opportunistic screening program.

OBJECTIVES: To reduce unnecessary biopsies (Bx) in an opportunistic screening programme of prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We perform a prospective evaluation of PCA3 as a second line biomarker in an opportunistic screening for prostate cancer (PCa). From September-2010 until September-2012, 2,366 men, aged 40-74 years and with >10 years life expectancy, were initially screened with PSA/digital rectal examination (DRE). Men with previous Bx or with recent urine infections were excluded. Men with abnormal DRE and/or PSA >3 ng/ml were submitted for PCA3. All men with PCA3 ≥ 35 underwent an initial biopsy (IBx) -12cores-. Men with PCA3 < 35 were randomized 1:1 to either IBx or observation. Re-biopsy(16-18 cores) criteria were PSA increase >.5 ng/ml at 4-6 months or PSAv > .75 ng/ml/year. RESULTS: With median follow-up (FU) of 10.1 months, PCA3 was performed in 321/2366 men (13.57%), 289 at first visit and 32 during FU. All 110 PCA3+ men (34.3%) were biopsied and PCa was identified in 43 men in IBx (39.1%). In the randomized arm, 110 were observed and 101 underwent biopsy, finding 12 PCa (11.9%), showing a statistically significant reduction of PCa detection rate in this cohort (P<.001). Global PCa detection rates were 40.9% and 9.5% for the PCA3+ and PCA3- branches, respectively (P<.001). Area under the curve for PSA and PCA3 were .601 and .74, respectively. This is an ongoing prospective study limited by its short follow-up period and still limited enrolment. CONCLUSIONS: PCA3 as a second line biomarker within an opportunistic dual screening protocol, can potentially avoid 65.7% and 50.1% biopsies at first round and at median FU of 10.1 months, respectively, just missing around 3.2% of high grade PCa.