Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30680236›Full record

ReviewCentral European journal of urology2018

Modern urology perspectives on prostate cancer biomarkers.

Kamil Szeliski, Jan Adamowicz, Agata Gastecka, Tomasz Drewa, Marta Pokrywczyńska

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Central European journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Prostate Cancer Secretome and Membrane Proteome fromInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The Expression Patterns ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2020
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Modern biomarkers in prostate cancer diagnosis.Central European journal of urology · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kamil SzeliskiLudwik Rydygier Medical College in Bydgoszcz Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Department of Regenerative Medicine Cell and Tissue Bank, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Jan AdamowiczLudwik Rydygier Medical College in Bydgoszcz Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Department of Regenerative Medicine Cell and Tissue Bank, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Agata GasteckaLudwik Rydygier Medical College in Bydgoszcz Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Department of Regenerative Medicine Cell and Tissue Bank, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Tomasz DrewaLudwik Rydygier Medical College in Bydgoszcz Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Department of Regenerative Medicine Cell and Tissue Bank, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Marta PokrywczyńskaLudwik Rydygier Medical College in Bydgoszcz Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Department of Regenerative Medicine Cell and Tissue Bank, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz · PLNicolaus Copernicus University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionProstate cancer (PCa) is the most common type of cancer among men in Europe. Current recommendations for screening and diagnosis are based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements and the digital rectal examination (DRE). Both of them are triggers for prostate biopsy. Limited specificity of the PSA test brings, however, a need to develop new, better diagnostic tools. Several commercially available variations of the PSA test including: prostate health index (PHI), 4Kscore as well as molecular PCA3 score, have already revealed its value, lowering the number of unnecessary biopsies. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis review summarizes published results of the current most promising, clinically proven and experimentally evaluated PCa biomarkers which have potential for creation of new diagnostic tests.

resultsIn the last few years new approaches for providing significantly better biomarkers, an alternative to PSA, have been introduced. Modern biomarkers show improvement in being used as not only a diagnosis procedure, but also for staging, evaluating aggressiveness and managing the therapeutic process. The most promising group are molecular markers, among them microRNAs(miRNAs) and long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are most frequent. Their superiority, over standard PSA, in predicting tumor formation in early stages, and clinically non-symptomatic metastases has been noticed. Extracellular vesicles presence in biofluids have brought focus of many research groups, indicating their potential significance. This group of nanoparticles has potential not only in diagnostic and therapy management process, but also as a potential therapeutic target.

conclusionsFinding better PCa biomarkers, replacing the current PSA measurement, is firmly needed in modern urology practice.

Indexed as

biomarkersdiagnosisprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID30680236
PMCPMC6338806
OpenAlexW2981090283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.