Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34503059›Full record

ReviewCancers2021

Biomarker in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Cécile Manceau, Gaëlle Fromont, Jean-Baptiste Beauval, Eric Barret, Laurent Brureau, Gilles Créhange, Charles Dariane, Gaëlle Fiard, Mathieu Gauthé, Romain Mathieu and 7 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Using active surveillance for Gleason 7 (3+4) prostate cancer: A narrative review.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Personalized 3-Gene Panel for Prostate Cancer Target Therapy.Current issues in molecular biology · 2022
    Article
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

17 authors.

Cécile ManceauDepartment of Urology, CHU-IUC Toulouse, F-31000 Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1597-4767
Gaëlle FromontDepartment of Pathology, CHRU Tours, F-37000 Tours, France.
Jean-Baptiste BeauvalDepartment of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, F-31130 Quint Fonsegrives, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1532-015X
Eric BarretDepartment of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, F-75014 Paris, France.
Laurent BrureauDepartment of Urology, CHU de Pointe-à-Pitre, University of Antilles, University of Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de Recherche en Santé, Environnement et Travail)-UMR_S 1085, F-97110 Pointe-à-Pitre, France.
Gilles CréhangeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Curie Institute, F-75005 Paris, France.
Charles DarianeDepartment of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, APHP, Paris-Paris University-U1151 Inserm-INEM, Necker, F-75015 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9573-2938
Gaëlle FiardDepartment of Urology, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC-IMAG, F-38000 Grenoble, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3049-5318
Mathieu GauthéAP-HP Health Economics Research Unit, INSERM-UMR1153, F-75004 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4882-9366
Romain MathieuDepartment of Urology, CHU Rennes, F-35033 Rennes, France.
Raphaële Renard-PennaDepartment of Radiology, Sorbonne University, AP-HP, Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, F-75013 Paris, France.
Guilhem RoubaudDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Bergonié, F-33000 Bordeaux, France.
Alain RuffionService d'Urologie Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, F-69002 Lyon, France.
Paul SargosDepartment of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, 33000 Bordeaux, France.
Morgan RouprêtDepartment of Urology, Sorbonne University, GRC 5 Predictive Onco-Uro, AP-HP, Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, F-75013 Paris, France.
Guillaume PloussardDepartment of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, F-31130 Quint Fonsegrives, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6004-2152
On Behalf Of The Cc-Afu Cancerology Committee Of The Association Française d'Urologie

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Active surveillance (AS) in prostate cancer (PCa) represents a curative alternative for men with localised low-risk PCa. Continuous improvement of AS patient's selection and surveillance modalities aims at reducing misclassification, simplifying modalities of surveillance and decreasing need for invasive procedures such repeated biopsies. Biomarkers represent interesting tools to evaluate PCa diagnosis and prognosis, of which many are readily available or under evaluation. The aim of this review is to investigate the biomarker performance for AS selection and patient outcome prediction. Blood, urinary and tissue biomarkers were studied and a brief description of use was proposed along with a summary of major findings. Biomarkers represent promising tools which could be part of a more tailored risk AS strategy aiming to offer personalized medicine and to individualize the treatment and monitoring of each patient. The usefulness of biomarkers has mainly been suggested for AS selection, whereas few studies have investigated their role during the monitoring phase. Randomized prospective studies dealing with imaging are needed as well as larger prospective studies with long-term follow-up and strong oncologic endpoints.

Indexed as

active surveillancebiomarkerblood biomarkerprostate cancertissue biomarkerurine biomarker

Identifiers

PMID34503059
PMCPMC8428218

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.