ReviewCurrent opinion in urology2015
Risk stratification of prostate cancer in the modern era.
Review in Current opinion in urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Observational
- Novel potential serological prostate cancer biomarkers using CT100+ cancer antigen microarray platform in a multi-cultural South African cohort.Oncotarget · 2016Article
- Virus encoded circulatory miRNAs for early detection of prostate cancer.BMC urology · 2015Review
- Circulating HMGB1 and RAGE as Clinical Biomarkers in Malignant and Autoimmune Diseases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewNovel tools have become available to the practicing urologist in recent years that endeavor to improve on commonly utilized prostate cancer (PCa) risk-stratification techniques. In this review, we provide an overview of these modalities in the context of active surveillance. RECENT
findingsMultiparametric MRI (MP-MRI) has a rapidly growing body of evidence that suggests it provides the necessary sensitivity and negative predictive value to rule out clinically significant disease. MRI-guided targeted biopsy has the potential to improve detection of clinically significant cancers and for rebiopsy of patients with continued suspicion for PCa. Prostate-specific antigen isoforms and Prostate Health Index outperform PSA alone and improve risk stratification when combined with the established criteria, but need further prospective studies using template and MRI-targeted biopsies. Urinary biomarkers tend to fall short in predicting adverse pathology when used alone, but improve risk stratification when used in conjunction and with the established criteria. Finally, tissue biomarkers and gene assays allow patient-specific molecular and genetic characterization of cancer phenotype, showing significant promise in predicting adverse pathology, and in some cases have already been incorporated into and altered clinical practice. SUMMARY: These novel modalities show remarkable promise in improving the risk stratification of patients with PCa, and as the body of evidence grows will likely become incorporated into major oncologic guidelines and standard urologic practice. Further prospective clinical studies are needed, as well as analysis of cost-effectiveness.
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.