Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34997229›Full record

SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2022

Prostate cancer detection: a systematic review of urinary biosensors.

Kit Man Chan, Jonathan M Gleadle, Michael O'Callaghan, Krasimir Vasilev, Melanie MacGregor

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Cancer Stem Cells and Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kit Man ChanUniSA STEM, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5095, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8472-8514
Jonathan M GleadleDepartment of Renal Medicine, Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia.
Michael O'CallaghanFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia.
Krasimir VasilevFuture Industries Institute, UniSA STEM, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5095, Australia.
Melanie MacGregorFuture Industries Institute, UniSA STEM, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5095, Australia. melanie.macgregor@unisa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8671-181X
University of South Australia · AUFlinders University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent diagnostic methods for prostate cancer are invasive and lack specificity towards aggressive forms of the disease, which can lead to overtreatment. A new class of non-invasive alternatives is under development, in which urinary biomarkers are detected using biosensing devices to offer rapid and accurate prostate cancer diagnosis. These different approaches are systematically reviewed and their potential for translation to clinical practice is evaluated.

methodsA systematic review of the literature was performed in May 2021 using PubMed Medline database, Embase, and Web of Science. The objective was to review the structural designs and performance of biosensors tested on urine samples from patients with prostate cancer.

resultsA total of 76 records were identified. After screening and eligibility, 14 articles were included and are discussed in this paper. The biosensors were discussed based on the target biomarkers and detection technologies used, as well as the results of the clinical studies. Most of the works reported good discrimination between patients with prostate cancer and controls.

conclusionsThis review highlights the potential of urinary biosensors for non-invasive prostate cancer detection. However, clinical studies have so far only been conducted on small cohorts of patient, with large scale trials still needed to validate the proposed approaches. Overall, the consensus arising from the proof of concepts studies reviewed here, is that an adequate combination of biomarkers into multiplex biosensor platforms is required to achieve accurate diagnostic tests. Furthermore, whether such devices can discriminate between aggressive and indolent cancer has not yet been addressed, because it entails optimized biomarkers panels and long-term clinical trials.

Indexed as

Biosensing TechniquesProstatic NeoplasmsUrinary TractBiomarkersHumansMaleProstateBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID34997229
OpenAlexW4206505713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.