Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27922627›Full record

ReviewProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2017

Blood-based and urinary prostate cancer biomarkers: a review and comparison of novel biomarkers for detection and treatment decisions.

R J Hendriks, I M van Oort, J A Schalken

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing 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.

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

70 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Biomarkers in Localized Prostate Cancer: From Diagnosis to Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Utility of Combining Prostate Health Index and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2025
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

R J HendriksDepartment of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
I M van OortDepartment of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J A SchalkenDepartment of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) is currently based on serum PSA testing and/or abnormal digital rectal examination and histopathologic evaluation of prostate biopsies. The main drawback of PSA testing is the lack of specificity for PCa. To improve early detection of PCa more specific biomarkers are needed. In the past few years, many new promising biomarkers have been identified; however, to date, only a few have reached clinical practice.

methodsIn this review, we discuss new blood-based and urinary biomarker models that are promising for usage in PCa detection, follow-up and treatment decision-making. These include Prostate Health Index (PHI), prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), four-kallikrein panel (4K), transmembrane protease serine 2-ERG (TMPRSS2-ERG), ExoDx Prostate Intelliscore, SelectMDx and the Mi-Prostate score. Only few head-to-head studies are available for these new fluid-based biomarkers and/or models. The blood-based PHI and urinary PCA3 are two US Food and Drug Administration-approved biomarkers for diagnosis of PCa. In the second part of this review, we give an overview of published studies comparing these two available biomarkers for prediction of (1) PCa upon prostate biopsy, (2) pathological features in radical prostatectomy specimen and (3) significant PCa in patients eligible for active surveillance.

resultsStudies show opposing results in comparison of PHI with PCA3 for prediction of PCa upon initial and repeat prostate biopsy. PHI and PCA3 are able to predict pathological findings on radical prostatectomy specimen, such as tumor volume and Gleason score. Only PHI could predict seminal vesicle invasion and only PCA3 could predict multifocality. There is some evidence that PHI outperforms PCA3 in predicting significant PCa in an active surveillance population.

conclusionsFuture research should focus on independent validation of promising fluid-based biomarkers/models, and prospective comparison of biomarkers with each other.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorAntigens, NeoplasmBiopsyClinical Decision-MakingDisease ManagementHumansLiquid BiopsyMaleNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentAntigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, Tumorprostate cancer antigen 3, human

Identifiers

PMID27922627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.