Paediatric Surgery (Ukraine). 2024. 4(85): 65-70. doi: 10.15574/PS.2024.4(85).6570
Nakonechnyi Y. A., Mytsyk Yu. O., Borzhievskyi A. Ts.
Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Ukraine

For citation: Nakonechnyi YA, Mytsyk YuO, Borzhievskyi ATs. (2024). PCA3 score prognostic value for identifying postoperative ISUP grades 4-5 in localized peripheral zone prostate cancer with a posterior tumor growth dominant pattern. Paediatric Surgery (Ukraine). 4(85): 65-70. doi: 10.15574/PS.2024.4(85).6570.
Article received: Oct 08, 2024. Accepted for publication: Dec 10, 2024.

At present, the identification of high-risk groups of localized prostate cancer (PCa) is highly relevant. Our previous research demonstrated that prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) scores depend on the tumor zone of origin (TZO) and the tumor growth dominant pattern (TGDP).
The aim: to assess the prognostic value of PCA3 score for identifying postoperative 4-5 grade group according to the International Society of Urological Pathology 2014 (ISUP) classification in patients with localized peripheral zone prostate cancer with posterior TGDP (pPZ-PCa).
Materials and methods. PCA3 scores and correlations were assessed and compared in different PCa patient groups and subgroups based on TZO, TGDP, and ISUP grade. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic significance of the model and determine the optimal PCA3 score cutoff for identifying ISUP 4-5.
Results. The PCA3 scores showed a significant (p˂0.01) positive correlation (r=0.71) with ISUP grade in pPZ-PCa. PCA3 scores differed significantly (p<0.01) between ISUP 1-3 and 4-5 pPZ-PCa subgroups. ROC analysis demonstrated excellent performance with an AUC of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99) for identifying ISUP 4-5 pPZ-PCa.
Conclusions. PCA3 scores demonstrated prognostic value for identifying postoperative ISUP 4-5 in pPZ-PCa.
The study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by the Local Ethics Committee for all participants. The informed consent of the patient was obtained for conducting the studies.
No conflict of interests was declared by the authors.
Keywords: PCA3, prostate cancer, peripheral zone prostate cancer, prostate cancer tumor dominant growth pattern, ISUP.

REFERENCES

1. Chen J-Y, Wang P-Y, Liu M-Z, Lyu F, Ma M-W et al. (2023, Oct 31). Biomarkers for Prostate Cancer: From Diagnosis to Treatment. Diagnostics. 13(21): 3350. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13213350; PMid:37958246 PMCid:PMC10649216

2. Cui Y, Cao W, Li Q, Shen H, Liu C, Deng J et al. (2016). Evaluation of prostate cancer antigen 3 for detecting prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 6: 25776. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25776; PMid:27161545 PMCid:PMC4861967

3. Culp MB, Soerjomataram I, Efstathiou JA, Bray F, Jemal A. (2020). Recent Global Patterns in Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates. European Urology. 77: 38-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.005; PMid:31493960

4. De Luca S, Passera R, Cattaneo G, Manfredi M, Mele F, Fiori C et al. (2016). High prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA 3) scores are associated with elevated Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI ‐ RADS) grade and biopsy Gleason score, at magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion software‐based targeted prostate biopsy after a previous negative standard biopsy. BJU International. 118: 723-730. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13504; PMid:27112799

5. Falagario UG, Knipper S, Pellegrino F, Martini A, Akre O, Egevad L et al. (2024). Prostate Cancer-specific and All-cause Mortality After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: 20 Years' Report from the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section Scientific Working Group. European Urology Oncology. 7: 705-712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.08.005; PMid:37661459

6. Farha MW, Salami SS. (2022). Biomarkers for prostate cancer detection and risk stratification. Therapeutic Advances in Urology. 14: 17562872221103988. https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872221103988; PMid:35719272 PMCid:PMC9201356

7. Fine SW, Al-Ahmadie HA, Vertosick E, Vickers AJ, Chen Y-B, Gopalan A et al. (2022). Impact of Zone of Origin in Anterior Dominant Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Biochemical Recurrence-Free Survival in an Anatomically Well-Characterized Cohort. Urology Practice. 9: 459-465. https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000322; PMid:37145713 PMCid:PMC9988228

8. Fine SW, Reuter VE. (2012). Anatomy of the prostate revisited: implications for prostate biopsy and zonal origins of prostate cancer. Histopathology. 60: 142-152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04004.x; PMid:22212083

9. Haj-Mirzaian A, Burk KS, Lacson R, Glazer DI, Saini S, Kibel AS, Khorasani R. (2024). Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Biopsy Findings in Suspected Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 7: e244258. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.4258; PMid:38551559 PMCid:PMC10980971

10. Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, Jung JH, Murphy D, Frydenberg M. (2018). Laparoscopic and robot‐assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review. BJU International. 121: 845-853. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14062; PMid:29063728

11. Kang SG, Shim JS, Onol F, Bhat KRS, Patel VR. (2020). Lessons learned from 12,000 robotic radical prostatectomies: Is the journey as important as the outcome? Investig Clin Urol. 61: 1. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2020.61.1.1; PMid:31942457 PMCid:PMC6946819

12. Kawada T, Shim SR, Quhal F, Rajwa P, Pradere B, Yanagisawa T et al. (2024). Diagnostic Accuracy of Liquid Biomarkers for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis of Multiple Thresholds. European Urology Oncology. 7: 649-662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.10.029; PMid:37981495

13. Kim JH, Hong SK. (2021). Clinical utility of current biomarkers for prostate cancer detection. Investig Clin Urol. 62(1): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20200395; PMid:33381926 PMCid:PMC7801171

14. Lee D, Shim SR, Ahn ST, Oh MM, Moon DG, Park HS et al. (2020). Diagnostic Performance of the Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 Test in Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. 18: 402-408.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2020.03.005; PMid:32280028

15. Liss MA, Zeltser N, Zheng Y, Lopez C, Liu M, Patel Y et al. (2024). Upgrading of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer at Prostatectomy: Germline Risk Factors in a Prospective Cohort. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers Prev. 33(11): 1500-1511. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-24-0326; PMid:39158404 PMCid:PMC11528207

16. Marks LS, Bostwick DG. (2008). Prostate Cancer Specificity of PCA3 Gene Testing: Examples from Clinical Practice. Rev Urol. 10(3): 175-181. PMID: 18836536; PMCID: PMC2556484.

17. Martini A, Falagario UG, Villers A, Dell'Oglio P, Mazzone E, Autorino R et al. (2020). Contemporary Techniques of Prostate Dissection for Robot-assisted Prostatectomy. European Urology. 78: 583-591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.07.017; PMid:32747200

18. Möller F, Månsson M, Wallström J, Hellström M, Hugosson J, Arnsrud Godtman R. (2024). Prostate Cancers in the Prostate-specific Antigen Interval of 1.8-3 ng/ml: Results from the Göteborg-2 Prostate Cancer Screening Trial. European Urology. 86: 95-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.01.017; PMid:38490856

19. Muñoz Rodríguez SV, García-Perdomo HA. (2019). Diagnostic accuracy of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) prior to first prostate biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. CUAJ. 14. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.6008; PMid:31793864 PMCid:PMC7197956

20. Mytsyk Y, Nakonechnyi Y, Dosenko V, Kowal P, Pietrus M, Gazdikova K et al. (2023). The performance and limitations of PCA3, TMPRSS2:ERG, HOXC6 and DLX1 urinary markers combined in the improvement of prostate cancer diagnostics. Clinical Biochemistry. 116: 120-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2023.04.011; PMid:37121562

21. Nakonechnyi Y, Mytsyk Y, Borzhievskyi A, Pasichnyk S. (2023). The influence of tumor zone origin and growth dominant pattern in prostate cancer patients on urine PCA3 levels in the context of ISUP postoperative class. World Journal of Medical Innovations. 3(1): 36-40. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13856149.

22. Özer H, Koplay M, Baytok A, Seher N, Demi̇r LS, Kilinçer A et al. (2023). Texture analysis of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating clinically significant prostate cancer in the peripheral zone. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences. 53: 701-711. https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0144.5633; PMid:37476894 PMCid:PMC10387871

23. Sinnott JA, Rider JR, Carlsson J, Gerke T, Tyekucheva S, Penney KL et al. (2015). Molecular differences in transition zone and peripheral zone prostate tumors. Carcinogenesis. 36: 632-638. https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgv051; PMid:25870172 PMCid:PMC4572920

24. Warli S, Warli M, Prapiska F. (2023, May 5). PCA3 and TMPRSS2: ERG Urine Level as Diagnostic Biomarker of Prostate Cancer. Res Rep Urol. 15: 149-155. https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S401131; PMid:37181497 PMCid:PMC10167967

25. Wang L, Lu B, He M, Wang Y, Wang Z, Du L. (2022). Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality: Global Status and Temporal Trends in 89 Countries From 2000 to 2019. Front. Public Health. 10: 811044. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.811044; PMid:35252092 PMCid:PMC8888523

26. Yu X, Liu R, Song L, Gao W, Wang X, Zhang Y. (2023). Differences in the pathogenetic characteristics of prostate cancer in the transitional and peripheral zones and the possible molecular biological mechanisms. Front. Oncol. 13: 1165732. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1165732; PMid:37456243 PMCid:PMC10348634