Sampling of the anterior apical region results in increased cancer detection and upgrading in transrectal repeat saturation biopsy of the prostate.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether biopsy cores taken via a transrectal approach from the anterior apical region of the prostate in a repeat-biopsy population can result in an increased overall cancer detection rate and in more accurate assessment of the Gleason score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was a prospective, randomised (end-fire vs side-fire ultrasound probe) evaluation of 288 men by repeat transrectal saturation biopsy with 28 cores taken from the transition zone, base, mid-lobar, anterior and the anterior apical region located ventro-laterally to the urethra of the peripheral zone. RESULTS: The overall prostate cancer detection rate was 44.4%. Improvement of the overall detection rate by 7.8% could be achieved with additional biopsies of the anterior apical region. Two tumours featuring a Gleason score 7 could only be detected in the anterior apical region. In three cases (2.34%) Gleason score upgrading was achieved by separate analysis of each positive core of the anterior apical region. A five-fold higher cancer detection rate in the anterior apical region compared with the transition zone could be shown. CONCLUSION: Sampling of the anterior apical region results in higher overall cancer detection rate in repeat transrectal saturation biopsies of the prostate. Specimens from this region can detect clinically significant cancer, improve accuracy of the Gleason Scoring and therefore may alter therapy.

Tumor-associated copy number changes in the circulation of patients with prostate cancer identified through whole-genome sequencing.

BACKGROUND: Patients with prostate cancer may present with metastatic or recurrent disease despite initial curative treatment. The propensity of metastatic prostate cancer to spread to the bone has limited repeated sampling of tumor deposits. Hence, considerably less is understood about this lethal metastatic disease, as it is not commonly studied. Here we explored whole-genome sequencing of plasma DNA to scan the tumor genomes of these patients non-invasively. METHODS: We wanted to make whole-genome analysis from plasma DNA amenable to clinical routine applications and developed an approach based on a benchtop high-throughput platform, that is, Illuminas MiSeq instrument. We performed whole-genome sequencing from plasma at a shallow sequencing depth to establish a genome-wide copy number profile of the tumor at low costs within 2 days. In parallel, we sequenced a panel of 55 high-interest genes and 38 introns with frequent fusion breakpoints such as the TMPRSS2-ERG fusion with high coverage. After intensive testing of our approach with samples from 25 individuals without cancer we analyzed 13 plasma samples derived from five patients with castration resistant (CRPC) and four patients with castration sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). RESULTS: The genome-wide profiling in the plasma of our patients revealed multiple copy number aberrations including those previously reported in prostate tumors, such as losses in 8p and gains in 8q. High-level copy number gains in the AR locus were observed in patients with CRPC but not with CSPC disease. We identified the TMPRSS2-ERG rearrangement associated 3-Mbp deletion on chromosome 21 and found corresponding fusion plasma fragments in these cases. In an index case multiregional sequencing of the primary tumor identified different copy number changes in each sector, suggesting multifocal disease. Our plasma analyses of this index case, performed 13 years after resection of the primary tumor, revealed novel chromosomal rearrangements, which were stable in serial plasma analyses over a 9-month period, which is consistent with the presence of one metastatic clone. CONCLUSIONS: The genomic landscape of prostate cancer can be established by non-invasive means from plasma DNA. Our approach provides specific genomic signatures within 2 days which may therefore serve as 'liquid biopsy'.

Critical assessment of preoperative urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 on the accuracy of prostate cancer staging.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the staging significance of the prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) score to better identify pathologic features after radical prostatectomy (RP) is limited and controversial. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to study the clinical staging significance of PCA3 to identify pathologic favorable and/or unfavorable features in the RP specimen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Complete retrospective clinical and pathologic data of consecutive men who had undergone RP from three tertiary referral centers including preoperative PCA3 scores (n=305) and computer-assisted planimetrically measured tumor volume data (n=160) were available. INTERVENTION: All patients were treated with RP. MEASUREMENTS: PCA3 scores were assessed using the PROGENSA assay (Gen-Probe, San Diego, CA, USA). Beyond standard risk factors (age, digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, biopsy Gleason score, percentage of positive cores), five different PCA3 codings were used in logistic regression models to identify five distinct pathologic end points: (1) low-volume disease (<0.5 ml), (2) insignificant prostate cancer (PCa) according to the Epstein criteria, (3) extracapsular extension (ECE), (4) seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), and (5) aggressive disease defined as Gleason sum ≥7. Accuracy estimates of each end point were quantified using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operator characteristic analysis in models with and without PCA3. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: PCA3 scores were significantly lower in low-volume disease and insignificant PCa (p ≤ 0.001). AUC of multivariable low-volume disease (+2.4 to +5.5%) and insignificant PCa models (+3 to +3.9%) increased when PCA3 was added to standard clinical risk factors. In contradistinction, regardless of its coding, PCA3 scores were not significantly elevated in pathologically confirmed ECE (p=0.4) or SVI (p=0.5), respectively. Higher PCA3 scores were associated with aggressive disease (p<0.001). Importantly, the addition of PCA3 to multivariable intermediate- and high-grade models did not improve prediction. Despite reporting the largest pathologic PCA3 study, the main limitation resides in its small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: PCA3 was confirmed as a valuable predictor of pathologically confirmed low-volume disease and insignificant PCa. Further exploration of its role as an additional marker to select patients for active surveillance may be warranted. In contradistinction, assessment of pathologically advanced or aggressive PCa is not improved using PCA3.