ReviewWorld journal of urology2020
A critical appraisal of biomarkers in prostate cancer.
Review in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of ATP9A-NFATC2 gene fusion transcript in Behcet's disease, a subtype of uveitis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of an 18-Gene Urine Test for High-Grade Prostate Cancer.JAMA oncology · 2024Article
- The diagnostic effectiveness of serum sialic acid predicts both qualitative and quantitative prostate cancer in patients with prostate-specific antigen between 4 and 20 ng/mL.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Awaiting the perfect diagnostic test: optimal prostate cancer care begins without a diagnosis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2022Article
- Prostate Cancer Epigenetic Plasticity and Enhancer Heterogeneity: Molecular Causes, Consequences and Clinical Implications.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Review
- Fascin-1 and its role as a serological marker in prostate cancer: a prospective case-control study.Future science OA · 2021Article
- Heterogeneity in Genomic Risk Assessment from Tissue Based Prognostic Signatures Used in the Biopsy Setting and the Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy.The Journal of urology · 2021Article
- Five-gene signature associating with Gleason score serve as novel biomarkers for identifying early recurring events and contributing to early diagnosis for Prostate Adenocarcinoma.Journal of Cancer · 2021Article
- PCA3 in Prostate Cancer.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- The future of clinical trials in urological oncology.Nature reviews. Urology · 2019Review
- Random forest-based modelling to detect biomarkers for prostate cancer progression.Clinical epigenetics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA number of urine and blood-based biomarker tests have been described for prostate cancer, although to date there has only been a limited exploration of the methodology behind the validation studies that underpin these tests.
methodsIn this review, a selection of commercially available urine and blood-based biomarker tests for prostate cancer are described, and the underlying key validation studies for each test are critically appraised using the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 statement.
resultsThe ExoDx Prostate Intelliscore, SelectMDx, Progensa PCA3, Mi-Prostate Score, 4K Score, and Prostate Health Index (PHI) tests were reviewed. Most of the validation studies supporting these tests perform exploratory analyses to determine cut-off values in a post hoc manner, comprise cohorts that are primarily Caucasian, report receiver operating characteristic curves that combine the biomarker's result with established clinical nomograms and are based on a reference standard (prostate biopsy) that lacks central pathology review. Deficiencies in STARD reporting guidelines include frequent failure to provide a published study protocol, prospective study registration in a registry, a flow diagram, justification for sample size determination, a discussion of adverse events with testing, and information on how missing or indeterminate test results should be managed.
conclusionsKey validation studies that support many commercially available urine and blood-based biomarkers for prostate cancers have deficiencies in transparency based on STARD reporting guidelines, and limitations in methodology must be considered when deciding when these tests should be applied in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30993424What 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.