Prostate cancer is the most common urologic neoplasm and the second leading cause
of cancer-related death among men in many developed countries. Given the highly
heterogeneous behaviour of the disease, there is a great need for prognostic
factors, in order to stratify the clinical risk and give the best treatment
options to the patient. Clinical factors, such as prostate-specific antigen
value and derivatives, and pathological factors, such as stage and Gleason
grading, are well kown prognostic factors. Nomograms can provide useful
prediction in each clinical sceario. The field of molecular biomarkers is
briskly evolving towards personalized medicine. TMPRSS2-ERG
fusion, deletion of PTEN ed and gene panels are some of the more extensively
explored molecular features in prostate cancer outcome prediction. In the near
future, circulating tumour cells, exosomes and microRNAs could give us further,
not invasive important tools.
TorreLABrayFSiegelRLFerlayJLortet-TieulentJJemalAGlobal cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer
J Clin. 2015; 65(2): 87–108.
2.
PunnenSCooperbergMRD'AmicoAV. Management of biochemical recurrence after primary
treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review of the
literature. Eur Urol. 2013;
64(6): 905–915.
3.
DiblasioCJKattanMWUse of nomograms to predict the risk of disease recurrence after
definitive local therapy for prostate cancer.
Urology. 2003; 62(Suppl 1): 9–18.
4.
MontironiRMazzucchelliRScarpelliMLopez-BeltranAMikuzGProstate carcinoma I: prognostic factors in radical prostatectomy
specimens and pelvic lymph nodes. BJU Int.
2006; 97(3): 485–491.
EpsteinJIPathology of Prostatic Neoplasia: Subtypes of Prostate
Adenocarcinoma. In: KavoussiLRNovickACPartinAWPetersCA editors. Campbell-Walsh Urology, 10th
ed. (2012), vol. 3pp2726–2734 Philadelphia PA: Elsevier
Saunders.
7.
GleasonDFMellingerGTPrediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined
histological grading and clinical staging. J
Urol. 1974; 111(1): 58–64.
8.
EpsteinJIAllsbrookWCJrAminMBEgevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee. The
2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus
Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg
Pathol. 2005; 29(9): 1228–1242.
9.
MontironiRMazzuccheliRScarpelliMLopez-BeltranAFellegaraGAlgabaFGleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical
prostatectomy specimens: contemporary approach, current clinical
significance and sources of pathology discrepancies.
BJU Int. 2005; 95(8): 1146–1152.
10.
EpsteinJIGleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle
biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J
Surg Pathol. 2000; 24(4): 477–478.
11.
CarterHBPartinAWWalshPC. Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as
cancer?J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(35): 4294–4296.
12.
EssermanLJThompsonIMReidB. Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a
prescription for change. Lancet Oncol.
2014; 15(6): e234–e242.
13.
WrightJLSalinasCALinDW. Prostate cancer specific mortality and Gleason 7 disease
differences in prostate cancer outcomes between cases with Gleason 4 + 3 and
Gleason 3 + 4 tumors in a population based cohort. J
Urol. 2009; 182(6): 2702–2707.
14.
EggenerSEScardinoPTWalshPC. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality
after radical prostatectomy. J Urol.
2011; 185(3): 869–875.
15.
MartinNEMucciLALodaMDepinhoRAPrognostic determinants in prostate cancer.
Cancer J. 2011; 17(6): 429–437.
16.
AndersonPRHanlonALPatchefskyA. Perineural invasion and Gleason 7–10 tumors predict
increased failure in prostate cancer patients with pretreatment PSA <10
ng/ml treated with conformal external beam radiation
therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
1998; 41(5): 1087–1092.
17.
QuinnDIHenshallSMBrennerPC. Prognostic significance of preoperative factors in
localized prostate carcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy: importance
of percentage of biopsies that contain tumor and the presence of biopsy
perineural invasion. Cancer.
2003; 97(8): 1884–1893.
18.
VargasSOJiroutekMWelchWRNucciMRD'AmicoAVRenshawAAPerineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy
specimens. Correlation with extraprostatic extension
at resection. Am J Clin Pathol. 1999;
111(2): 223–228.
19.
HolmesGFWalshPCPoundCREpsteinJIExcision of the neurovascular bundle at radical prostatectomy in
cases with perineural invasion on needle biopsy.
Urology. 1999; 53(4): 752–756.
20.
ItoKNakashimaJMukaiM. Prognostic implication of microvascular invasion in
biochemical failure in patients treated with radical
prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2003;
70(4): 297–302.
21.
ShariatSFKhoddamiSMSaboorianH. Lymphovascular invasion is a pathological feature of
biologically aggressive disease in patients treated with radical
prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004;
171(3): 1122–1127.
22.
MazzucchelliRSantinelliALopez-BeltranAScarpelliMMontironiREvaluation of prognostic factors in radical prostatectomy
specimens with cancer. Urol Int.
2002; 68(4): 209–215.
23.
EpsteinJIPartinAWPotterSRWalshPCAdenocarcinoma of the prostate invading the seminal vesicle:
prognostic stratification based on pathologic parameters.
Urology. 2000; 56(2): 283–288.
24.
PotterSREpsteinJIPartinAWSeminal vesicle invasion by prostate cancer: prognostic
significance and therapeutic implications. Rev
Urol. 2000; 2(3): 190–195.
YossepowitchOBrigantiAEasthamJA. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a
systematic review and contemporary update. Eur
Urol. 2014; 65(2): 303–313.
27.
EasthamJAKuroiwaKOhoriM. Prognostic significance of location of positive margins
in radical prostatectomy specimens.
Urology. 2007; 70(5): 965–969.
28.
ShikanovSSongJRoyceC. Length of positive surgical margin after radical
prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence.
J Urol. 2009; 182(1): 139–144.
29.
SimonMAKimSSolowayMSProstate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical
retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins. J
Urol. 2006; 175(1): 140–144, discussion
144-145.
30.
KatzRSalomonLHoznekAde la TailleAAntiphonPAbbouCCPositive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy:
the impact of apical dissection, bladder neck remodeling and nerve
preservation. J Urol. 2003;
169(6): 2049–2052.
31.
PrestonMACarrièreMRajuG. The prognostic significance of capsular incision into
tumor during radical prostatectomy. Eur
Urol. 2011; 59(4): 613–618.
32.
KarakiewiczPIEasthamJAGraefenM. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in
surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831
patients. Urology. 2005;
66(6): 1245–1250.
33.
StephensonAJWoodDPKattanMW. Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins
do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after
radical prostatectomy. J Urol.
2009; 182(4): 1357–1363.
34.
CaoDHumphreyPAGaoFTaoYKibelASAbility of linear length of positive margin in radical
prostatectomy specimens to predict biochemical recurrence.
Urology. 2011; 77(6): 1409–1414.
35.
ShikanovSMarchettiPDesaiV. Short (≤1 mm) positive surgical margin and risk of
biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
BJU Int. 2013; 111(4): 559–563.
36.
BoorjianSAThompsonRHSiddiquiS. Long-term outcome after radical prostatectomy for
patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer in the prostate specific
antigen era. J Urol. 2007;
178(3 Pt 1): 864–870, discussion
870-871.
37.
BrigantiAKarnesJRDa PozzoLF. Two positive nodes represent a significant cut-off value
for cancer specific survival in patients with node positive prostate
cancer. A new proposal based on a two-institution
experience on 703 consecutive N+ patients treated with radical
prostatectomy, extended pelvic lymph node dissection and adjuvant therapy.
Eur Urol. 2009; 55(2): 261–270.
D'AmicoAVWhittingtonRMalkowiczSB. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy,
external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for
clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA.
1998; 280(11): 969–974.
40.
KattanMWWheelerTMScardinoPTPostoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical
prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin
Oncol. 1999; 17(5): 1499–1507.
41.
WalzJChunFKKleinEA. Nomogram predicting the probability of early recurrence
after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J
Urol. 2009;
181:601–607. discussion
7-8.
42.
ShaoY-HDemissieKShihW. Contemporary risk profile of prostate cancer in the
United States. J Natl Cancer Inst.
2009; 101(18): 1280–1283.
43.
D'AmicoAVChenMHRoehlKACatalonaWJPreoperative PSA velocity and the risk of death from prostate
cancer after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J
Med. 2004; 351(2): 125–135.
44.
StephensonAJKattanMWEasthamJA. Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical
prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen
era. J Clin Oncol. 2009;
27(26): 4300–4305.
45.
D'AmicoAVRenshawAASussmanBChen M-H. Pretreatment PSA velocity and
risk of death from prostate cancer following external beam radiation
therapy. JAMA. 2005; 294(4): 440–447.
46.
BoorjianSAKarnesRJRangelLJ. Mayo Clinic validation of the D'amico risk group
classification for predicting survival following radical
prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;
179:1354–1360. discussion
60-61.
47.
DiblasioCJKattanMWUse of nomograms to predict the risk of disease recurrence after
definitive local therapy for prostate cancer.
Urology. 2003; 62(Suppl 1): 9–18.
48.
KattanMWEasthamJAStapletonAMWheelerTMScardinoPTA preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical
prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer
Inst. 1998; 90(10): 766–771.
49.
KoretsRMotamediniaPYeshchinaODesaiMMc KiernanJMAccuracy of the Kattan nomogram across prostate cancer
risk-groups. BJU Int. 2011;
108(1): 56–60.
50.
PunnenSFreedlandSJPrestiJCJr. Multi-institutional validation of the CAPRA-S score to
predict disease recurrence and mortality after radical
prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;
65(6): 1171–1177.
51.
TomlinsSARhodesDRPernerS. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor
genes in prostate cancer. Science.
2005; 310(5748): 644–648.
52.
TomlinsSABjartellAChinnaiyanAM. ETS gene fusions in prostate cancer: from discovery to
daily clinical practice. Eur Urol.
2009; 56(2): 275–286.
53.
BoströmPJBjartellASCattoJW. Genomic predictors of outcome in prostate
cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;
68:1033–1044.
54.
WeischenfeldtJSimonRFeuerbachL. Integrative genomic analyses reveal an androgen-driven
somatic alteration landscape in early-onset prostate cancer.
Cancer Cell. 2013; 23(2): 159–170.
55.
SteurerSMayerPSAdamM. TMPRSS2-ERG fusions are strongly linked
to young patient age in low-grade prostate cancer.
Eur Urol. 2014; 66(6): 978–981.
56.
CairnsPOkamiKHalachmiS. Frequent inactivation of PTEN/MMAC1 in primary prostate
cancer. Cancer Res. 1997;
57(22): 4997–5000.
57.
LeinonenKASaramäkiORFurusatoB. Loss of PTEN is associated with aggressive behavior in
ERG-positive prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol
Biomarkers Prev. 2013; 22(12): 2333–2344.
58.
YoshimotoMJoshuaAMCunhaIW. Absence of TMPRSS2:ERG fusions and PTEN
losses in prostate cancer is associated with a favorable
outcome. Mod Pathol. 2008;
21(12): 1451–1460.
59.
ReidAHAttardGDanilaDC. Significant and sustained antitumor activity in
post-docetaxel, castration-resistant prostate cancer with the CYP17
inhibitor abiraterone acetate. J Clin
Oncol. 2010; 28(9): 1489–1495.
60.
FerraldeschiRNava RodriguesDRiisnaesR. PTEN protein loss and clinical outcome from
castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with abiraterone
acetate. Eur Urol. 2015;
67(4): 795–802.
61.
DijkstraSMuldersPFSchalkenJAClinical use of novel urine and blood based prostate cancer
biomarkers: a review. Clin Biochem.
2014; 4710-11: 889–896.
62.
HesselsDKlein GunnewiekJMvan OortI. DD3(PCA3)-based molecular urine analysis for the
diagnosis of prostate cancer. Eur Urol.
2003; 44(1): 8–15, discussion
15-16.
63.
DerasILAubinSMBlaseA. PCA3: a molecular urine assay for predicting prostate
biopsy outcome. J Urol. 2008;
179(4): 1587–1592.
64.
MarksLSFradetYDerasIL. PCA3 molecular urine assay for prostate cancer in men
undergoing repeat biopsy. Urology.
2007; 69(3): 532–535.
65.
DurandXXylinasERadulescuC. The value of urinary prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3)
scores in predicting pathological features at radical
prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2012;
110(1): 43–49.
66.
NakanishiHGroskopfJFritscheHA. PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate
cancer tumor volume: implication in selecting candidates for active
surveillance. J Urol. 2008May1795: 1804–1809; discussion
1809-1810.
67.
DerasILAubinSMBlaseA. PCA3: a molecular urine assay for predicting prostate
biopsy outcome. J Urol. 2008;
179(4): 1587–1592.
68.
van GilsMPHesselsDHulsbergen-van de KaaCA. Detailed analysis of histopathological parameters in
radical prostatectomy specimens and PCA3 urine test results.
Prostate. 2008; 68(11): 1215–1222.
69.
HesselsDvan GilsMPvan HooijO. Predictive value of PCA3 in urinary sediments in
determining clinico-pathological characteristics of prostate
cancer. Prostate. 2010;
70(1): 10–16.
70.
LughezzaniGLazzeriMBuffiNM. Preoperative prostate health index is an independent
predictor of early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy:
results from a prospective single-center study. Urol
Oncol. 2015;
33:e7–e14.
71.
CuzickJSwansonGPFisherGet al;Transatlantic Prostate Group. Prognostic
value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation
genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study. Lancet
Oncol. 2011; 12(3): 245–255.
72.
CooperbergMRSimkoJPCowanJE. Validation of a cell-cycle progression gene panel to
improve risk stratification in a contemporary prostatectomy
cohort. J Clin Oncol. 2013;
31(11): 1428–1434.
73.
CuzickJBerneyDMFisherGet al;Transatlantic Prostate Group. Prognostic
value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death in a
conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer.
2012; 106(6): 1095–1099.
74.
BishoffJTFreedlandSJGerberL. Prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression score
generated from biopsy in men treated with prostatectomy.
J Urol. 2014; 192(2): 409–414.
75.
CooperbergMRHiltonJFCarrollPRThe CAPRA-S score: a straightforward tool for improved prediction
of outcomes after radical prostatectomy.
Cancer. 2011; 117(22): 5039–5046.
76.
FreedlandSJGerberLReidJ. Prognostic utility of cell cycle progression score in
men with prostate cancer after primary external beam radiation
therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
2013; 86(5): 848–853.
77.
CrawfordEDScholzMCKarAJ. Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in
prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2014; 30(6): 1025–1031.
78.
ErhoNCrisanAVergaraIA. Discovery and validation of a prostate cancer genomic
classifier that predicts early metastasis following radical
prostatectomy. PLoS One. 2013;
Jun24; 8(6): e66855.
79.
KleinEACooperbergMRMagi-GalluzziC. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer
aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor
multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur
Urol. 2014; 66(3): 550–560.
80.
GuLFrommelSCOakesCCet al;ICGC Project on Early Onset Prostate Cancer.
BAZ2A (TIP5) is involved in epigenetic alterations in prostate
cancer and its overexpression predicts disease recurrence. Nat
Genet. 2015; 47(1): 22–30.
81.
PiercontiFMartiniMPintoF. Epigenetic silencing of SOCS3 identifies a subset of
prostate cancer with an aggressive behavior.
Prostate. 2011; 71(3): 318–325.
82.
CalarcoAPintoFPiercontiF. Role of SOCS3 evaluated by immunohistochemical analysis
in a cohort of patients affected by prostate cancer: preliminary
results. Urologia. 2012;
79(Suppl 19): 4–8.
83.
WeberJABaxterDHZhangS. The micro RNA spectrum in 12 body
fluids. Clin Chem. 2010;
56(11): 1733–1741.
84.
de BonoJSScherHIMontgomeryRB. Circulating tumor cells predict survival benefit from
treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate
cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;
14(19): 6302–6309.
85.
DanilaDCHellerGGignacGA. Circulating tumor cell number and prognosis in
progressive castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Clin Cancer Res. 2007; 13(23): 7053–7058.
86.
DanilaDCMorrisMJde BonoJS. Phase II multicenter study of abiraterone acetate plus
prednisone therapy in patients with docetaxel-treated castration-resistant
prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol.
2010; 28(9): 1496–1501.
87.
NilssonJSkogJNordstrandA. Prostate cancer-derived urine exosomes: a novel approach
to biomarkers for prostate cancer. Br J
Cancer. 2009; 100(10): 1603–1607.
