Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26918043›Full record

ArticleJournal of Cancer2016

Predicting Prostate Biopsy Results Using a Panel of Plasma and Urine Biomarkers Combined in a Scoring System.

Maher Albitar, Wanlong Ma, Lars Lund, Ferras Albitar, Kevin Diep, Herbert A Fritsche, Neal Shore

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03730324 (Developing a Multivariable Diagnostic Prediction Model for Prostate Biopsy Outcome Using Biomarkers and mpMRI as Prediction Variables in Biopsy naïve Men.), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03730324 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Developing a Multivariable Diagnostic Prediction Model for Prostate Biopsy Outcome Using Biomarkers and mpMRI as Prediction Variables in Biopsy naïve Men.

TypeinterventionalSponsorTorben Brøchner PedersenRan2018 to 2022Enrolled261ConditionsProstate CancerArmsmpMRI, Urine and plasma biomarkes.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Metabolic adaptations in prostate cancer.British journal of cancer · 2024
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Glycans as Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

7 authors.

Maher Albitar1. NeoGenomics Laboratories, Irvine, CA;
Wanlong Ma1. NeoGenomics Laboratories, Irvine, CA;
Lars Lund2. Departments of Urology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark;
Ferras Albitar1. NeoGenomics Laboratories, Irvine, CA;
Kevin Diep1. NeoGenomics Laboratories, Irvine, CA;
Herbert A Fritsche3. Health Discovery Corporation, Savanah, Georgia;
Neal Shore4. Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetermining the need for prostate biopsy is frequently difficult and more objective criteria are needed to predict the presence of high grade prostate cancer (PCa). To reduce the rate of unnecessary biopsies, we explored the potential of using biomarkers in urine and plasma to develop a scoring system to predict prostate biopsy results and the presence of high grade PCa.

methodsUrine and plasma specimens were collected from 319 patients recommended for prostate biopsies. We measured the gene expression levels of UAP1, PDLIM5, IMPDH2, HSPD1, PCA3, PSA, TMPRSS2, ERG, GAPDH, B2M, AR, and PTEN in plasma and urine. Patient age, serum prostate-specific antigen (sPSA) level, and biomarkers data were used to develop two independent algorithms, one for predicting the presence of PCa and the other for predicting high-grade PCa (Gleason score [GS] ≥7).

resultsUsing training and validation data sets, a model for predicting the outcome of PCa biopsy was developed with an area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.87. The positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were 87% and 63%, respectively. We then developed a second algorithm to identify patients with high-grade PCa (GS ≥7). This algorithm's AUROC was 0.80, and had a PPV and NPV of 56% and 77%, respectively. Patients who demonstrated concordant results using both algorithms showed a sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 93% for predicting high-grade aggressive PCa. Thus, the use of both algorithms resulted in a PPV of 90% and NPV of 89% for predicting high-grade PCa with toleration of some low-grade PCa (GS <7) being detected.

conclusionsThis model of a biomarker panel with algorithmic interpretation can be used as a "liquid biopsy" to reduce the need for unnecessary tissue biopsies, and help to guide appropriate treatment decisions.

Indexed as

algorithm.Cell-freeGleasonhigh-gradeRNAscoring

Identifiers

PMID26918043
PMCPMC4747884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.