Diagnosis of prostate cancer by detection of minichromosome maintenance 5 protein in urine sediments

Background: The accuracy of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in prostate cancer detection is constrained by low sensitivity and specificity. Dysregulated expression of minichromosome maintenance (Mcm) 2–7 proteins is an early event in epithelial multistep carcinogenesis and thus MCM proteins represent powerful cancer diagnostic markers. In this study we investigate Mcm5 as a urinary biomarker for prostate cancer detection. Methods: Urine was obtained from 88 men with prostate cancer and from two control groups negative for malignancy. A strictly normal cohort included 28 men with complete, normal investigations, no urinary calculi and serum PSA <2 ng ml–1. An expanded control cohort comprised 331 men with a benign final diagnosis, regardless of PSA level. Urine was collected before and after prostate massage in the cancer patient cohort. An immunofluorometric assay was used to measure Mcm5 levels in urine sediments. Results: The Mcm5 test detected prostate cancer with 82% sensitivity (confidence interval (CI)= 72–89%) and with a specificity ranging from 73 (CI=68–78%) to 93% (CI=76–99%). Prostate massage led to increased Mcm5 signals compared with pre-massage samples (median 3440 (interquartile range (IQR) 2280 to 5220) vs 2360 (IQR <1800 to 4360); P=0.009), and was associated with significantly increased diagnostic sensitivity (82 vs 60%; P=0.012). Conclusions: Urinary Mcm5 detection seems to be a simple, accurate and noninvasive method for identifying patients with prostate cancer. Large-scale prospective trials are now required to evaluate this test in diagnosis and screening

Conventional radical versus focal treatment for localised prostate cancer: a propensity score weighted comparison of 6-year tumour control

Background: For localised prostate cancer, focal therapy offers an organ-sparing alternative to radical treatments (radiotherapy or prostatectomy). Currently, there is no randomised comparative effectiveness data evaluating cancer control of both strategies. Methods: Following the eligibility criteria PSA < 20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤ 7 and T-stage ≤ T2c, we included 830 radical (440 radiotherapy, 390 prostatectomy) and 530 focal therapy (cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound or high-dose-rate brachytherapy) patients treated between 2005 and 2018 from multicentre registries in the Netherlands and the UK. A propensity score weighted (PSW) analysis was performed to compare failure-free survival (FFS), with failure defined as salvage treatment, metastatic disease, systemic treatment (androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy), or progression to watchful waiting. The secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Median (IQR) follow-up in each cohort was 55 (28–83) and 62 (42–83) months, respectively. Results: At baseline, radical patients had higher PSA (10.3 versus 7.9) and higher-grade disease (31% ISUP 3 versus 11%) compared to focal patients. After PSW, all covariates were balanced (SMD < 0.1). 6-year weighted FFS was higher after radical therapy (80.3%, 95% CI 73.9–87.3) than after focal therapy (72.8%, 95% CI 66.8–79.8) although not statistically significant (p = 0.1). 6-year weighted OS was significantly lower after radical therapy (93.4%, 95% CI 90.1–95.2 versus 97.5%, 95% CI 94–99.9; p = 0.02). When compared in a three-way analysis, focal and LRP patients had a higher risk of treatment failure than EBRT patients (p < 0.001), but EBRT patients had a higher risk of mortality than focal patients (p = 0.008). Conclusions: Within the limitations of a cohort-based analysis in which residual confounders are likely to exist, we found no clinically relevant difference in cancer control conferred by focal therapy compared to radical therapy at 6 years

Evaluation of Outcomes following Focal Ablative Therapy for Treatment of Localised Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients >70 Years: A Multi-institute, Multi-energy 15-year Experience

PURPOSE: In older patients who do not wish to undergo watchful waiting, focal therapy could be an alternative to the more morbid radical treatment. We evaluated the role of focal therapy (FT) in patients 70 years and older as an alternative management modality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 649 patients across 11 UK sites receiving focal high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) or cryotherapy between June 2006 - July 2020 reported within the UK based HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment and the International Cryotherapy Evaluation (ICE) registries were evaluated. Primary outcome was failure free survival (FFS) defined by need for more than 1 focal re-ablation, progression onto radical treatment, development of metastases, need for systemic treatment or prostate cancer specific death. This was compared to the FFS in patients undergoing radical treatment via a propensity score weighted analysis. RESULTS: Median age was 74 years (IQR: 72, 77) and median follow-up 24 months (IQR: 12, 41). 60% had intermediate risk disease and 35% high risk disease. 113 patients (17%) required further treatment. 16 had radical treatment and 44 required systemic treatment. FFS was 82% (95% CI: 76-87%) at 5 years. Comparing patients who had radical therapy to those who had focal therapy, 5-year FFS was 96%, (95% CI: 93-100%) and 82% (95% CI: 75-91%) respectively, P < .001. 93% of those in the radical treatment arm had received Radiotherapy as their primary treatment with its associated use of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) thereby leading to potential over estimation of treatment success in the radical treatment arm, especially given the similar metastases free and overall survival rates seen. CONCLUSIONS: We propose FT to be an effective management option for the older or comorbid patient who is unsuitable for or not willing to undergo radical treatment

Comparative healthcare research outcomes of novel surgery in prostate cancer (IP4-CHRONOS): a prospective, multi-centre therapeutic phase II parallel randomised control trial

Introduction Focal therapy (FT) targets individual areas of cancer within the prostate, providing oncological control with minimal side-effects. Early evidence demonstrates encouraging short-medium-term outcomes. With no randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing FT to radical therapies, Comparative Healthcare Research Outcomes of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (CHRONOS) will compare the cancer control of these two strategies. Patients and methods CHRONOS is a parallel phase II RCT for patients with clinically significant non-metastatic prostate cancer, dependent upon clinician/patient decision, patients will enrol into either CHRONOS-A or CHRONOS-B. CHRONOS-A will randomize patients to either radical treatment or FT. CHRONOS-B is a multi-arm, multistage RCT comparing focal therapy alone to FT with neoadjuvant agents that might improve the current focal therapy outcomes. An internal pilot will determine the feasibility of, and compliance to, randomization. The proposed definitive study plans to recruit and randomize 1190 patients into CHRONOS-A and 1260 patients into CHRONOS-B. Results Primary outcome in CHRONOS-A is progression-free survival (transition to salvage local or systemic therapy, development of metastases or prostate-cancer-related mortality) and in CHRONOS-B is failure-free survival (includes the above definition and recurrence of clinically significant prostate cancer after initial FT). Secondary outcomes include adverse events, health economics and functional outcomes measured using validated questionnaires. CHRONOS is powered to assess non-inferiority of FT compared to radical therapy in CHRONOS-A, and superiority of neoadjuvant agents with FT in CHRONOS-B. Conclusion CHRONOS will assess the oncological outcomes after FT compared to radical therapy and whether neoadjuvant treatments improve cancer control following one FT session

The Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Focal Therapy (TARGET):A Systematic Review and International Consensus Recommendations

Background and objective: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can detect recurrences after focal therapy for prostate cancer but there is no robust guidance regarding its use. Our objective was to produce consensus recommendations on MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy. Methods:A systematic review was performed in July 2022 to develop consensus statements. A two-round consensus exercise was then performed, with a consensus meeting in January 2023, during which 329 statements were scored by 23 panellists from Europe and North America spanning urology, radiology, and pathology with experience across eight focal therapy modalities. Using RAND Corporation/University of California-Los Angeles methodology, the Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with MRI after Focal Therapy (TARGET) were based on consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement. Key findings and limitations: In total, 73 studies were included in the review. All 20 studies (100%) reporting suspicious imaging features cited focal contrast enhancement as suspicious for cancer recurrence. Of 31 studies reporting MRI assessment criteria, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score was the scheme used most often (20 studies; 65%), followed by a 5-point Likert score (six studies; 19%). For the consensus exercise, consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement increased from 227 of 295 statements (76.9%) in round one to 270 of 329 statements (82.1%) in round two. Key recommendations include performing routine MRI at 12 mo using a multiparametric protocol compliant with PI-RADS version 2.1 standards. PI-RADS category scores for assessing recurrence within the ablation zone should be avoided. An alternative 5-point scoring system is presented that includes a major dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) sequence and joint minor diffusion-weighted imaging and T2-weighted sequences. For the DCE sequence, focal nodular strong early enhancement was the most suspicious imaging finding. A structured minimum reporting data set and minimum reporting standards for studies detailing MRI data after focal therapy are presented. Conclusions and clinical implications: The TARGET consensus recommendations may improve MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy for prostate cancer and provide minimum standards for study reporting. Patient summary:Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans can detect recurrent of prostate cancer after focal treatments, but there is a lack of guidance on MRI use for this purpose. We report new expert recommendations that may improve practice.</p

Expression of Mcm2, geminin and Ki67 in normal oral mucosa, oral epithelial dysplasias and their corresponding squamous-cell carcinomas

Proteins necessary for the normal regulation of the cell cycle include minichromosome maintenance protein 2 (Mcm2) and geminin. These are overexpressed in several premalignant and malignant tumours. The Mcm2/Ki67 ratio can be used to estimate the population of cells that are in early G1 (licensed to proliferate), and the geminin/Ki67 ratio can determine the relative length of G1. A high ratio indicates a short G1 and a high rate of cell proliferation. Mcm2 and geminin have been scarcely explored in oral epithelial dysplasia (OED) and oral squamous-cell carcinoma (OSCC). The purpose of this study was to identify the expression pattern of Mcm2, Ki67 and geminin in normal oral mucosa (NOM), OED and their subsequent OSCC, to determine if expression could help predict the prognosis of OED. Paraffin sections of 41 OED cases that progressed to carcinoma, 40 OED without malignant progression, 38 OSCC and 15 NOM were immunostained with antibodies against Mcm2, geminin and Ki67. Labelling indices (LIs) increased progressively from NOM, OED and OSCC (Mcm2, Po0.001; geminin, Po0.001 and Ki67, Po0.001). In all the OED cases (n ¼ 81) the levels of expression of Mcm2 (LI, 73.6), geminin (LI, 24.4) and Ki67 (LI, 44.5) were elevated indicating a constant cellcycle re-entry. When the OED groups were compared, Mcm2 protein expression was higher in the OED with malignant progression (P ¼ 0.04), likewise there was a significant increase in the Mcm2/Ki67 and geminin/Ki67 ratios (P ¼ 0.04 and 0.02 respectively). Mcm2 and geminin proteins seem to be novel biomarkers of growth and may be useful prognostic tools for OED

High-intensity-focused ultrasound in the treatment of primary prostate cancer: the first UK series

BACKGROUND: The use of minimally invasive ablative therapies in localised prostate cancer offer potential for a middle ground between active surveillance and radical therapy. METHODS: An analysis of men with organ-confined prostate cancer treated with transrectal whole-gland HIFU (Sonablate 500) between 1 February 2005 and 15 May 2007 was carried out in two centres. Outcome data (side-effects using validated patient questionnaires, biochemical, histology) were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 172 men were treated under general anaesthetic as day-case procedures with 78% discharged a mean 5 h after treatment. Mean follow-up was 346 days (range 135-759 days). Urethral stricture was significantly lower in those with suprapubic catheter compared with urethral catheters (19.4 vs 40.4%, P = 0.005). Antibiotics were given to 23.8% of patients for presumed urinary tract infection and the rate of epididymitis was 7.6%. Potency was maintained in 70% by 12 months, whereas mild stress urinary incontinence (no pads) was reported in 7.0% (12 out of 172) with a further 0.6% (1 out of 172) requiring pads. There was no rectal toxicity and no recto-urethral fistulae. In all, 78.3% achieved a PSA nadir <= 0.5 mu g ml(-1) at 12 months, with 57.8% achieving <= 0.2 mu g ml(-1). Then, 8 out of 13 were retreated with HIFU, one had salvage external beam radiotherapy and four chose active surveillance for small-volume low-risk disease. Overall, there was no evidence of disease (PSA <0.5 mu g ml(-1) or negative biopsy if nadir not achieved) after one HIFU session in 92.4% ( 159 out of 172) of patients. CONCLUSION: HIFU is a minimally invasive, day-case ablative technique that can achieve good biochemical outcomes in the short term with minimal urinary incontinence and acceptable levels of erectile dysfunction. Long-term outcome needs further evaluation and the inception of an international registry for cases treated using HIFU will significantly aid this health technology assessment. British Journal of Cancer (2009) 101, 19-26. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605116 www.bjcancer.com Published online 9 June 2009 (C) 2009 Cancer Research U

External validation of a risk model predicting failure of salvage focal ablation for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES: To externally validate a published model predicting failure within 2 years after salvage focal ablation in men with localised radiorecurrent prostate cancer using a prospective, UK multicentre dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with biopsy-confirmed ≤T3bN0M0 cancer after previous external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy were included from the FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST) trial (NCT01883128; 2014-2018; six centres), and from the high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) and International Cryotherapy Evaluation (ICE) UK-based registries (2006-2022; nine centres). Eligible patients underwent either salvage focal HIFU or cryotherapy, with the choice based predominantly on anatomical factors. Per the original multivariable Cox regression model, the predicted outcome was a composite failure outcome. Model performance was assessed at 2 years post-salvage with discrimination (concordance index [C-index]), calibration (calibration curve and slope), and decision curve analysis. For the latter, two clinically-reasonable risk threshold ranges of 0.14-0.52 and 0.26-0.36 were considered, corresponding to previously published pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates for salvage local treatments. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included, of whom 84/168 (50%) experienced the primary outcome in all follow-ups, and 72/168 (43%) within 2 years. The C-index was 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.71). On graphical inspection, there was close agreement between predicted and observed failure. The calibration slope was 1.01. In decision curve analysis, there was incremental net benefit vs a 'treat all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.23. The net benefit was therefore higher across the majority of the 0.14-0.52 risk threshold range, and all of the 0.26-0.36 range. CONCLUSION: In external validation using prospective, multicentre data, this model demonstrated modest discrimination but good calibration and clinical utility for predicting failure of salvage focal ablation within 2 years. This model could be reasonably used to improve selection of appropriate treatment candidates for salvage focal ablation, and its use should be considered when discussing salvage options with patients. Further validation in larger, international cohorts with longer follow-up is recommended

The Role of Multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: An Analysis from the FORECAST Trial

BACKGROUND: The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for detecting intraprostatic cancer recurrence and planning for salvage focal ablation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST; NCT01883128) was a prospective cohort diagnostic study that recruited 181 patients with suspected radiorecurrence at six UK centres (2014 to 2018); 144 were included here. INTERVENTION: All patients underwent MRI with 5 mm transperineal template mapping biopsies; 84 had additional MRI-targeted biopsies. MRI scans with Likert scores of 3 to 5 were deemed suspicious. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: First, the diagnostic accuracy of MRI was calculated. Second, the pathological characteristics of MRI-detected and MRI-undetected tumours were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and chi-square test for trend. Third, four biopsy strategies involving an MRI-targeted biopsy alone and with systematic biopsies of one to two other quadrants were studied. Fisher's exact test was used to compare MRI-targeted biopsy alone with the best other strategy for the number of patients with missed cancer and the number of patients with cancer harbouring additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. Analyses focused primarily on detecting cancer of any grade or length. Last, eligibility for focal therapy was evaluated for men with localised (≤T3bN0M0) radiorecurrent disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 144 patients, 111 (77%) had cancer detected on biopsy. MRI sensitivity and specificity at the patient level were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35), respectively. At the prostate quadrant level, 258/576 (45%) quadrants had cancer detected on biopsy. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.66 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.73) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.62), respectively. At the quadrant level, compared with MRI-undetected tumours, MRI-detected tumours had longer maximum cancer core length (median difference 3 mm [7 vs 4 mm]; 95% CI 1 to 4 mm, p < 0.001) and a higher grade group (p = 0.002). Of the 84 men who also underwent an MRI-targeted biopsy, 73 (87%) had recurrent cancer diagnosed. Performing an MRI-targeted biopsy alone missed cancer in 5/73 patients (7%; 95% CI 3 to 15%); with additional systematic sampling of the other ipsilateral and contralateral posterior quadrants (strategy 4), 2/73 patients (3%; 95% CI 0 to 10%) would have had cancer missed (difference 4%; 95% CI -3 to 11%, p = 0.4). If an MRI-targeted biopsy alone was performed, 43/73 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) patients with cancer would have harboured undetected additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. This reduced but only to 7/73 patients (10%; 95% CI 4 to 19%) with strategy 4 (difference 49%; 95% CI 36 to 62%, p < 0.0001). Of 73 patients, 43 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) had localised radiorecurrent cancer suitable for a form of focal ablation. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy, MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy, with or without perilesional sampling, will diagnose cancer in the majority where present. MRI-undetected cancers, defined as Likert scores of 1 to 2, were found to be smaller and of lower grade. However, if salvage focal ablation is planned, an MRI-targeted biopsy alone is insufficient for prostate mapping; approximately three of five patients with recurrent cancer found on an MRI-targeted biopsy alone harboured further tumours in unsampled quadrants. Systematic sampling of the whole gland should be considered in addition to an MRI-targeted biopsy to capture both MRI-detected and MRI-undetected disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: After radiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is accurate for detecting recurrent prostate cancer, with missed cancer being smaller and of lower grade. Targeting a biopsy to suspicious areas on MRI results in a diagnosis of cancer in most patients. However, for every five men who have recurrent cancer, this targeted approach would miss cancers elsewhere in the prostate in three of these men. If further focal treatment of the prostate is planned, random biopsies covering the whole prostate in addition to targeted biopsies should be considered so that tumours are not missed

Bladder cancer diagnosis and identification of clinically significant disease by combined urinary detection of Mcm5 and nuclear matrix protein 22.

Urinary biomarkers for bladder cancer detection are constrained by inadequate sensitivity or specificity. Here we evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Mcm5, a novel cell cycle biomarker of aberrant growth, alone and in combination with NMP22