Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31588123›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2019

Identification of a biomarker panel for improvement of prostate cancer diagnosis by volatile metabolic profiling of urine.

Ana Rita Lima, Joana Pinto, Ana Isabel Azevedo, Daniela Barros-Silva, Carmen Jerónimo, Rui Henrique, Maria de Lourdes Bastos, Paula Guedes de Pinho, Márcia Carvalho

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Volatilomes ofMycobiology · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ana Rita LimaUCIBIO/REQUIMTE, Department of Biological Sciences, Laboratory of Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. ritacmlima@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1439-770X
Joana PintoUCIBIO/REQUIMTE, Department of Biological Sciences, Laboratory of Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9719-8364
Ana Isabel AzevedoUCIBIO/REQUIMTE, Department of Biological Sciences, Laboratory of Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Daniela Barros-SilvaCancer Biology & Epigenetics Group, Research Center (CI-IPOP) Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto), Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6746-6807
Carmen JerónimoCancer Biology & Epigenetics Group, Research Center (CI-IPOP) Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto), Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4186-5345
Rui HenriqueCancer Biology & Epigenetics Group, Research Center (CI-IPOP) Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto), Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3171-4666
Maria de Lourdes BastosUCIBIO/REQUIMTE, Department of Biological Sciences, Laboratory of Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9895-503X
Paula Guedes de PinhoUCIBIO/REQUIMTE, Department of Biological Sciences, Laboratory of Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. pguedes@ff.up.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7395-5700
Márcia CarvalhoUCIBIO/REQUIMTE, Department of Biological Sciences, Laboratory of Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. mcarv@ufp.edu.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9884-4751
Universidade do Porto · PTFernando Pessoa University · PTInstituto Português de Oncologia Francisco Gentil · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe lack of sensitive and specific biomarkers for the early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) is a major hurdle to improve patient management.

methodsA metabolomics approach based on GC-MS was used to investigate the performance of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in general and, more specifically, volatile carbonyl compounds (VCCs) present in urine as potential markers for PCa detection.

resultsResults showed that PCa patients (n = 40) can be differentiated from cancer-free subjects (n = 42) based on their urinary volatile profile in both VOCs and VCCs models, unveiling significant differences in the levels of several metabolites. The models constructed were further validated using an external validation set (n = 18 PCa and n = 18 controls) to evaluate sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the urinary volatile profile to discriminate PCa from controls. The VOCs model disclosed 78% sensitivity, 94% specificity and 86% accuracy, whereas the VCCs model achieved the same sensitivity, a specificity of 100% and an accuracy of 89%. Our findings unveil a panel of 6 volatile compounds significantly altered in PCa patients' urine samples that was able to identify PCa, with a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 83%, and accuracy of 86%.

conclusionsIt is disclosed a biomarker panel with potential to be used as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for PCa.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerAgedBiomarkers, TumorGas Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryHumansMaleMetabolomicsMiddle AgedProstateProstatic NeoplasmsVolatile Organic CompoundsBiomarkers, TumorVolatile Organic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID31588123
PMCPMC6889512
OpenAlexW2978262183

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.