ArticleBMC cancer2016
Using gene expression from urine sediment to diagnose prostate cancer: development of a new multiplex mRNA urine test and validation of current biomarkers.
Article in BMC cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiomic and Genomic Machine Learning Method Performance for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Systematic Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Application of a risk score model based on tyrosine-related genes in the prognosis and treatment of patients with lung adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Article
- Urinary SPP1 has potential as a non-invasive diagnostic marker for focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.FEBS open bio · 2023Article
- Analysis of aberrant miRNA-mRNA interaction networks in prostate cancer to conjecture its molecular mechanisms.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2022Article
- Selective Microfluidic Capture and Detection of Prostate Cancer Cells from Urine without Digital Rectal Examination.Cancers · 2021Article
- Exosomal mRNAs and lncRNAs involved in multiple myeloma resistance to bortezomib.Cell biology international · 2021Article
- Improving hexaminolevulinate enabled cancer cell detection in liquid biopsy immunosensors.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Kidney Diseases: The Age of Molecular Markers.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021Article
- Discovery and Validation of Urinary Molecular Signature of Early Sepsis.Critical care explorations · 2020Article
- Urine biopsy technologies: Cancer and beyond.Theranostics · 2020Review
- Characterization of Matricellular Protein Expression Signatures in Mechanistically Diverse Mouse Models of Kidney Injury.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdditional accurate non-invasive biomarkers are needed in the clinical setting to improve prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. Here we have developed a new and improved multiplex mRNA urine test to detect prostate cancer (PCa). Furthermore, we have validated the PCA3 urinary transcript and some panels of urinary transcripts previously reported as useful diagnostic biomarkers for PCa in our cohort.
methodsPost-prostatic massage urine samples were prospectively collected from PCa patients and controls. Expression levels of 42 target genes selected from our previous studies and from the literature were studied in 224 post-prostatic massage urine sediments by quantitative PCR. Univariate logistic regression was used to identify individual PCa predictors. A variable selection method was used to develop a multiplex biomarker model. Discrimination was measured by ROC curve AUC for both, our model and the previously published biomarkers.
resultsSeven of the 42 genes evaluated (PCA3, ELF3, HIST1H2BG, MYO6, GALNT3, PHF12 and GDF15) were found to be independent predictors for discriminating patients with PCa from controls. We developed a four-gene expression signature (HIST1H2BG, SPP1, ELF3 and PCA3) with a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 67% (AUC = 0.763) for discriminating between tumor and control urines. The accuracy of PCA3 and previously reported panels of biomarkers is roughly maintained in our cohort.
conclusionsOur four-gene expression signature outperforms PCA3 as well as previously reported panels of biomarkers to predict PCa risk. This study suggests that a urinary biomarker panel could improve PCa detection. However, the accuracy of the panels of urinary transcripts developed to date, including our signature, is not high enough to warrant using them routinely in a clinical setting.
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.