ArticleScientific reports2020
Validation of the four-miRNA biomarker panel MiCaP for prediction of long-term prostate cancer outcome.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcriptomics and RNA-Based Therapeutics as Potential Approaches to Manage SARS-CoV-2 Infection.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Integrative Analysis and Experimental Validation Indicated That SNHG17 Is a Prognostic Marker in Prostate Cancer and a Modulator of the Tumor Microenvironment via a Competitive Endogenous RNA Regulatory Network.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Improved prostate cancer prognostic biomarkers are urgently needed. We previously identified the four-miRNA prognostic biomarker panel MiCaP ((miR-23a-3p × miR-10b-5p)/(miR-133a-3p × miR-374b-5p)) for prediction of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Here, we identified an optimal numerical cut-off for MiCaP dichotomisation using a training cohort of 475 RP patients and tested this in an independent cohort of 281 RP patients (PCA281). Kaplan-Meier, uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses were conducted for multiple endpoints: BCR, metastatic-(mPC) and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), prostate cancer-specific (PCSS) and overall survival (OS). Functional effects of the four MiCaP miRNAs were assessed by overexpression and inhibition experiments in prostate cancer cell lines. We found the numerical value 5.709 optimal for MiCaP dichotomisation. This was independently validated in PCA281, where a high MiCaP score significantly [and independent of the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Postsurgical (CAPRA-S) score] predicted BCR, progression to mPC and CRPC, and PCSS, but not OS. Harrell's C-index increased upon addition of MiCaP to CAPRA-S for all endpoints. Inhibition of miR-23a-3p and miR-10b-5p, and overexpression of miR-133a-3p and miR-374b-5p significantly reduced cell survival. Our results may promote future implementation of a MiCaP-based test for improved prostate cancer risk stratification.
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.