ArticleJournal of translational medicine2012
Developing a nanoparticle test for prostate cancer scoring.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computational advances of tumor marker selection and sample classification in cancer proteomics.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020Review
- A rapid blood test to monitor immunity shift during pregnancy and potential application for animal health management.Sensors international · 2020Article
- An Ultra-Rapid Biosensory Point-of-Care (POC) Assay for Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Detection in Human Serum.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- A Monte Carlo study of I-125 prostate brachytherapy with gold nanoparticles: dose enhancement with simultaneous rectal dose sparing via radiation shielding.Physics in medicine and biology · 2017Article
- DNA-Directed Assembly of Nanogold Dimers: A Unique Dynamic Light Scattering Sensing Probe for Transcription Factor Detection.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Diagnosis of prostate cancer via nanotechnological approach.International journal of nanomedicine · 2015Review
- Prognostication of prostate cancer based on NUCB2 protein assessment: NUCB2 in prostate cancer.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2013Article
- Multifunctional gold nanoparticles for diagnosis and therapy of disease.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2013Review
- Self-Therapeutic Nanomaterials: Applications in Biology and Medicine.Materials today (Kidlington, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver-diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer has been a major problem in prostate cancer care and management. Currently the most relevant prognostic factor to predict a patient's risk of death due to prostate cancer is the Gleason score of the biopsied tissue samples. However, pathological analysis is subjective, and the Gleason score is only a qualitative estimate of the cancer malignancy. Molecular biomarkers and diagnostic tests that can accurately predict prostate tumor aggressiveness are rather limited.
methodWe report here for the first time the development of a nanoparticle test that not only can distinguish prostate cancer from normal and benign conditions, but also has the potential to predict the aggressiveness of prostate cancer quantitatively. To conduct the test, a prostate tissue lysate sample is spiked into a blood serum or human IgG solution and the spiked sample is incubated with a citrate-protected gold nanoparticle solution. IgG is known to adsorb to citrate-protected gold nanoparticles to form a "protein corona" on the nanoparticle surface. From this study, we discovered that certain tumor-specific molecules can interact with IgG and change the adsorption behavior of IgG to the gold nanoparticles. This change is reflected in the nanoparticle size of the assay solution and detected by a dynamic light scattering technique. Assay data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA for multiple variant analysis, and using the Student t-test or nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-tests for pairwise analyses.
resultsAn inverse, quantitative correlation of the average nanoparticle size of the assay solution with tumor status and histological diagnostic grading was observed from the nanoparticle test. IgG solutions spiked with prostate tumor tissue exhibit significantly smaller nanoparticle size than the solutions spiked with normal and benign tissues. The higher grade the tumor is, the smaller the nanoparticle size is. The test particularly revealed large differences among the intermediate Grade 2 tumors, and suggested the need to treat them differently.
conclusionDevelopment of a new nanoparticle test may provide a quantitative measure of the prostate cancer aggressiveness. If validated in a larger study of patients with prostate cancer, this test could become a new diagnostic tool in conjunction with Gleason Score pathology diagnostics to better distinguish aggressive cancer from indolent tumor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.