ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2018
Liquid Biopsy Potential Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Liquid Biopsy in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Non-Metastatic Prostate Cancer.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- MiR-182-5p and miR-375-3p Have Higher Performance Than PSA in Discriminating Prostate Cancer from Benign Prostate Hyperplasia.Cancers · 2021Article
- LMTK2 as Potential Biomarker for Stratification between Clinically Insignificant and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.Journal of oncology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of micro-RNA in extracellular vesicles from blood of patients with prostate cancer.PloS one · 2021Article
- Development and validation of a 25-Gene Panel urine test for prostate cancer diagnosis and potential treatment follow-up.BMC medicine · 2020Article
- Circular RNA and its potential as prostate cancer biomarkers.World journal of clinical oncology · 2020Review
- Vibrational spectroscopy of liquid biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer in men worldwide with an incidence of 14.8% and a mortality of 6.6%. Shortcomings in comprehensive medical check-ups in low- and middle-income countries lead to delayed detection of PCa and are causative of high numbers of advanced PCa cases at first diagnosis. The performance of available biomarkers is still insufficient and limited applicability, including logistical and financial burdens, impedes comprehensive implementation into health care systems. There is broad agreement on the need of new biomarkers to improve (i) early detection of PCa, (ii) risk stratification, (iii) prognosis, and (iv) treatment monitoring. This review focuses on liquid biopsy tests distinguishing high-grade significant (Gleason score (GS) ≥ 7) from low-grade indolent PCa. Available biomarkers still lack performance in risk stratification of biopsy naïve patients. However, biomarkers with highly negative predictive values may help to reduce unnecessary biopsies. Risk calculators using integrative scoring systems clearly improve decision-making for invasive prostate biopsy. Emerging biomarkers have the potential to substitute PSA and improve the overall performance of risk calculators. Until then, PSA should be used and may be replaced whenever enough evidence has accumulated for better performance of a new biomarker.
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.