1. Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Department of Urology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;2. Noviogendix, Department of Research and Development, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;3. ZGT Hospital, Department of Urology, Hengelo, The Netherlands;4. AMC University Medical Centre, Department of Urology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;5. CWZ Hospital, Department of Urology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;6. St. Elisabeth Hospital, Department of Urology, Tilburg, The Netherlands;g Scheper Hospital, Department of Urology, Emmen, The Netherlands;h Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Abstract:
Background
Prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (TMPRSS2-ERG) gene fusions are promising prostate cancer (PCa) specific biomarkers that can be measured in urine.
Objective
To evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic value of Progensa PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusions (as individual biomarkers and as a panel) for PCa in a prospective multicentre setting.
Design, setting, and participants
At six centres, post–digital rectal examination first-catch urine specimens prior to prostate biopsies were prospectively collected from 497 men. We assessed the predictive value of Progensa PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG (quantitative nucleic acid amplification assay to detect TMPRSS2-ERG messenger RNA [mRNA]) for PCa, Gleason score, clinical tumour stage, and PCa significance (individually and as a marker panel). This was compared with serum prostate-specific antigen and the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator. In a subgroup (n = 61) we evaluated biomarker association with prostatectomy outcome.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis
Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis and receiver operating curves were used.
Results and limitations
Urine samples of 443 men contained sufficient mRNA for marker analysis. PCa was diagnosed in 196 of 443 men. Both PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG had significant additional predictive value to the ERSPC risk calculator parameters in multivariate analysis (p < 0.001 and resp. p = 0.002). The area under the curve (AUC) increased from 0.799 (ERSPC risk calculator), to 0.833 (ERSPC risk calculator plus PCA3), to 0.842 (ERSPC risk calculator plus PCA3 plus TMPRSS2-ERG) to predict PCa. Sensitivity of PCA3 increased from 68% to 76% when combined with TMPRSS2-ERG. TMPRSS2-ERG added significant predictive value to the ERSPC risk calculator to predict biopsy Gleason score (p < 0.001) and clinical tumour stage (p = 0.023), whereas PCA3 did not.
Conclusions
TMPRSS2-ERG had independent additional predictive value to PCA3 and the ERSPC risk calculator parameters for predicting PCa. TMPRSS2-ERG had prognostic value, whereas PCA3 did not. Implementing the novel urinary biomarker panel PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG into clinical practice would lead to a considerable reduction of the number of prostate biopsies.
