ArticleBJU international2019
Thrombospondin 1 and cathepsin D improve prostate cancer diagnosis by avoiding potentially unnecessary prostate biopsies.
Article in BJU international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proclarix, A New Biomarker for the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2022Pooled it
- MXene and prostate cancer: is there promising news?Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2025Review
- Appraising the causal role of cathepsins in genitourinary carcinoma: a two-sample mendelian randomization and prospective study based on 36,225 individuals.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Association between cathepsins and benign prostate diseases: a bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Prostate tumor markers: diagnosis, prognosis and management.Genetics and molecular biology · 2024Article
- The Potential of Extracellular Matrix- and Integrin Adhesion Complex-Related Molecules for Prostate Cancer Biomarker Discovery.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Development of a predictive model to distinguish prostate cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by integrating serum glycoproteomics and clinical variables.Clinical proteomics · 2023Article
- Relationship between Proclarix and the Aggressiveness of Prostate Cancer.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2023Article
- A Novel Blood Proteomic Signature for Prostate Cancer.Cancers · 2023Article
- Comparison of Proclarix, PSA Density and MRI-ERSPC Risk Calculator to Select Patients for Prostate Biopsy after mpMRI.Cancers · 2022Article
- Use of MS-GUIDE for identification of protein biomarkers for risk stratification of patients with prostate cancer.Clinical proteomics · 2022Article
- The Efficacy of Proclarix to Select Appropriate Candidates for Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Derived Prostate Biopsies in Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer.The world journal of men's health · 2022Article
- Proteomic discovery of non-invasive biomarkers of localized prostate cancer using mass spectrometry.Nature reviews. Urology · 2021Review
- Blood-Derived Biomarkers of Diagnosis, Prognosis and Therapy Response in Prostate Cancer Patients.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Commercialized Blood-, Urinary- and Tissue-Based Biomarker Tests for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis.Cancers · 2020Review
- Validating fPSA Glycoprofile as a Prostate Cancer Biomarker to Avoid Unnecessary Biopsies and Re-Biopsies.Cancers · 2020Article
- All change in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2020Review
- Development and validation of a novel multivariate risk score to guide biopsy decision for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2020Article
- Article
- Biomarkers for prostate cancer detection and risk stratification.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate and further validate if two novel cancer-related glycoproteins, discovered by a genetic-guided proteomics approach, can distinguish benign disease from prostate cancer (PCa) in men with enlarged prostates. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective study was performed that included men with a total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration of 2.0-10 ng/mL, negative digital rectal examination and enlarged prostate (volume ≥35 mL). Serum samples were collected between 2011 and 2016 at a single centre from 474 men before they underwent prostate biopsy. Serum concentrations of thrombospondin 1 (THBS1) and cathepsin D (CTSD) glycoproteins were combined with the percentage of free PSA to total PSA ratio (%fPSA) to predict any or significant cancer at biopsy.
resultsThe multivariable logistic regression model including THBS1, CTSD and %fPSA discriminated among biopsy-positive and biopsy-negative patients in the validation set with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86 (P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.91), while %fPSA alone showed an AUC of 0.64 (P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.57-0.71). At 90% sensitivity for PCa, the specificity of the model was 62%, while %fPSA had a specificity of 23%. For high grade (Gleason score ≥ 7 in prostatectomy specimen) PCa, the specificity was 48% at 90% sensitivity, with an AUC of 0.83, (P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.88). Limitations of the study include the retrospective set-up and single-centre cohort.
conclusionsA model combining two cancer-related glycoproteins (THBS1 and CTSD) and %fPSA can improve PCa diagnosis and may reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies because of its improved specificity for PCa when compared to %fPSA alone.
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.