Cargando…

Prostate cancer biomarkers: Are we hitting the mark?

PURPOSE: Localised prostate cancer diagnosis and management is increasingly complex due to its heterogeneous progression and prognostic subgroups. Pitfalls in current screening and diagnosis have prompted the search for accurate and invasive molecular and genetic biomarkers for prostate cancer. Such...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McGrath, Shannon, Christidis, Daniel, Perera, Marlon, Hong, Sung Kyu, Manning, Todd, Vela, Ian, Lawrentschuk, Nathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Asian Pacific Prostate Society 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5153438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27995111
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2016.07.002
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Localised prostate cancer diagnosis and management is increasingly complex due to its heterogeneous progression and prognostic subgroups. Pitfalls in current screening and diagnosis have prompted the search for accurate and invasive molecular and genetic biomarkers for prostate cancer. Such tools may be able to distinguish clinically significant cancers from less aggressive variants to assist with prostate cancer risk stratification and guide decisions and healthcare algorithms. We aimed to provide a comprehensive review of the current prostate cancer biomarkers available and in development. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases searches were conducted to identify articles pertaining to the use of novel biomarkers for prostate cancer. RESULTS: A growing number of novel biomarkers are currently under investigation. Such markers include urinary biomarkers, serology-based markers or pathological tissue assessments of molecular and genetic markers. While limited clinical data is present for analysis, early results appear promising. Specifically, a combination of serum and urinary biomarkers (Serum PSA + Urinary PCA3 + Urinary TMPRSS2-ERG fusion) appears to provide superior sensitivity and specificity profiles compared to traditional diagnostic approaches (AUC 0.88). CONCLUSION: The accurate diagnosis and risk stratification of prostate cancer is critical to ensure appropriate intervention. The development of non-invasive biomarkers can add to the information provided by current screening practices and allows for individualised risk stratification of patients. The use of these biomarkers appears to increase the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis of prostate cancer. Further studies are necessary to define the appropriate use and time points of each biomarker and their effect on the management algorithm of prostate cancer.