ReviewCurrent opinion in urology2014
Circulating biomarkers for discriminating indolent from aggressive disease in prostate cancer active surveillance.
Review in Current opinion in urology, 2014. 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.
- Modulation of paracrine signaling by CD9 positive small extracellular vesicles mediates cellular growth of androgen deprived prostate cancer.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- EMT circulating tumor cells detected by cell-surface vimentin are associated with prostate cancer progression.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Enhancing active surveillance of prostate cancer: the potential of exercise medicine.Nature reviews. Urology · 2016Review
- Urinary proteomics and metabolomics studies to monitor bladder health and urological diseases.BMC urology · 2016Review
- Prostate cancer in men of African origin.Nature reviews. Urology · 2016Review
- Virus encoded circulatory miRNAs for early detection of prostate cancer.BMC urology · 2015Review
- Article
- MicroRNA expression and function in prostate cancer: a review of current knowledge and opportunities for discovery.Asian journal of andrologyReview
- Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy as a new approach for improvement of early diagnosis and risk stratification of prostate cancer.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. BReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo review research on the use of circulating biomarkers to predict unfavorable tumor pathology in the setting of active surveillance, or in clinical contexts that are informative for active surveillance, such as men with low-risk prostate cancer evaluated for upgrading or upstaging at surgery. RECENT
findingsBiomarkers have been evaluated in serum, plasma, urine, and expressed prostatic secretions. Only a small number of biomarkers have been evaluated in multiple studies: %free prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA velocity, PSA doubling time, proPSA, PCA3, TMPRSS2-ERG. Single studies with relevance to active surveillance have evaluated microRNAs, circulating tumor cells, and exosomes. The most consistent significant associations with unfavorable tumor pathology have been with %free PSA. Associations with [-2]proPSA and Prostate Health Index have also been consistent; however, three of four studies come from the same active surveillance patient cohort. SUMMARY: Circulating biomarkers represent a promising approach to identify men with apparently low-risk biopsy pathology, but who harbor potentially aggressive tumors unsuitable for active surveillance. Research is still at an early stage; existing biomarkers need rigorous validation with consistent methodology, and additional biomarkers need to be evaluated. Successful clinical translation would reduce the frequency of surveillance biopsies, and may enhance acceptance of active surveillance.
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.