Glycosylation in Indolent, Significant and Aggressive Prostate Cancer by Automated High-Throughput N-Glycan Profiling.

The diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) is a major health-care concern worldwide. This cancer can manifest itself in many distinct forms and the transition from clinically indolent PCa to the more invasive aggressive form remains poorly understood. It is now universally accepted that glycan expression patterns change with the cellular modifications that accompany the onset of tumorigenesis. The aim of this study was to investigate if differential glycosylation patterns could distinguish between indolent, significant, and aggressive PCa. Whole serum N-glycan profiling was carried out on 117 prostate cancer patients' serum using our automated, high-throughput analysis platform for glycan-profiling which utilizes ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) to obtain high resolution separation of N-linked glycans released from the serum glycoproteins. We observed increases in hybrid, oligomannose, and biantennary digalactosylated monosialylated glycans (M5A1G1S1, M8, and A2G2S1), bisecting glycans (A2B, A2(6)BG1) and monoantennary glycans (A1), and decreases in triantennary trigalactosylated trisialylated glycans with and without core fucose (A3G3S3 and FA3G3S3) with PCa progression from indolent through significant and aggressive disease. These changes give us an insight into the disease pathogenesis and identify potential biomarkers for monitoring the PCa progression, however these need further confirmation studies.

A risk calculator to inform the need for a prostate biopsy: a rapid access clinic cohort.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a significant healthcare problem. The critical clinical question is the need for a biopsy. Accurate risk stratification of patients before a biopsy can allow for individualised risk stratification thus improving clinical decision making. This study aims to build a risk calculator to inform the need for a prostate biopsy. METHODS: Using the clinical information of 4801 patients an Irish Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (IPRC) for diagnosis of PCa and high grade (Gleason ≥7) was created using a binary regression model including age, digital rectal examination, family history of PCa, negative prior biopsy and Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level as risk factors. The discrimination ability of the risk calculator is internally validated using cross validation to reduce overfitting, and its performance compared with PSA and the American risk calculator (PCPT), Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) and European risk calculator (ERSPC) using various performance outcome summaries. In a subgroup of 2970 patients, prostate volume was included. Separate risk calculators including the prostate volume (IPRCv) for the diagnosis of PCa (and high-grade PCa) was created. RESULTS: IPRC area under the curve (AUC) for the prediction of PCa and high-grade PCa was 0.6741 (95% CI, 0.6591 to 0.6890) and 0.7214 (95% CI, 0.7018 to 0.7409) respectively. This significantly outperforms the predictive ability of cancer detection for PSA (0.5948), PCPT (0.6304), PBCG (0.6528) and ERSPC (0.6502) risk calculators; and also, for detecting high-grade cancer for PSA (0.6623) and PCPT (0.6804) but there was no significant improvement for PBCG (0.7185) and ERSPC (0.7140). The inclusion of prostate volume into the risk calculator significantly improved the AUC for cancer detection (AUC = 0.7298; 95% CI, 0.7119 to 0.7478), but not for high-grade cancer (AUC = 0.7256; 95% CI, 0.7017 to 0.7495). The risk calculator also demonstrated an increased net benefit on decision curve analysis. CONCLUSION: The risk calculator developed has advantages over prior risk stratification of prostate cancer patients before the biopsy. It will reduce the number of men requiring a biopsy and their exposure to its side effects. The interactive tools developed are beneficial to translate the risk calculator into practice and allows for clarity in the clinical recommendations.

Integrating biomarkers across omic platforms: an approach to improve stratification of patients with indolent and aggressive prostate cancer.

Classifying indolent prostate cancer represents a significant clinical challenge. We investigated whether integrating data from different omic platforms could identify a biomarker panel with improved performance compared to individual platforms alone. DNA methylation, transcripts, protein and glycosylation biomarkers were assessed in a single cohort of patients treated by radical prostatectomy. Novel multiblock statistical data integration approaches were used to deal with missing data and modelled via stepwise multinomial logistic regression, or LASSO. After applying leave-one-out cross-validation to each model, the probabilistic predictions of disease type for each individual panel were aggregated to improve prediction accuracy using all available information for a given patient. Through assessment of three performance parameters of area under the curve (AUC) values, calibration and decision curve analysis, the study identified an integrated biomarker panel which predicts disease type with a high level of accuracy, with Multi AUC value of 0.91 (0.89, 0.94) and Ordinal C-Index (ORC) value of 0.94 (0.91, 0.96), which was significantly improved compared to the values for the clinical panel alone of 0.67 (0.62, 0.72) Multi AUC and 0.72 (0.67, 0.78) ORC. Biomarker integration across different omic platforms significantly improves prediction accuracy. We provide a novel multiplatform approach for the analysis, determination and performance assessment of novel panels which can be applied to other diseases. With further refinement and validation, this panel could form a tool to help inform appropriate treatment strategies impacting on patient outcome in early stage prostate cancer.

The role of epithelial-mesenchymal transition drivers ZEB1 and ZEB2 in mediating docetaxel-resistant prostate cancer.

Docetaxel is the main treatment for advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer; however, resistance eventually occurs. The development of intratumoral drug-resistant subpopulations possessing a cancer stem cell (CSC) morphology is an emerging mechanism of docetaxel resistance, a process driven by epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). This study characterised EMT in docetaxel-resistant sublines through increased invasion, MMP-1 production and ZEB1 and ZEB2 expression. We also present evidence for differential EMT across PC-3 and DU145 in vitro resistance models as characterised by differential migration, cell colony scattering and susceptibility to the CSC inhibitor salinomycin. siRNA manipulation of ZEB1 and ZEB2 in PC-3 and DU145 docetaxel-resistant sublines identified ZEB1, through its transcriptional repression of E-cadherin, to be a driver of both EMT and docetaxel resistance. The clinical relevance of ZEB1 was also determined through immunohistochemical tissue microarray assessment, revealing significantly increased ZEB1 expression in prostate tumours following docetaxel treatment. This study presents evidence for a role of ZEB1, through its transcriptional repression of E-cadherin to be a driver of both EMT and docetaxel resistance in docetaxel-resistant prostate cancer. In addition, this study highlights the heterogeneity of prostate cancer and in turn emphasises the complexity of the clinical management of docetaxel-resistant prostate cancer.

European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators significantly outperform the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the performance of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPT-RC) and two iterations of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Risk Calculator, one of which incorporates prostate volume (ERSPC-RC) and the other of which incorporates prostate volume and the prostate health index (PHI) in a referral population (ERSPC-PHI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The risk of prostate cancer (PCa) and significant PCa (Gleason score ≥7) in 2001 patients from six tertiary referral centres was calculated according to the PCPT-RC and ERSPC-RC formulae. The calculators' predictions were analysed using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, Hosmer-Lemeshow test for goodness of fit and decision-curve analysis. In a subset of 222 patients for whom the PHI score was available, each patient's risk was calculated as per the ERSPC-RC and ERSPC-PHI risk calculators. RESULTS: The ERSPC-RC outperformed the PCPT-RC in the prediction of PCa, with an AUC of 0.71 compared with 0.64, and also outperformed the PCPT-RC in the prediction of significant PCa (P<0.001), with an AUC of 0.74 compared with 0.69. The ERSPC-RC was found to have improved calibration in this cohort and was associated with a greater net benefit on decision-curve analysis for both PCa and significant PCa. The performance of the ERSPC-RC was further improved through the addition of the PHI score in a subset of 222 patients. The AUCs of the ERSPC-PHI were 0.76 and 0.78 for PCa and significant PCa prediction, respectively, in comparison with AUC values of 0.72 in the prediction of both PCa and significant PCa for the ERSPC-RC (P = 0.12 and P = 0.04, respectively). The ERSPC-PHI risk calculator was well calibrated in this cohort and had an increase in net benefit over that of the ERSPC-RC. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of the risk calculators in the present cohort shows that the ERSPC-RC is a superior tool in the prediction of PCa; however the performance of the ERSPC-RC in this population does not yet warrant its use in clinical practice. The incorporation of the PHI score into the ERSPC-PHI risk calculator allowed each patient's risk to be more accurately quantified. Individual patient risk calculation using the ERSPC-PHI risk calculator can be undertaken in order to allow a systematic approach to patient risk stratification and to aid in the diagnosis of PCa.

Improving multivariable prostate cancer risk assessment using the Prostate Health Index.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the clinical utility of a prediction model incorporating both clinical information and a novel biomarker, p2PSA, in order to inform the decision for prostate biopsy in an Irish cohort of men referred for prostate cancer assessment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Serum isolated from 250 men from three tertiary referral centres with pre-biopsy blood draws was analysed for total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA (fPSA) and p2PSA. From this, the Prostate Health Index (PHI) score was calculated (PHI = (p2PSA/fPSA)*√tPSA). The men's clinical information was used to derive their risk according to the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk model. Two clinical prediction models were created via multivariable regression consisting of age, family history, abnormality on digital rectal examination, previous negative biopsy and either PSA or PHI score, respectively. Calibration plots, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves and decision curves were generated to assess the performance of the three models. RESULTS: The PSA model and PHI model were both well calibrated in this cohort, with the PHI model showing the best correlation between predicted probabilities and actual outcome. The areas under the ROC curve for the PHI model, PSA model and PCPT model were 0.77, 0.71 and 0.69, respectively, for the prediction of prostate cancer (PCa) and 0.79, 0.72 and 0.72, respectively, for the prediction of high grade PCa. Decision-curve analysis showed a superior net benefit of the PHI model over both the PSA model and the PCPT risk model in the diagnosis of PCa and high grade PCa over the entire range of risk probabilities. CONCLUSION: A logical and standardized approach to the use of clinical risk factors can allow more accurate risk stratification of men under investigation for PCa. The measurement of p2PSA and the integration of this biomarker into a clinical prediction model can further increase the accuracy of risk stratification, helping to better inform the decision for prostate biopsy in a referral population.