Genetic test that analyzes DNA to identify men at greatest risk for developing the disease could become common clinical laboratory screen for cancer
Researchers in the UK believe a common spit test can be more accurate at determining which men are more likely to develop prostate cancer than the clinical laboratory prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test currently used by the National Health Service (NHS) for that diagnosis.
During a recent study, scientists at the Institute of Cancer Research, London (ICR), found that germline DNA extracted from saliva, which was then used to derive polygenic risk scores for cancer, resulted in a higher percentage of participants “found to have clinically significant disease” than the percentage that would have been identified with the use of PSA or MRI.
The salvia test works by analyzing men’s DNA to find out if they are genetically pre-disposed to developing the disease. Men who find out they are likely to develop prostate cancer can then pursue further testing and scans.
“The test assesses 130 genetic variants to provide a risk score for prostate cancer, which is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in men in the UK,” The Guardian reported.
The study found that 187 of the men in the study had prostate cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, one in eight men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetime.
“We can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said study leader Rosalind Eeles, PhD, of the ICR London, in The Guardian.
“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” Rosalind Eeles, PhD, of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, told the BBC. (Photo copyright: Prostate Cancer UK.)
Landmark Discovery
Michael Inouye, PhD, professor of systems genomics and population health at the University of Cambridge, told the BBC that researchers will look back on this study “as a landmark.” He also acknowledged that it would be a long road before widespread implementation of the test.
While some sources call the ICR’s test promising, they also acknowledge it may only have a modest effect and that there may be possible racial disparities in the findings. The study was primarily based on people with European ancestry. According to Prostate Cancer UK, black men in the UK have double the risk of developing the disease. A similar trend can be observed in the US, Statistica reported.
Dusko Ilic, PhD, professor in stem cell sciences at King’s College London, told the BBC that there was “no direct evidence” of these findings having an effect on survival or quality of life. He stressed the need for more studies to better assess the value of the test.
The salvia test is expected to be included in Prostate Cancer UK’s TRANSFORM trial, a $58 million research program partly funded by the NHS to determine the best way to screen for cancer in the UK.
Effect on Clinical Pathologists
Prostate cancer is expected to surge in the US over the next 15 years, according to UC Davis Health. Thus, pathologists should expect more men to seek ways to assess their risk. Pathologists would be wise to educate themselves fully on new and emerging tests and tools to best meet the needs of their patients.
Given the publicity generated by former President Biden’s announcement that he has an advanced case of prostate cancer, clinical laboratories should also expect more patients to request diagnostic tests that either screen for or confirm the presence of the disease.
Researchers in Sweden develop urine test that more effectively screens for prostate cancer than standard PSA test
Clinical laboratories may soon have a new inexpensive, non-invasive urine test to screen for prostate cancer that produces superior results compared to the standard PSA test.
An international team of scientists led by researchers at the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden found they could use machine learning to not only accurately identify the presence of a new set cancer biomarkers in urine samples but also determine the stage or grade of the cancer.
“There are many advantages to measuring biomarkers in urine,” said Mikael Benson, principal researcher in the Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology at Karolinska Institutet and senior investigator for the study, in a news release. “It’s non-invasive and painless and can potentially be done at home. The sample can then be analyzed using routine methods in clinical labs.”
“New, more precise biomarkers than PSA can lead to earlier diagnosis and better prognoses for men with prostate cancer,” said Mikael Benson, principal researcher at Karolinska Institutet and senior investigator for the study, in a news release. “Moreover, it can reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies in healthy men.” (Photo copyright: Karolinska Institutet.)
New Prostate Cancer Biomarkers
According to the American Cancer Society, there will be approximately 313,780 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed this year in the US with about 35,770 deaths due to the disease. About one in eight US men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetime, and the lifetime risk of dying from prostate cancer is one in 44 men.
“Early cancer diagnosis is crucial but challenging owing to the lack of reliable biomarkers that can be measured using routine clinical methods. The identification of biomarkers for early detection is complicated by each tumor involving changes in the interactions between thousands of genes. In addition to this staggering complexity, these interactions can vary among patients with the same diagnosis as well as within the same tumor,” the researchers wrote in Cancer Research.
The scientists “hypothesized that reliable biomarkers that can be measured with routine methods could be identified by exploiting three facts:
The same tumor can have multiple grades of malignant transformation;
These grades and their molecular changes can be characterized using spatial transcriptomics; and,
These changes can be integrated into models of malignant transformation using pseudotime models to prioritize the genes that were most correlated with malignant transformation.”
To perform their study, the scientists analyzed the mRNA activity of cells in prostate tumors to construct digital models of prostate cancer. These models were then examined using machine learning, a type of artificial intelligence (AI), to locate specific proteins that could be used as biomarkers.
The researchers evaluated these new biomarkers in urine, blood, and tissue samples from more than 2,000 prostate cancer patients along with a control group. The team’s final calculations found the results of the urine test surpassed the current PSA test traditionally used for diagnosing prostate cancer.
“Prostate cancer can be effectively identified by analyzing the expression of candidate biomarkers in urine,” lead study author Martin Smelik, PhD student at Karolinska Institutet, told Fox News. “This approach outperforms the current blood tests based on PSA, but at the same time keeps the advantages of being non-invasive, painless, and relatively cheap.”
Advancements over Traditional PSA Test
Although the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test typically used by doctors to diagnose prostate cancer can screen for the disease and monitor its progression, it has limitations.
“While PSA is an incredibly sensitive tool for issues related to the prostate, it is not specific to prostate cancer,” Matthew Abramowitz, MD, associate professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told Fox News. “The techniques proposed in the current study suggest the promise of identifying specific cancer markers in the urine, minimizing some of the specificity concerns associated with PSA.”
“This study highlights the power of machine learning applied to patient data in identifying breakthroughs that can help us diagnose cancer earlier, when our treatments are most effective,” Timothy Showalter, MD, a radiation oncologist at UVA Health in Virginia, told Fox News. “Prostate cancer screening has not seen a transformative advance in decades, and current approaches still rely on the PSA blood test, which is known to have low specificity for clinically significant cancers.”
“Overall, this study demonstrates the diagnostic potential of combining spatial transcriptomics, pseudotime, and machine learning for prostate cancer, which should be further tested in prospective studies,” the researchers wrote.
The Karolinska Institutet team is planning large-scale clinical trials as the next phase of their exploration.
Anatomic pathologists understand that, along with breast cancer, diagnostic testing for prostate cancer accounts for a high volume of clinical laboratory tests. Thus, a recent study indicating that a new artificial intelligence (AI)-based software tool can dramatically improve physicians’ ability to identify the extent of these cancers will be of interest.
“The study found that Unfold AI’s patient-specific encapsulation confidence score (ECS), which is generated based on multiple patient data points, including MRI scans, biopsy results, PSA [prostate-specific antigen] data, and Gleason scores, is critical for predicting treatment success,” an Avenda press release states. “These findings emphasize the importance of Unfold AI’s assessment of tumor margins in predicting treatment outcomes, surpassing the predictive capability of conventional parameters.”
“Unfold AI’s ability to identify tumor margins and provide the ECS will improve treatment recommendations and allow for less-invasive interventions,” said study co-author Wayne Brisbane, MD, a urologic oncologist and UCLA medical professor, in another press release. “This more comprehensive approach enhances our ability to predict treatment outcomes and tailor interventions effectively to individual patient needs.”
“This study is important because it shows the ability of AI to not only replicate expert physicians, but to go beyond human ability,” said study co-author Wayne Brisbane, MD (above), a urologic oncologist and UCLA medical professor, in a press release. “By increasing the accuracy of cancer identification in the prostate, more precise and effective treatment methods can be prescribed for patients.” Clinical laboratories that work with anatomic pathologists to diagnose prostate and other cancers may soon have a new AI testing tool. (Photo copyright: UCLA.)
How Unfold AI Works
To gauge the extent of prostate tumors, surgeons typically evaluate results from multiple diagnostic methods such as PSA tests and imaging scans such as MRIs, according to a UCLA press release. However some portions of a tumor may be invisible to an MRI, causing doctors to underestimate the size.
Unfold AI, originally known as iQuest, was designed to analyze data from PSA, MRI, fusion biopsy, and pathology testing, according to a company brochure. From there, it generates a 3D map of the cancer. Avenda’s website says the technology provides a more accurate representation of the tumor’s extent than conventional methods.
“Accurately determining the extent of prostate cancer is crucial for treatment planning, as different stages may require different approaches such as active surveillance, surgery, focal therapy, radiation therapy, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or a combination of these treatments,” Brisbane said in the UCLA press release.
Putting AI to the Test
In the new study, the UCLA researchers enlisted seven urologists and three radiologists to review 50 prostate cancer cases. Each patient had undergone prostatectomy—surgical removal of all or part of the prostate—but might have been eligible for focal therapy, a less-aggressive approach that uses heat, cryotherapy, or electric shocks to attack cancer cells more selectively.
The physicians came from five hospitals and had a wide range of clinical experience from two to 23 years, the researchers noted in The Journal of Urology.
They reviewed clinical data and examined MRI scans of each patient, then “manually drew outlines around the suspected cancerous areas, aiming to encapsulate all significant disease,” the press release states. “Then, after waiting for at least four weeks, they reexamined the same cases, this time using AI software to assist them in identifying the cancerous areas.”
The researchers analyzed the physicians’ work, evaluating the accuracy of the cancer margins and the “negative margin rate,” indicating whether the clinicians had identified all of the cancerous tissue. Using conventional approaches, “doctors only achieved a negative margin 1.6% of the time,” the press release states. “When assisted by AI the number increased to 72.8%.”
The clinicians’ accuracy was 84.7% when assisted by AI versus 67.2% to 75.9% for conventional techniques.
They also found that clinicians who used the AI software were more likely to recommend focal therapy over more aggressive forms of treatment.
“We saw the use of AI assistance made doctors both more accurate and more consistent, meaning doctors tended to agree more when using AI assistance,” said Avenda Health co-founder and CEO Shyam Natarajan, PhD, who was senior author of the study.
“These results demonstrate a marked change in how physicians will be able to diagnose and recommend treatment for prostate cancer patients,” said Natarajan in a company press release. “By increasing the confidence in which we can predict a tumor’s margins, patients and their doctors will have increased certainty that their entire tumor is treated and with the appropriate intervention in correlation to the severity of their case.”
UCLA’s study found that AI can outperform doctors both in sensitivity (a higher detection rate of positive cancers) and specificity (correctly detecting the sample as negative). That’s relevant and worth watching for further developments.
Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers should consider this use of AI as one more example of how artificial intelligence can be incorporated into diagnostic tests in ways that allow medical laboratory professionals to diagnose disease earlier and more accurately. This will improve patient care because early intervention for most diseases leads to better outcomes.
Ongoing increases in the global number of prostate cancer cases expected to motivate test developers to deliver better screening tests to pathologists and clinical lab scientists
No less an authority than the peer-reviewed healthcare journal The Lancet is drawing attention to predictions of increasing prostate cancer cases across the globe, triggering calls for the development of cheaper, faster, and more accurate assays that pathologists and medical laboratories can use to screen for—and diagnose—prostate cancer.
Swift population growth and rising life expectancy will cause the prostate cancer death rate to nearly double in the next 20 years, according to a new study that has led scientists to call for immediate, critical improvements in clinical laboratory testing for cancer screening, Financial Times (FT) reported.
“Low- and middle-income countries need to prepare to prevent a sharp rise in fatalities while richer nations should pay more attention to young men at higher risk of the disease,” FT noted. The study, titled, “The Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer: Planning for the Surge in Cases,” predicts cases will jump from 1.4 million in 2020 to 2.9 million by 2040.
“Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in 112 countries, and accounts for 15% of cancers. In this Commission, we report projections of prostate cancer cases in 2040 on the basis of data for demographic changes worldwide and rising life expectancy. … This surge in cases cannot be prevented by lifestyle changes or public health interventions alone, and governments need to prepare strategies to deal with it,” the study authors wrote.
“The findings in this Commission provide a pathway forward for healthcare providers and funders, public health bodies, research funders, governments, and the broader patient and clinical community,” the authors noted. In their Lancet paper, the researchers define clear areas for improvement.
Given the shortage worldwide of pathologists—especially highly-trained pathologists—the gap between the demand/need for expanded prostate cancer testing as screens (along with prostate biopsies) and the available supply of pathologists will encourage companies to develop screening and diagnostic tests that are accurate and automated, thus increasing the productivity of the available pathologists.
“As more and more men around the world live to middle and old age, there will be an inevitable rise in the number of prostate cancer cases. We know this surge in cases is coming, so we need to start planning and take action now,” said Nick James, PhD (above), Professor of Prostate and Bladder Cancer Research at The Institute of Cancer Research, in a press release. Pathologists and medical laboratories worldwide will want to monitor progress of The Lancet Commission’s recommendations. (Photo copyright: Institute of Cancer Research.)
“Evidence-based interventions, such as improved early detection and education programs, will help to save lives and prevent ill health from prostate cancer in the years to come. This is especially true for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) which will bear the overwhelming brunt of future cases,” he said in a press release.
Communication is key. “Improved outreach programs are needed to better inform people of the key signs to look out for and what to do next,” James N’Dow, MD, Professor and Chair in Surgery and Director of the Academic Urology Unit at the University of Aberdeen in the UK, told the Financial Times. “Implementing these in tandem with investments in cost-effective early diagnostic systems will be key to preventing deaths,” he added.
Capitalizing on artificial intelligence (AI) analysis to help translate results was another area The Lancet Commission researchers focused on, Financial Times noted.
AI could “subdivide disease into potentially valuable additional subgroups to help with treatment selection. In environments with few or no pathologists, these changes could be transformational,” the study authors wrote.
High Income Countries (HICs) would benefit from AI by empowering patients. “Linking cloud-based records to artificial intelligence systems could allow access to context-sensitive, up-to-date advice for both patients and health professionals, and could be used to drive evidence-based change in all settings,” the study authors added. Such a trend could lead to specialist prostate cancer pathologists being referred cases from around the world as digital pathology systems become faster and less expensive.
Effective treatment strategies and bolstering areas of need is also key, the study notes. “Many LMICs have urgent need for expansion of radiotherapy and surgery services,” the study authors wrote. The researchers stress the need to immediately implement expansion programs to keep up with anticipated near-future demand.
Cancer drug therapy should follow suit.
“Research and the development of risk-stratified regulatory models need to be facilitated,” the study authors noted, citing a focus on drug repurposing and dose de-escalation. “Novel clinical trial designs, such as multi-arm platforms, should be supported and expanded,” they added.
Unique Needs of LMICs, HICs
The Lancet Commission researchers’ recommendations shift depending on the financial health of a specific area. HICs are experiencing a 30-year decline in the number of deaths resulting from prostate cancer, presumably from additional testing measures and public health campaigns that may be lacking in LMICs, Financial Times reported. And as population growth soars, low-to-middle income populations “will need to be prepared for the strain the expected surge in cases will put on health resources.”
For HICs, the study dissected the limitations of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. The researchers pointed out that PSA’s inaccuracies in screening symptomless patients can pinpoint “cancers that may never cause symptoms and need no treatment,” Financial Times reported.
Missing high-risk cases was also a cause for concern. “Diagnostic pathways should be modified to facilitate early detection of prostate cancer while avoiding overdiagnosis and overtreatment of trivial disease,” the study notes.
Screenings for high-risk younger men, and continuing public campaigns about prostate cancer, should be a focus for HICs, the study authors noted. “These would include people who have a family history of the disease, are of African ancestry, or carry a genetic mutation known as BRCA2,” Financial Times reported.
While the undertaking may sound intimidating—there is already such a heavy impact worldwide from prostate cancer—the researchers are optimistic of their recommendations.
“Options to improve care are already available at moderate cost. We found that late diagnosis is widespread worldwide, but especially in LMICs, where it is the norm. Early diagnosis improves prognosis and outcomes, and reduces societal and individual costs, and we recommend changes to the diagnostic pathway that can be immediately implemented,” the study authors wrote.
What Comes Next
“More research is needed among various ethnic groups to expand understanding of prostate cancer beyond the findings from studies that were largely based on data from white men,” The Lancet Commission told the Financial Times.
Astute pathologists and medical laboratories will want to monitor efforts to develop assays that are inexpensive, more accurate, and produce faster answers. Demand for these tests will be substantial—both in developed and developing nations.
Norwegian researchers reviewed large clinical trials of six common cancer screenings, including clinical laboratory tests, but some experts question the findings
Cancer screenings are a critical tool for diagnosis and treatment. But how much do they actually extend the lives of patients? According to researchers at the University of Oslo in Norway, not by much. They recently conducted a review and meta-analysis of 18 long-term clinical trials, five of the six most commonly used types of cancer screening—including two clinical laboratory tests—and found that with few exceptions, the screenings did not significantly extend lifespans.
The 18 long-term clinical trials included in the study were randomized trials that collectively included a total of 2.1 million participants. Median follow-up periods of 10 to 15 years were used to gauge estimated lifetime gain and mortality.
“The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy,” the researchers wrote in their published paper.
The researchers noted, however, that their analysis does not suggest all screenings should be abandoned. They also acknowledged that some lives are saved by screenings.
“Without screening, these patients may have died of cancer because it would have been detected at a later, incurable stage,” the scientists wrote, MedPage Today reported. “Thus, these patients experience a gain in lifetime.”
Still, some independent experts questioned the validity of the findings.
Gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD (above), a professor at the University of Oslo in Norway led the research into cancer screenings. In their JAMA Internal Medicine paper, he and his team wrote, “The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy may extend life by approximately three months; lifetime gain for other screening tests appears to be unlikely or uncertain.” How their findings might affect clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology screening for cancer remains to be seen. (Photo copyright: University of Oslo.)
Pros and Cons of Cancer Screening
The clinical trials, according to MedPage Today and Oncology Nursing News covered the following tests:
Mammography screening for breast cancer (two trials).
As reported in these trials, “colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy prolonged lifetime by 110 days, while fecal testing and mammography screening did not prolong life,” the researchers wrote. “An extension of 37 days was noted for prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen testing and 107 days with lung cancer screening using computed tomography, but estimates are uncertain.”
The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends certain types of screening tests to detect cancers and pre-cancers before they can spread, thus improving the chances for survival.
The ACS advises screenings for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and cervical cancer regardless of whether the individual is considered high risk. Lung cancer screenings are advised for people with a history of smoking. Men who are 45 to 50 or older should discuss the pros and cons of prostate cancer screening with their healthcare providers, the ACS states.
A CNN report about the University of Oslo study noted that the benefits and drawbacks of cancer screening have long been well known to doctors.
“Some positive screening results are false positives, which can lead to unnecessary anxiety as well as additional screening that can be expensive,” CNN reported. “Tests can also give a false negative and thus a false sense of security. Sometimes too, treatment can be unnecessary, resulting in a net harm rather than a net benefit, studies show.”
In their JAMA paper, the University of Oslo researchers wrote, “The critical question is whether the benefits for the few are sufficiently large to warrant the associated harms for many. It is entirely possible that multicancer detection blood tests do save lives and warrant the attendant costs and harms. But we will never know unless we ask,” CNN reported.
Hidden Impact on Cancer Mortality
ACS Chief Scientific Officer William Dahut, MD, told CNN that screenings may have an impact on cancer mortality in ways that might not be apparent from randomized trials. He noted that there’s been a decline in deaths from cervical cancer and prostate cancer since doctors began advising routine testing.
“Cancer screening was never really designed to increase longevity,” Dahut said. “Screenings are really designed to decrease premature deaths from cancer.” For example, “if a person’s life expectancy at birth was 80, a cancer screening may prevent their premature death at 65, but it wouldn’t necessarily mean they’d live to be 90 instead of the predicted 80,” CNN reported.
Dahut told CNN that fully assessing the impact of cancer screenings on life expectancy would require a clinical trial larger than those in the new study, and one that followed patients “for a very long time.”
“From its title, one would have expected this paper to be based on analysis of individual lifetime data. However, it is not,” he wrote in a compilation of expert commentary from the UK’s Science Media Center. “The paper’s conclusions are based on arithmetic manipulation of relative rates of all-cause mortality in some of the screening trials. It is therefore difficult to give credence to the claim that screening largely does not extend expected lifetime.”
He also questioned the inclusion of one particular trial in the University of Oslo study—the Canadian National Breast Screening Study—“as there is now public domain evidence of subversion of the randomization in this trial,” he added.
Another expert, Leigh Jackson, PhD, of the University of Exeter in the UK, described the University of Oslo study as “methodologically sound with some limitations which the authors clearly state.”
But he observed that “the focus on 2.1 million individuals is slightly misleading. The study considered many different screening tests and 2.1 million was indeed the total number of included patients, however, no calculation included that many people.”
Jackson also characterized the length of follow-up as a limitation. “This may have limited the amount of data included and also not considering longer follow-up may tend to underestimate the effects of screening,” he said.
This published study—along with the range of credible criticisms offered by other scientists—demonstrates how analysis of huge volumes of data is making it possible to tease out useful new insights. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists can expect to see other examples of researchers assembling large quantities of data across different areas of medicine. This huge pools of data will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of many medical procedures that have been performed for years with a belief that they are helpful.
