Association of MyProstateScore (MPS) with prostate cancer grade in the radical prostatectomy specimen.

To evaluate the association between urinary MyProstateScore (MPS) and pathologic grade group (GG) at surgery in men diagnosed with GG1 prostate cancer (PCa) on biopsy.

Using an institutional biospecimen protocol, we identified men with GG1 PCa on biopsy and PSA ≤10 ng/ml who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at the University of Michigan. MPS was retrospectively calculated using prospectively collected, post-DRE urine samples. The primary outcome was upgrading on RP pathology, defined as GG ≥ 2. The associations of MPS, PSA, and PSA density (PSAD) with upgrading were assessed on univariable logistic regression, and the predictive accuracy of each marker was estimated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

There were 52 men with urinary specimens available that met study criteria, based on biopsy Gleason Grade and specimen collection. At RP, 17 men (33%) had GG1 cancer and 35 (67%) had GG ≥ 2 cancer. Preoperative MPS was significantly higher in patients with GG ≥ 2 cancer at surgery (median 37.8 [IQR, 22.2-52.4]) as compared to GG1 (19.3 [IQR, 9.2-29.4]; P = 0.001). On univariable logistic regression, increasing MPS values were significantly associated with upgrading (odds ratio 1.07 per one-unit MPS increase, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.12, P = 0.004), while PSA and PSAD were not significantly associated with upgrading. Similarly, the discriminative ability of the MPS model (AUC 0.78) for upgrading at RP was higher compared to models based on PSA (AUC 0.52) and PSAD (AUC 0.62).

In men diagnosed with GG1 PCa who underwent surgery, MPS was significantly associated with RP cancer grade. In this limited cohort of men, these findings suggest that MPS could help identify patients with undetected high-grade cancer. Additional studies are needed to better characterize this association.

Urologic oncology. 2021 Nov 06 [Epub ahead of print]

Nicholas W Eyrich, John T Wei, Yashar S Niknafs, Javed Siddiqui, Chad Ellimoottil, Simpa S Salami, Ganesh S Palapattu, Rohit Mehra, Lakshmi P Kunju, Scott A Tomlins, Arul M Chinnaiyan, Todd M Morgan, Jeffrey J Tosoian

Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA., Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Dow Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI., Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI., Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI., Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI., Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI., Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI., Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI., Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI., Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN. Electronic address: .