Home Medicine Comparative analysis of prostate cancer specific biomarkers PCA3 and ERG in whole urine, urinary sediments and exosomes
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Comparative analysis of prostate cancer specific biomarkers PCA3 and ERG in whole urine, urinary sediments and exosomes

  • Rianne J. Hendriks , Siebren Dijkstra , Sander A. Jannink , Martijn G. Steffens , Inge M. van Oort , Peter F.A. Mulders and Jack A. Schalken EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: December 2, 2015

Abstract

Background:PCA3 and ERG are mRNA-based prostate cancer (PCa) specific biomarkers that can be detected in urine. However, urine is a complex substrate that can be separated in several fractions. In this study we compared the levels of PCa-specific biomarkers (PCA3 and ERG) and KLK3 as prostate-specific reference gene in three urine substrates–whole urine, urinary sediment (cell pellet) and exosomes–and evaluated the influence of performing a digital rectal examination (DRE) prior to urine sampling.

Methods: First-voided urine samples were prospectively obtained before and after DRE from 29 men undergoing prostate biopsies. The urine was separated in whole urine, cell pellet and exosomes and the biomarker levels were measured with RT-qPCR.

Results: PCa was identified in 52% (15/29) of men. In several samples the mRNA levels were below the analytical limit of detection (BDL). The biomarker levels were highest in whole urine and significantly higher after DRE in all substrates. In PCa patients higher levels of PCA3 and ERG were found in all urine substrates after DRE compared to non-PCa patients.

Conclusions: This is the first study in which urinary PCa-specific biomarker levels were compared directly in three separate urine fractions. These results suggest that whole urine could be the urine substrate of choice for PCa-diagnostics based on analytical sensitivity, which is reflected directly in the high informative rate. Moreover, the significant positive effect of performing a DRE prior to urine sampling is confirmed. These findings could be of influence in the development of PCa-diagnostic urine tests.


Corresponding author: Prof. Dr. Jack A. Schalken, Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert-Grooteplein Zuid 10, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands, Phone: +31 24 36 14 146, E-mail: ; and Department of Research and Development, NovioGendix, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

References

1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA-A Cancer J Clin 2015;65:87–108.10.3322/caac.21262Search in Google Scholar

2. Salagierski M, Schalken JA. Molecular diagnosis of prostate cancer: PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion. J Urol 2012;187:795–801.10.1016/j.juro.2011.10.133Search in Google Scholar

3. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Wever E, Gulati R, et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer I 2009;101:374–83.10.1093/jnci/djp001Search in Google Scholar

4. Truong M, Yang B, Jarrard DF. Toward the detection of prostate cancer in urine: a critical analysis. J Urol 2013;189:422–9.10.1016/j.juro.2012.04.143Search in Google Scholar

5. Hessels D, Schalken JA. Urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer: a review. Asian J Androl 2013;15:333–9.10.1038/aja.2013.6Search in Google Scholar

6. Bussemakers MJ, van Bokhoven A, Verhaegh GW, Smit FP, Karthaus HF, Schalken JA, et al. DD3: a new prostate-specific gene, highly overexpressed in prostate cancer. Cancer Res 1999;59:5975–9.Search in Google Scholar

7. de Kok JB, Verhaegh GW, Roelofs RW, Hessels D, Kiemeney LA, Aalders TW, et al. DD3(PCA3), a very sensitive and specific marker to detect prostate tumors. Cancer Res 2002;62:2695–8.Search in Google Scholar

8. Hessels D, Klein Gunnewiek JM, van Oort I, Karthaus HF, van Leenders GJ, van Balken B, et al. DD3(PCA3)-based molecular urine analysis for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2003;44:8–15; discussion -6.10.1016/S0302-2838(03)00201-XSearch in Google Scholar

9. Groskopf J, Aubin SM, Deras IL, Blase A, Bodrug S, Clark C, et al. APTIMA PCA3 molecular urine test: development of a method to aid in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Clin Chem 2006;52:1089–95.10.1373/clinchem.2005.063289Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Gittelman MC, Hertzman B, Bailen J, Williams T, Koziol I, Henderson RJ, et al. PCA3 molecular urine test as a predictor of repeat prostate biopsy outcome in men with previous negative biopsies: a prospective multicenter clinical study. J Urol 2013;190:64–9.10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.018Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, Dhanasekaran SM, Mehra R, Sun XW, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science 2005;310:644–8.10.1126/science.1117679Search in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Perner S, Mosquera JM, Demichelis F, Hofer MD, Paris PL, Simko J, et al. TMPRSS2-ERG fusion prostate cancer: an early molecular event associated with invasion. Am J Surg Pathol 2007;31:882–8.10.1097/01.pas.0000213424.38503.aaSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Hessels D, Smit FP, Verhaegh GW, Witjes JA, Cornel EB, Schalken JA. Detection of TMPRSS2-ERG fusion transcripts and prostate cancer antigen 3 in urinary sediments may improve diagnosis of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:5103–8.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-0700Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Smit FP, Salagierski M, Jannink S, Schalken JA. High-resolution ERG-expression profiling on GeneChip exon 1.0 ST arrays in primary and castration-resistant prostate cancer. BJU Int 2013;111:836–42.10.1111/bju.12119Search in Google Scholar PubMed

15. Braun M, Goltz D, Shaikhibrahim Z, Vogel W, Bohm D, Scheble V, et al. ERG protein expression and genomic rearrangement status in primary and metastatic prostate cancer–a comparative study of two monoclonal antibodies. Prostate Cancer P D 2012;15:165–9.10.1038/pcan.2011.67Search in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Park K, Tomlins SA, Mudaliar KM, Chiu YL, Esgueva R, Mehra R, et al. Antibody-based detection of ERG rearrangement-positive prostate cancer. Neoplasia 2010;12:590–8.10.1593/neo.10726Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

17. Donovan MJ, Noerholm M, Bentink S, Belzer S, Skog J, O;Neill V, et al. A molecular signature of PCA3 and ERG exosomal RNA from non-DRE urine is predictive of initial prostate biopsy result. Prostate Cancer P D 2015.10.1038/pcan.2015.40Search in Google Scholar PubMed

18. Leyten GH, Hessels D, Jannink SA, Smit FP, de Jong H, Cornel EB, et al. Prospective multicentre evaluation of PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusions as diagnostic and prognostic urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014;65:534–42.10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.014Search in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Nilsson J, Skog J, Nordstrand A, Baranov V, Mincheva-Nilsson L, Breakefield XO, et al. Prostate cancer-derived urine exosomes: a novel approach to biomarkers for prostate cancer. Brit J Cancer 2009;100:1603–7.10.1038/sj.bjc.6605058Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

20. van Gils MP, Hessels D, van Hooij O, Jannink SA, Peelen WP, Hanssen SL, et al. The time-resolved fluorescence-based PCA3 test on urinary sediments after digital rectal examination; a Dutch multicenter validation of the diagnostic performance. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:939–43.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2679Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Marks LS, Fradet Y, Deras IL, Blase A, Mathis J, Aubin SM, et al. PCA3 molecular urine assay for prostate cancer in men undergoing repeat biopsy. Urology 2007;69:532–5.10.1016/j.urology.2006.12.014Search in Google Scholar PubMed

22. Sokoll LJ, Ellis W, Lange P, Noteboom J, Elliott DJ, Deras IL, et al. A multicenter evaluation of the PCA3 molecular urine test: pre-analytical effects, analytical performance, and diagnostic accuracy. Clin Chim Acta 2008;389:1–6.10.1016/j.cca.2007.11.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed

23. Laxman B, Morris DS, Yu J, Siddiqui J, Cao J, Mehra R, et al. A first-generation multiplex biomarker analysis of urine for the early detection of prostate cancer. Cancer Res 2008;68:645–9.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-3224Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

24. Mitchell PJ, Welton J, Staffurth J, Court J, Mason MD, Tabi Z, et al. Can urinary exosomes act as treatment response markers in prostate cancer? J Transl Med 2009;7:4.10.1186/1479-5876-7-4Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

25. Jansen FH, Krijgsveld J, van Rijswijk A, van den Bemd GJ, van den Berg MS, van Weerden WM, et al. Exosomal secretion of cytoplasmic prostate cancer xenograft-derived proteins. Mol Cell Proteomics 2009;8:1192–205.10.1074/mcp.M800443-MCP200Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

26. Dijkstra S, Birker IL, Smit FP, Leyten GH, de Reijke TM, van Oort IM, et al. Prostate cancer biomarker profiles in urinary sediments and exosomes. J Urol 2014;191:1132–8.10.1016/j.juro.2013.11.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed

27. Miranda KC, Bond DT, McKee M, Skog J, Paunescu TG, Da Silva N, et al. Nucleic acids within urinary exosomes/microvesicles are potential biomarkers for renal disease. Kidney Int 2010;78:191–9.10.1038/ki.2010.106Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

28. Zhou H, Yuen PS, Pisitkun T, Gonzales PA, Yasuda H, Dear JW, et al. Collection, storage, preservation, and normalization of human urinary exosomes for biomarker discovery. Kidney Int 2006;69:1471–6.10.1038/sj.ki.5000273Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

29. Li M, Rai AJ, Joel DeCastro G, Zeringer E, Barta T, Magdaleno S, et al. An optimized procedure for exosome isolation and analysis using serum samples: Application to cancer biomarker discovery. Methods 2015;87:26–30.10.1016/j.ymeth.2015.03.009Search in Google Scholar PubMed

30. Valadi H, Ekstrom K, Bossios A, Sjostrand M, Lee JJ, Lotvall JO. Exosome-mediated transfer of mRNAs and microRNAs is a novel mechanism of genetic exchange between cells. Nat Cell Biol 2007;9:654–9.10.1038/ncb1596Search in Google Scholar PubMed


Supplemental Material:

The online version of this article (DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2015-0599) offers supplementary material, available to authorized users.


Received: 2015-6-25
Accepted: 2015-10-22
Published Online: 2015-12-2
Published in Print: 2016-3-1

©2016 by De Gruyter

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. The way of prostate cancer diagnostics
  4. Review
  5. Statistical methods used in the calculation of geriatric reference intervals: a systematic review
  6. Opinion Paper
  7. The side effects of translational omics: overtesting, overdiagnosis, overtreatment
  8. Genetics and Molecular Diagnostics
  9. Rapid detection of non-deletional mutations causing α-thalassemia by multicolor melting curve analysis
  10. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  11. Patient pools and the use of “patient means” are valuable tools in quality control illustrated by a bone-specific alkaline phosphatase assay
  12. Long-term stability of glucose: 96-h study using Terumo Glycaemia tubes
  13. Glucose is stable during prolonged storage in un-centrifuged Greiner tubes with liquid citrate buffer, but not in serum and NaF/KOx tubes
  14. Croatian laboratories have a good knowledge of the proper detection and management of hemolyzed, icteric and lipemic samples
  15. Fetal exposure to ethanol: relationship between ethyl glucuronide in maternal hair during pregnancy and ethyl glucuronide in neonatal meconium
  16. Comparing the effect of isotopically labeled or structural analog internal standards on the performance of a LC-MS/MS method to determine ciclosporin A, everolimus, sirolimus and tacrolimus in whole blood
  17. Relationship between matrix metalloproteinase-9 and oxidative stress in drug-free male schizophrenia: a case control study
  18. Comparison of functional fibrinogen (FF/CFF) and FIBTEM in surgical patients – a retrospective study
  19. Reference Values and Biological Variations
  20. Assessment of serum free light chain levels in healthy adults immediately after marathon running
  21. Pharmacokinetics of a novel dosing regimen of oral melatonin in critically ill patients
  22. Cancer Diagnostics
  23. An epidemiology-based model as a tool to monitor the outbreak of inappropriateness in tumor marker requests: a national scale study
  24. Comparative analysis of prostate cancer specific biomarkers PCA3 and ERG in whole urine, urinary sediments and exosomes
  25. Infectious Diseases
  26. Comparative evaluation of the Aptima HIV-1 Quant Dx assay and COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 v2.0 assay using the Roche High Pure System for the quantification of HIV-1 RNA in plasma
  27. Evaluating the use of procalcitonin in an asymptomatic, HIV-infected antiretroviral therapy-naïve, South African cohort
  28. Diabetes
  29. Early prediction of gestational diabetes: a practical model combining clinical and biochemical markers
  30. Letters to the Editors
  31. Highly-trained dogs’ olfactory system for detecting biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy
  32. More on the accuracy of the Architect enzymatic assay for hemoglobin A1c and its traceability to the IFCC reference system
  33. Assessing quality from an accuracy-based HbA1c proficiency survey
  34. HbG-Honolulu interferes with some cation-exchange HPLC HbA1c assays
  35. Between analyser differences in chloride measurements and thus anion gap cause different interpretations of the acid-base balance
  36. Non-albumininuric proteinuria: a urinary tubular marker in the diagnosis of diabetic kidney disease
  37. International Normalized Ratio (INR) testing: analytical and clinical performance of four point-of-care devices versus central laboratory instrumentation analysis
  38. Genetic screening of the makorin ring finger 3 gene in girls with idiopathic central precocious puberty
  39. Practical approach for medical validation of therapeutic drug monitoring results
  40. Marked elevation of procalcitonin in a patient with a drug related infusion reaction to rituximab
Downloaded on 23.1.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2015-0599/pdf
Scroll to top button