Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37093688›Full record

ArticleCancer genomics & proteomics

Combination of Urinary MiR-501 and MiR-335 With Current Clinical Diagnostic Parameters as Potential Predictive Factors of Prostate Biopsy Outcome.

Jaroslav Juracek, Marie Madrzyk, Karolina Trachtova, Michaela Ruckova, Julia Bohosova, Dominik A Barth, Martin Pichler, Michal Stanik, Ondrej Slaby

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer genomics & proteomics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jaroslav JuracekCentral European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Marie MadrzykCentral European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Karolina TrachtovaCentral European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Michaela RuckovaCentral European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Julia BohosovaCentral European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Dominik A BarthResearch Unit of Non-Coding RNAs and Genome Editing in Cancer, Division of Clinical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer Center Graz, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Martin PichlerResearch Unit of Non-Coding RNAs and Genome Editing in Cancer, Division of Clinical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer Center Graz, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Michal StanikDepartment of Urologic Oncology, Clinic of Surgical Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic; stanik@mou.cz.
Ondrej SlabyCentral European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic; ondrej.slaby@ceitec.muni.cz.
Central European Institute of Technology · CZCentral European Institute of Technology – Masaryk University · CZMedical University of Graz · ATMasaryk Memorial Cancer Institute · CZMasaryk University · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe detection of prostate cancer (PCa) is currently based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) quantification as an initial screening followed by ultrasound-guided transrectal biopsy. However, the high rate of false-negative biopsies often leads to inappropriate treatment. Therefore, new molecular biomarkers, such as urine microRNAs (miRNAs), are a possible way to redefine PCa diagnostics. PATIENTS AND

methodsUrine samples of 356 patients undergoing prostate biopsy (256 cases with confirmed prostate cancer, 100 cases with negative prostate biopsy) at the Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute (Czech Republic) and additional 36 control subjects (healthy controls, benign prostatic hyperplasia - BPH) were divided into the discovery and validation cohorts and analyzed. In the discovery phase, small RNA sequencing was performed using the QIAseq miRNA Library Kit and the NextSeq 500 platform. Identified miRNA candidates were validated by the RT-qPCR method in the independent validation phase.

resultsUsing the small RNA sequencing method, we identified 12 urine miRNAs significantly dysregulated between PCa patients and controls. Furthermore, independent validation showed the ability of miR-501-3p and the quantitative miR-335:miR-501 ratio to distinguish between PCa patients and patients with negative prostate biopsy. The subsequent combination of the miR-335:miR-501 ratio with PSA and total prostate volume (TPV) using logistic regression exceeded the analytical accuracy of standalone parameters [area under curve (AUC)=0.75, positive predictive value (PPV)=0.85, negative predictive value (NPV)=0.51)] and discriminated patients according to biopsy outcome.

conclusionCombination of miR-335:miR-501 ratio with PSA and total prostate volume was able to identify patients with negative prostate biopsy and could potentially streamline decision making for biopsy indication.

Indexed as

MicroRNAsProstatic HyperplasiaProstatic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorBiopsyHumansMaleProstateProstate-Specific AntigenBiomarkers, TumorMicroRNAsMIRN335 microRNA, humanMIRN501 microRNA, humanProstate-Specific AntigendiagnosismicroRNAmiRNA ratioNGSnon-invasiveprostate biopsyProstate cancerregression modelurine

Identifiers

PMID37093688
PMCPMC10148065
OpenAlexW4366964386

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.