A SelectMDx/magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram to diagnose prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: 70%-80% of prostate cancer (PCa) biopsies performed in the US annually may be unnecessary. Specific antigen testing (PSA) and tans rectal ultrasound (TRUS) are imprecise predictive methods for risk of PCa. Novel strategies are critical to guide biopsy decision-making. AIM: We assessed the utility and accuracy of combining Select MDx and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) scores for predicting risk of PCa. METHODS AND RESULTS: Our study was conducted at Mount Sinai hospital at Urology department in New York City from January 2020 to April 2021. Total 129 men performed select MDx test. Indications for prostate biopsy were high-risk Select MDx score, suspicious DRE, PI-RADS scores 3/4/5 on mpMRI, or any combination of these. Fifty-one percentage of 129 patients underwent systemic or combined systemic and MRI/US (ultrasound) fusion biopsy; All men underwent 3 T MRI of Prostate w/wo contrast using standard protocols prior to biopsy. A single surgeon performed prostate biopsies. Gleason score ≥3 + 3 on biopsy is defined as outcome. Descriptive statistics were calculated as cross tables. Binary logistic regression model is used to determine the outcome. The nomogram was based on the coefficients of the logit function. ROCs were plotted and decision curve analysis was performed. Using both high-risk Select MDx and PI-RADS scores of 4/5, 87% of biopsies could have been avoided, while detecting 64% of PCa and missing 36%. If biopsies were performed on men with positive Select MDx or PI-RADS 4/5 results, 16% of biopsies could have been avoided while detecting all PCa. Combining these scores improved specificity and accuracy for the detection of PCa over either used alone. Study limitations include limited sample size, sole institution study, and risk or overfitting for the proposed model which may limit generalizability. CONCLUSION: Combining SelectMDx and mpMRI PI-PADS scores of 4/5 may be useful for PCa biopsy decision-making.

Accuracy of novel urinary biomarker tests in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic value of different urinary markers for prostate cancer. Methods: As of June 2022, the literature was retrieved by searching Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science databases and other databases. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values ​​was used to determine the most effective diagnostic method and the data were analyzed accordingly using data analysis software. Results: A total of 16 articles was included including 9952 patients. The ranking results of network meta-analysis showed that the diagnostic performance of the four urine markers Selectmdx, MIPS, PCA3 and EPI was better than that of PSA. Among them, the specificity, positive predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of Selectmdx ranked first in the SUCRA ranking (SUCRA values: 85.2%, 88.3%, 97.1%), and the sensitivity ranked second in the SUCRA ranking (SUCRA value: 54.4%), and the negative predictive value ranked fourth in SUCRA (SUCRA value: 51.6%). The most sensitive screening tool was MIPS (SUCRA value: 67.1%), and it was also the second screening tool ranked higher in specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy (SUCRA value: 56.5%, respectively)., 57.1%, 67.9%, 74.3%). The high negative predictive value SUCRA ranking is EPI (SUCRA value: 68.0%), its sensitivity ranks third (SUCRA value: 45.6%), and its specificity, positive predictive value and diagnostic accuracy are ranked fourth (SUCRA values are: 45%, 38.2%, 35.8%). Conclusion: According to the network ranking diagram, we finally concluded that Selectmdx and MIPS can be used as the most suitable urine markers for prostate cancer screening and diagnosis. To further explore the diagnostic value of different urinary markers in the screening of PCa patients. Systematic Review Registration: https://inplasy.com/, identifier INPLASY202290094.

Papel de PCA3 y SelectMDx en la optimización de la vigilancia activa en el cáncer de próstata / Role of PCA3 and SelectMDx in the optimization of active surveillance in prostate cancer

Introducción y objetivos: Un porcentaje no despreciable de pacientes incluidos en programas de vigilancia activa (VA) para el cáncer de próstata (CaP) de bajo y muy bajo riesgo son reclasificados en la biopsia confirmatoria o desarrollan progresión de la enfermedad durante el seguimiento. Nuestro objetivo es evaluar el papel del PCA3 y el SelectMDx, de manera individual y combinada, para predecir la progresión patológica (PP) en un programa habitual de VA.Materiales y métodosEstudio prospectivo y observacional que incluyó 86 pacientes inscritos en un protocolo de VA desde 2009 hasta 2019, con resultados de PCA3 y SelectMDx previos al diagnóstico de CaP o durante su periodo de confirmación. Se realizaron análisis univariantes y multivariantes para la correlación de las puntuaciones de PCA3 y SelectMDx, así como de las variables clinicopatológicas con la supervivencia libre de progresión patológica (SLPP). Se definieron los puntos de corte más fiables para ambos biomarcadores en el contexto de VA.ResultadosSelectMDx mostró diferencias estadísticamente significativas en relación con la SLPP (HR: 1,035; IC95%: 1,012-1,057) (p=0,002) con un índiceC de 0,670 (IC95%: 0,529-0,810) y un AUC de 0,714 (IC95%: 0,603-0,825) a 5años. En nuestra serie, el punto de corte más fiable para el SelectMDx fue 5, con una sensibilidad y una especificidad para la PP del 69,8 y del 67,4%, respectivamente. El punto de corte del test PCA3 fue de 65, con una sensibilidad y una especificidad para la PP del 51,16 y del 74,42%, respectivamente. La combinación de ambos biomarcadores no mejoró la predicción de la PP, con un índiceC de 0,630 (IC95%: 0,455-0,805).ConclusionesEn el contexto del CaP de bajo o muy bajo riesgo, SelectMDx >5 predijo una supervivencia libre de PP de 5años con una capacidad de discriminación moderada, superando al PCA3. La combinación de ambos no mejoró los resultados. (AU)

Introduction and objectives: A not negligible percentage of patients included in active surveillance (AS) for low and very low risk prostate cancer (PCa) are reclassified in the confirmatory biopsy or have disease progression during follow-up. Our aim is to evaluate the role of PCA3 and SelectMDx, in an individual and combined way, in the prediction of pathological progression (PP) in a standard AS program.Materials and methodsProspective and observational study comprised of 86 patients enrolled in an AS program from 2009 to 2019, with results for PCA3 and SelectMDx previous to PCa diagnosis or during their confirmatory period. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to correlate PCA3 and SelectMDx scores as well as clinical and pathological variables with PP-free survival (PPFS). The most reliable cut-offs for both biomarkers in the context of AS were defined.ResultsSelectMDx showed statistically significant differences related to PPFS (HR: 1.035; 95%CI: 1.012-1.057) (P=.002) with a C-index of 0.670 (95%CI: 0.529-0.810) and AUC of 0.714 (95%CI: 0.603-0.825) at 5years. In our series, the most reliable cut-off point for SelectMDx was 5, with a sensitivity and specificity for PP of 69.8% and 67.4%, respectively. Same figure for PCA3 was 65, with a sensitivity and specificity for PP of 51.16% and 74.42%, respectively. The combination of both biomarkers did not improve the prediction of PP, C-index 0.630 (95%CI: 0.455-0.805).ConclusionsIn the context of low or very low risk PCa, SelectMDx >5 predicted 5years PP free survival with a moderate discrimination ability outperforming PCA3. The combination of both tests did not improved outcomes. (AU)

Role of PCA3 and SelectMDx in the optimization of active surveillance in prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: A not negligible percentage of patients included in active surveillance (AS) for low and very low risk prostate cancer (PCa) are reclassified in the confirmatory biopsy or have disease progression during follow-up. Our aim is to evaluate the role of PCA3 and SelectMDx, in an individual and combined way, in the prediction of pathological progression (PP) in a standard AS program. MATERIALS & METHODS: Prospective and observational study comprised of 86 patients enrolled in an AS program from 2009 to 2019, with results for PCA3 and SelectMDx previous to PCa diagnosis or during their confirmatory period. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to correlate PCA3 and SelectMDx scores as well as clinical and pathological variables with PP-free survival (PPFS). The most reliable cut-offs for both biomarkers in the context of AS were defined. RESULTS: SelectMDx showed statistically significant differences related to PPFS (HR 1.035, 95%CI: 1.012-1.057) (p = 0.002) with a C-index of 0.670 (95%CI: 0.529-0.810) and AUC of 0.714 (95%CI: 0.603-0.825) at 5 years. In our series, the most reliable cut-off point for SelectMDx was 5, with a sensitivity and specificity for PP of 69.8% and 67.4%, respectively. Same figure for PCA3 was 65, with a sensitivity and specificity for PP of 51.16% and 74.42%, respectively. The combination of both biomarkers did not improve the prediction of PP, C-index 0.630 (95%CI: 0.455-0.805). CONCLUSIONS: In the context of low or very low risk PCa, SelectMDx > 5 predicted 5 years PP free survival with a moderate discrimination ability outperforming PCA3. The combination of both tests did not improved outcomes.

Can the predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer be improved by a liquid biopsy with SelectMDx?

BACKGROUND: SelectMDx is a urinary biomarker test for determining prostate cancer risk. AIM: In a group of patients with a biopsy proven prostate cancer (PCa) who had undergone a multi parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) and urinary biomarker test with SelectMDx, we studied the additive value of SelectMDx to mpMRI and correlated that to the radical prostatectomy histology. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-nine consecutive patients with a positive prostate biopsy were included in the study. They all had mpMRI and SelectMDx and underwent a radical prostatectomy. Overall, the mpMRI showed a PIRADS ≤3 lesion in seven cases out of the 39 patients. Significant lesions (PIRADS ≥4) were found in 32 cases (82%), that is, in 17 cases a PIRADS 5 lesion and in 15 cases a PIRADS 4 lesion. The mpMRI missed significant PCa in seven cases (18%) who had a PIRADS ≤3 lesion but had a significant PCa on final histology after RP. In our study, the positive predictive values of mpMRI were 97% and that of the SelectMDx was 100%. CONCLUSION: In this real-life selected group of consecutive patients with a confirmed positive PCa biopsy and available mpMRI, the liquid biopsy test with SelectMDx, did not provide an additional information about the PCa clinical significance. The addition of SelectMDx was only found valuable in those patients who had a very high-risk PCa (ie, GS ≥8) who had a positive SelectMDx test outcome despite of a negative mpMRI outcome.

Multiparametric MRI Versus SelectMDx Accuracy in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant PCa in Men Enrolled in Active Surveillance.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the urinary SelectMDx test in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men enrolled in an active surveillance (AS) protocol. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From July 2015 to July 2018, 125 men with very low-risk PCa were enrolled in the AS protocol; all patients underwent confirmatory transperineal saturation biopsy (SPBx). In the presence of PI-RADS score ≥3, a targeted MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy was added to SPBx. Post-digital rectal examination urine was collected in 45/125 (36%) patients before SPBx; the genetic urine analysis was performed using a biomarker-based risk score model, the SelectMDx, that measured mRNA levels of distal-less homeobox 1 (DLX1) and homeobox C6 (HOXC6). RESULTS: A total of 9/45 (20%) patients were reclassified as csPCa (7 cases=Grade Group 2; 2 cases=Grade Group 3); sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI vs. SelectMDx in the diagnosis of csPCa were equal to 66.6 vs. 55.6%, 87.7 vs. 65.8%, 54.5 vs. 27.8%, 92.3 vs. 87%, 84.9 vs. 70.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: SPBx combined with MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy significantly outperformed the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx (70.3%) in the diagnosis of csPCa in men enrolled in AS.

Are localized prostate cancer biomarkers useful in the clinical practice?

Prostate cancer presents itself in a heterogeneous way with both aggressive and indolent forms. Despite the controversy surrounding its use, prostate-specific antigen screening ultimately leads to a greater number of diagnosed patients. One of the biggest challenges in clinical practice is to select the right patients for biopsy and, among diagnosed patients, to differentiate tumors with an indolent course from those with an unfavorable prognosis, in order to determine the best therapeutic decision for each case, avoiding unnecessary interventions. Currently, several types of biomarkers are available for clinical use in patients with prostate cancer, which include blood-based (prostate-specific antigen, Prostate Health Index®, 4K score®); urine sample-based (PCA3, SelectMDx®, ExoDx Prostate IntelliScore®); and biopsy, transurethral resection, or radical prostatectomy tissue-based (ConfirmMDx®, Oncotype®, Prolaris®, Decipher®). The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current state of evidence and to highlight recent advances in the evaluation and diagnosis of prostate cancer, with emphasis on biomarkers related to diagnosis and to prognostic evaluation of localized prostate cancer.

A urinary biomarker-based risk score correlates with multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics would greatly benefit from more accurate, non-invasive techniques for the detection of clinically significant disease, leading to a reduction of over-diagnosis and over-treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the association between a novel urinary biomarker-based risk score (SelectMDx), multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) outcomes, and biopsy results for PCa detection. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used data from the validation study of the SelectMDx score, in which urine was collected after digital rectal examination from men undergoing prostate biopsies. A subset of these patients also underwent a mpMRI scan of the prostate. The indications for performing mpMRI were based on persistent clinical suspicion of PCa or local staging after PCa was found upon biopsy. All mpMRI images were centrally reviewed in 2016 by an experienced radiologist blinded for the urine test results and biopsy outcome. The PI-RADS version 2 was used. RESULTS: In total, 172 patients were included for analysis. Hundred (58%) patients had PCa detected upon prostate biopsy, of which 52 (52%) had high-grade disease correlated with a significantly higher SelectMDx score (P < 0.01). The median SelectMDx score was significantly higher in patients with a suspicious significant lesion on mpMRI compared to no suspicion of significant PCa (P < 0.01). For the prediction of mpMRI outcome, the area-under-the-curve of SelectMDx was 0.83 compared to 0.66 for PSA and 0.65 for PCA3. There was a positive association between SelectMDx score and the final PI-RADS grade. There was a statistically significant difference in SelectMDx score between PI-RADS 3 and 4 (P < 0.01) and between PI-RADS 4 and 5 (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The novel urinary biomarker-based SelectMDx score is a promising tool in PCa detection. This study showed promising results regarding the correlation between the SelectMDx score and mpMRI outcomes, outperforming PCA3. Our results suggest that this risk score could guide clinicians in identifying patients at risk for significant PCa and selecting patients for further radiological diagnostics to reduce unnecessary procedures.

Cost-effectiveness of a new urinary biomarker-based risk score compared to standard of care in prostate cancer diagnostics - a decision analytical model.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a new urinary biomarker-based risk score (SelectMDx; MDxHealth, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) to identify patients for transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy and to compare this with the current standard of care (SOC), using only prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to select for TRUS-guided biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision tree and Markov model were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SelectMDx as a reflex test vs SOC in men with a PSA level of >3 ng/mL. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs were derived from the literature and expert opinion. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare costs of both diagnostic strategies, simulating the course of patients over a time horizon representing 18 years. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty in assumptions. RESULTS: A diagnostic strategy including SelectMDx with a cut-off chosen at a sensitivity of 95.7% for high-grade prostate cancer resulted in savings of €128 and a gain of 0.025 QALY per patient compared to the SOC strategy. The sensitivity analyses showed that the disutility assigned to active surveillance had a high impact on the QALYs gained and the disutility attributed to TRUS-guided biopsy only slightly influenced the outcome of the model. CONCLUSION: Based on the currently available evidence, the reduction of over diagnosis and overtreatment due to the use of the SelectMDx test in men with PSA levels of >3 ng/mL may lead to a reduction in total costs per patient and a gain in QALYs.

The Use of Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Screening and Treatment.

Prostate cancer screening and diagnosis has been guided by prostate-specific antigen levels for the past 25 years, but with the most recent US Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations, as well as concerns regarding overdiagnosis and overtreatment, a new wave of prostate cancer biomarkers has recently emerged. These assays allow the testing of urine, serum, or prostate tissue for molecular signs of prostate cancer, and provide information regarding both diagnosis and prognosis. In this review, we discuss 12 commercially available biomarker assays approved for the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. The results of clinical validation studies and clinical decision-making studies are presented. This information is designed to assist urologists in making clinical decisions with respect to ordering and interpreting these tests for different patients. There are numerous fluid and biopsy-based genomic tests available for prostate cancer patients that provide the physician and patient with different information about risk of future disease and treatment outcomes. It is important that providers be able to recommend the appropriate test for each individual patient; this decision is based on tissue availability and prognostic information desired. Future studies will continue to emphasize the important role of genomic biomarkers in making individualized treatment decisions for prostate cancer patients.