Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30470249›Full record

ArticleClinical epigenetics2018

A urine-based DNA methylation assay, ProCUrE, to identify clinically significant prostate cancer.

Fang Zhao, Ekaterina Olkhov-Mitsel, Shivani Kamdar, Renu Jeyapala, Julia Garcia, Rachel Hurst, Marcelino Yazbek Hanna, Robert Mills, Alexandra V Tuzova, Eve O'Reilly and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epigenetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Deciphering the genetic code of DNA methylation.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

18 authors.

Fang ZhaoLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada.
Ekaterina Olkhov-MitselLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada.
Shivani KamdarLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada.
Renu JeyapalaLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada.
Julia GarciaLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada.
Rachel HurstSchools of Medicine and Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Marcelino Yazbek HannaNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Robert MillsSchools of Medicine and Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Alexandra V TuzovaCancer Biology and Therapeutics Laboratory, School of Biomolecular and Biomedical Science, Conway Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Eve O'ReillyCancer Biology and Therapeutics Laboratory, School of Biomolecular and Biomedical Science, Conway Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Sarah KellyCancer Biology and Therapeutics Laboratory, School of Biomolecular and Biomedical Science, Conway Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Colin CooperSchools of Medicine and Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Movember Urine Biomarker Consortium
Daniel BrewerSchools of Medicine and Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Antoinette S PerryCancer Biology and Therapeutics Laboratory, School of Biomolecular and Biomedical Science, Conway Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Jeremy ClarkSchools of Medicine and Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Neil FleshnerDivision of Urology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Bharati BapatLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada. bapat@lunenfeld.ca.

Funding

Prostate Cancer Biomarker and Imaging Validation Alliance: Emory University, University of Alabama Birmingham, and University of Texas SouthwesternU01CA113913 · NCI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Martin G. Sanda · 2005 to 2026
$16.4M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA113913
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevention of unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment of indolent disease remains a challenge in the management of prostate cancer. Novel non-invasive tests that can identify clinically significant (intermediate-risk and high-risk) diseases are needed to improve risk stratification and monitoring of prostate cancer patients. Here, we investigated a panel of six DNA methylation biomarkers in urine samples collected post-digital rectal exam from patients undergoing prostate biopsy, for their utility to guide decision making for diagnostic biopsy and early detection of aggressive prostate cancer.

resultsWe recruited 408 patients in risk categories ranging from benign to low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer from three international cohorts. Patients were separated into 2/3 training and 1/3 validation cohorts. Methylation biomarkers were analyzed in post-digital rectal exam urinary sediment DNA by quantitative MethyLight assay and investigated for their association with any or aggressive prostate cancers. We developed a Prostate Cancer Urinary Epigenetic (ProCUrE) assay based on an optimal two-gene (HOXD3 and GSTP1) LASSO model, derived from methylation values in the training cohort, and assessed ProCUrE's diagnostic and prognostic ability for prostate cancer in both the training and validation cohorts. ProCUrE demonstrated improved prostate cancer diagnosis and identification of patients with clinically significant disease in both the training and validation cohorts. Using three different risk stratification criteria (Gleason score, D'Amico criteria, and CAPRA score), we found that the positive predictive value for ProCUrE was higher (59.4-78%) than prostate specific antigen (PSA) (38.2-72.1%) for all risk category comparisons. ProCUrE also demonstrated additive value to PSA in identifying GS ≥ 7 PCa compared to PSA alone (DeLong's test p = 0.039), as well as additive value to the PCPT risk calculator for identifying any PCa and GS ≥ 7 PCa (DeLong's test p = 0.011 and 0.022, respectively).

conclusionsProCUrE is a promising non-invasive urinary methylation assay for the early detection and prognostication of prostate cancer. ProCUrE has the potential to supplement PSA testing to identify patients with clinically significant prostate cancer.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationBiomarkers, TumorEpigenomicsGlutathione S-Transferase piHomeodomain ProteinsHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingPrognosisProspective StudiesProstatic NeoplasmsTranscription FactorsBiomarkers, TumorGlutathione S-Transferase piGSTP1 protein, humanHomeodomain ProteinsHOXA4 protein, humanTranscription FactorsBiomarkerDNA methylationEarly detectionOvertreatmentProstate cancerPSAUrine

Identifiers

PMID30470249
PMCPMC6260648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.