Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25651917›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR2015

PCA3 in prostate cancer and tumor aggressiveness detection on 407 high-risk patients: a National Cancer Institute experience.

Roberta Merola, Luigi Tomao, Anna Antenucci, Isabella Sperduti, Steno Sentinelli, Serena Masi, Chiara Mandoj, Giulia Orlandi, Rocco Papalia, Salvatore Guaglianone and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnosis accuracy of PCA3 level in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Roberta MerolaClinical Pathology, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy. merola@ifo.it.
Luigi TomaoClinical Pathology, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy. ltomao@uniroma3.it.
Anna AntenucciClinical Pathology, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy. antenucci@ifo.it.
Isabella SperdutiScientific Direction, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. sperduti@ifo.it.
Steno SentinelliDepartment of Pathology, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. sentinelli@ifo.it.
Serena MasiClinical Pathology, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy. masi@ifo.it.
Chiara MandojClinical Pathology, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy. chiaramandoj@yahoo.it.
Giulia OrlandiClinical Pathology, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy. g.orlandi2007@yahoo.it.
Rocco PapaliaUrology Department, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. mpurri@yahoo.it.
Salvatore GuaglianoneUrology Department, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. urologiaroma@virgilio.it.
Manuela CostantiniUrology Department, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. m.costantini@unicampus.it.
Giuseppe CusumanoUrology Department, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. cusumano@ifo.it.
Giovanni CiglianaClinical Pathology, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy. cigliana@ifo.it.
Paolo AscenziDepartment of Sciences, University Roma Tre, Rome, Italy. ascenzi@uniroma3.it.
Michele GallucciUrology Department, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. gallucci@ifo.it.
Laura ContiClinical Pathology, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy. laura.conti@ifo.it.
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITRoma Tre University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate cancer (PCa) is the most common male cancer in Europe and the US. The early diagnosis relies on prostate specific antigen (PSA) serum test, even if it showed clear limits. Among the new tests currently under study, one of the most promising is the prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3), a non-coding mRNA whose level increases up to 100 times in PCa tissues when compared to normal tissues. With the present study we contribute to the validation of the clinical utility of the PCA3 test and to the evaluation of its prognostic potential.

methods407 Italian men, with two or more PCa risk factors and at least a previous negative biopsy, entering the Urology Unit of Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, were tested for PCA3, total PSA (tPSA) and free PSA (fPSA and f/tPSA) tests. Out of the 407 men enrolled, 195 were positive for PCa and 114 of them received an accurate staging with evaluation of the Gleason score (Gs). Then, the PCA3 score was correlated to biopsy outcome, and the diagnostic and prognostic utility were evaluated.

resultsOut of the 407 biopsies performed after the PCA3 test, 195 (48%) resulted positive for PCa; the PCA3 score was significantly higher in this population (p < 0.0001) differently to tPSA (p = 0.87). Moreover, the PCA3 test outperformed the f/tPSA (p = 0.01). The sensitivity (94.9) and specificity (60.1) of the PCA3 test showed a better balance for a threshold of 35 when compared to 20, even if the best result was achieved considering a cutoff of 51, with sensitivity and specificity of 82.1% and 79.3%, respectively. Finally, comparing values of the PCA3 test between two subgroups with increasing Gs (Gs ≤ 6 versus Gs ≥ 7) a significant association between PCA3 score and Gs was found (p = 0.02).

conclusionsThe PCA3 test showed the best diagnostic performance when compared to tPSA and f/tPSA, facilitating the selection of high-risk patients that may benefit from the execution of a saturation prostatic biopsy. Moreover, the PCA3 test showed a prognostic value, as higher PCA3 score values are associated to a greater tumor aggressiveness.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, TumorDisease ProgressionHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityAntigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, Tumorprostate cancer antigen 3, humanProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID25651917
PMCPMC4324853
OpenAlexW2143586421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.