Biomarkers for Pre-Treatment Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary PCa remains a leading health concern worldwide. Serum PSA-based PCa screening led to a well-documented decreased mortality but at the cost of the increased overdiagnosis/overtreatment of indolent disease. Although various tools have been developed to predict PCa patient outcome prior to treatment, mostly based on serum PSA, the Gleason score, and clinical T stage, all have a suboptimal performance and require tissue biopsies from the prostate. To obviate that need, overcome Gleason score subjectivity and the limited specificity of serum PSA, devising more effective tools is mandatory, while also taking the opportunity to adopt minimally invasive strategies based on liquid biopsies.Abstract Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most frequently occurring malignancies. Although most cases are not life-threatening, approximately 20% endure an unfavorable outcome. PSA-based screening reduced mortality but at the cost of an increased overdiagnosis/overtreatment of low-risk (lrPCa) and favorable intermediate-risk (firPCa) PCa. PCa risk-groups are usually identified based on serum Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA), the Gleason score, and clinical T stage, which have consistent although variable specificity or subjectivity. Thus, more effective and specific tools for risk assessment are needed, ideally making use of minimally invasive methods such as liquid biopsies. In this systematic review we assessed the clinical potential and analytical performance of liquid biopsy-based biomarkers for pre-treatment risk stratification of PCa patients. Methods: Studies that assessed PCa pre-treatment risk were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and MedLine. PCa risk biomarkers were analyzed, and the studies' quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results: The final analysis comprised 24 full-text articles, in which case-control studies predominated, mostly reporting urine-based biomarkers (54.2%) and biomarker quantification by qPCR (41.7%). Categorization into risk groups was heterogeneous, predominantly making use of the Gleason score. Conclusion: This systematic review unveils the substantial clinical promise of using circulating biomarkers in assessing the risk for prostate cancer patients. However, the standardization of groups, categories, and biomarker validation are mandatory before this technique can be implemented. Circulating biomarkers might represent a viable alternative to currently available tools, obviating the need for tissue biopsies, and allowing for faster and more cost-effective testing, with superior analytical performance, specificity, and reproducibility.