ReviewWorld journal of urology2022
A review on the role of tissue-based molecular biomarkers for active surveillance.
Review in World journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk of reclassification and novel tools in active surveillance.Asian journal of urology · 2025Review
- Exploring the influence of pre-analytical variables on gene expression measurements and relative expression orderings in cancer research.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Urinary extracellular vesicles miRNA-A new era of prostate cancer biomarkers.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- Methylation Subtypes of Primary Prostate Cancer Predict Poor Prognosis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOver the last decade, we have seen the emergence of tissue-based genomic prognostic markers that can be used for decision-making regarding the need for treatment. This review provides an up-to-date summary of the relevant literature surrounding these markers with a discussion of the relevant strength and limitations.
methodsWe performed a literature search of tissue-based genomic prognostic markers and selected those that were currently available for clinical use. We selected the following markers for further review: Decipher (Decipher Bioscience), Polaris (Myriad), Genome Prostate Score (Oncotype Dx), and Promark. We selected the initial validation study for each marker along with other validation studies in independent cohorts. Furthermore, we selected available clinical utility studies or studies combining multi parametric MRI.
resultsIn this article, we provide an in-depth review of four commercially available biomarkers and discuss the current literature surrounding these markers, including the benefits and limitations of their use. We found that each of these markers has evidence supporting their role as an independent predictor of relevant prostate cancer endpoints, which can be helpful for clinical decision-making. However, issues related to heterogeneity and a lack of prospective randomized studies supporting their utility are limitations. Evidence appears to suggest that MRI and genomic risk assessment maybe complementary.
conclusionAlthough these markers can help in improved risk stratification of patients eligible for AS, more prospective studies with head to head comparison between markers are needed to elucidate the true potential of these markers in AS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33590277What 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.