Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Sep 17;9(9):2116.
doi: 10.3390/cells9092116.

Incorporating Prognostic Biomarkers into Risk Assessment Models and TNM Staging for Prostate Cancer

Ragheed Saoud  1 , Nassib Abou Heidar  2 , Alessia Cimadamore  3 , Gladell P Paner  1   4
Affiliations
Review

Incorporating Prognostic Biomarkers into Risk Assessment Models and TNM Staging for Prostate Cancer

Ragheed Saoud et al. Cells. .

Abstract

In current practice, prostate cancer staging alone is not sufficient to adequately assess the patient's prognosis and plan the management strategies. Multiple clinicopathological parameters and risk tools for prostate cancer have been developed over the past decades to better characterize the disease and provide an enhanced assessment of prognosis. Herein, we review novel prognostic biomarkers and their integration into risk assessment models for prostate cancer focusing on their capability to help avoid unnecessary imaging studies, biopsies and diagnosis of low risk prostate cancers, to help in the decision-making process between active surveillance and treatment intervention, and to predict recurrence after radical prostatectomy. There is an imperative need of reliable biomarkers to stratify prostate cancer patients that may benefit from different management approaches. The integration of biomarkers panel with risk assessment models appears to improve prostate cancer diagnosis and management. However, integration of novel genomic biomarkers in future prognostic models requires further validation in their clinical efficacy, standardization, and cost-effectiveness in routine application.

Keywords: biomarkers; molecular classifier; predictive scores; prognosis; prostate cancer; risk assessment models; staging.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Algorithm describing the utility of prostate cancer biomarkers and risk assessment tools in clinical practice.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Varma M., Cochlin D., Delahunt B., Kynaston H., Rees J., Rous B., Narahari K. TNM clinical staging of prostate cancer: Issues and solutions. BJU Int. 2019;123:382–384. doi: 10.1111/bju.14589. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Paner G.P., Stadler W.M., Hansel D.E., Montironi R., Lin D.W., Amin M.B. Updates in the Eighth Edition of the Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging Classification for Urologic Cancers. Eur. Urol. 2018;73:560–569. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.12.018. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Amin M.B., Greene F.L., Edge S.B., Compton C.C., Gershenwald J.E., Brookland R.K., Meyer L., Gress D.M., Byrd D.R., Winchester D.P. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 2017;67:93–99. doi: 10.3322/caac.21388. - DOI - PubMed
    1. de Rooij M., Hamoen E.H.J., Witjes J.A., Barentsz J.O., Rovers M.M. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 2016;70:233–245. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Olleik G., Kassouf W., Aprikian A., Hu J., Vanhuyse M., Cury F., Peacock S., Bonnevier E., Palenius E., Dragomir A. Evaluation of New Tests and Interventions for Prostate Cancer Management: A Systematic Review. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. JNCCN. 2018;16:1340–1351. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.7055. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms