Molecular and Genetic Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: Recent Developments and Future Perspectives

TL;DR

This paper reviews how new molecular and genetic tests could improve prostate cancer active surveillance by better predicting disease progression and avoiding unnecessary treatment.

Contribution

The paper systematically evaluates recent biomarkers for prostate cancer active surveillance and highlights their potential and limitations in clinical practice.

Findings

Blood-based and urinary biomarkers like PHI, 4K score, ExoDx, and PUR signatures are associated with disease progression or treatment decisions.

Biomarkers are most useful for men with Gleason Grade 1 disease but lack validation in higher-grade cohorts.

Barriers to adoption include cost-effectiveness, endpoint heterogeneity, and managing discordant biomarker-MRI results.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Active surveillance (AS) has become the standard of care for many men with localised prostate cancer, aiming to avoid the overtreatment of indolent disease while maintaining oncological safety. Despite improvements in diagnostic techniques, misclassification at diagnosis and the limited ability to predict disease progression remain major challenges in AS. Novel molecular and genetic biomarkers, assessed through liquid biopsy approaches, offer the potential to refine patient selection and support risk-adapted monitoring in AS. Methods: We conducted a narrative review of biomarkers in the context of AS for prostate cancer, framing the discussion in terms of the challenges in AS and how biomarkers may address these. PubMed and Embase were searched for English-language peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2025. International guidelines (AUA, EAU, NCCN, NICE) and reference lists were reviewed manually. Priority was given to large prospective cohorts, meta-analyses, and high-impact publications. Results: Blood-based assays such as PHI and the 4K score, urinary tests including ExoDx and SelectMDx, and the Prostate Urine Risk (PUR) signatures have all shown associations with disease progression or decisions to undergo earlier treatment. However, studies are often small, use surrogate endpoints, and lack validation in MRI-integrated cohorts. Biomarkers appear most informative in men with Gleason Grade 1 (GG1) disease, while evidence in GG2 cohorts is limited. Cost-effectiveness, heterogeneity of endpoints, and uncertainty in managing discordant biomarker and MRI results remain barriers to clinical adoption. Conclusions: Molecular and genetic biomarkers show promise for improving AS by reducing diagnostic misclassification and enhancing prediction of progression. Future research should define clinically relevant cut-offs, clarify integration with MRI, and evaluate longitudinal use. Demonstrating utility in contemporary cohorts could enable the development of biomarker-guided, personalised AS that maintains safety while minimising harm.