ArticleScientific reports2021
Clinical utility of a serum biomarker panel in distinguishing prostate cancer from benign prostate hyperplasia.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Synthetic Glycans to Investigate Anti-Glycan Antibodies and Explore Their Medical Potential.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2026Review
- Clinical value of emerging peripheral blood protein biomarkers in prostate cancer (Review).Oncology letters · 2026Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of qualitative and quantitative magnetic resonance imaging-guided contrast-enhanced ultrasound (MRI-guided CEUS) for the detection of prostate cancer: a prospective and multicenter study.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Article
- The Potential of Extracellular Matrix- and Integrin Adhesion Complex-Related Molecules for Prostate Cancer Biomarker Discovery.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Genome-wide studies in prostate cancer poised liquid biopsy as a molecular discovery tool.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- The potential of a nomogram combined PI-RADS v2.1 and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to reduce unnecessary biopsies in prostate cancer diagnostics.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Molecular Biomarkers in Cancer.Biomolecules · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer (PCa) is limited by the lack of specificity but is further complicated in the benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) population which also exhibit elevated PSA, representing a clear unmet need to distinguish BPH from PCa. Herein, we evaluated the utility of FLNA IP-MRM, age, and prostate volume to stratify men with BPH from those with PCa. Diagnostic performance of the biomarker panel was better than PSA alone in discriminating patients with negative biopsy from those with PCa, as well as those who have had multiple prior biopsies (AUC 0.75 and 0.87 compared to AUC of PSA alone 0.55 and 0.57 for patients who have had single compared to multiple negative biopsies, respectively). Of interest, in patients with PCa, the panel demonstrated improved performance than PSA alone in those with Gleason scores of 5-7 (AUC 0.76 vs. 0.56) and Gleason scores of 8-10 (AUC 0.74 vs. 0.47). With Gleason scores (8-10), the negative predictive value of the panel is 0.97, indicating potential to limit false negatives in aggressive cancers. Together, these data demonstrate the ability of the biomarker panel to perform better than PSA alone in men with BPH, thus preventing unnecessary biopsies.
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.