Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38611041›Full record

ReviewCancers2024

Biomarkers for Pre-Treatment Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

José Pedro Sequeira, Sofia Salta, Rui Freitas, Rafael López-López, Ángel Díaz-Lagares, Rui Henrique, Carmen Jerónimo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Advances in laboratory medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Biomarkers in Localized Prostate Cancer: From Diagnosis to Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. METCAM/MUC18 is a Biomarker and Therapeutic Target for Prostate Cancer.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Prostate Cancer.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

José Pedro SequeiraCancer Biology & Epigenetics Group, Research Center of IPO Porto (CI-IPOP)/CI-IPOP @RISE (Health Research Network), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center Raquel Seruca (Porto.CCC Raquel Seruca), R. Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4687-3347
Sofia SaltaCancer Biology & Epigenetics Group, Research Center of IPO Porto (CI-IPOP)/CI-IPOP @RISE (Health Research Network), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center Raquel Seruca (Porto.CCC Raquel Seruca), R. Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-6707-1263
Rui FreitasCancer Biology & Epigenetics Group, Research Center of IPO Porto (CI-IPOP)/CI-IPOP @RISE (Health Research Network), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center Raquel Seruca (Porto.CCC Raquel Seruca), R. Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal.
Rafael López-LópezEpigenomics Unit, Cancer Epigenomics, Translational Medical Oncology Group (ONCOMET), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago (CHUS/SERGAS), 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1315-655X
Ángel Díaz-LagaresEpigenomics Unit, Cancer Epigenomics, Translational Medical Oncology Group (ONCOMET), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago (CHUS/SERGAS), 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Rui HenriqueCancer Biology & Epigenetics Group, Research Center of IPO Porto (CI-IPOP)/CI-IPOP @RISE (Health Research Network), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center Raquel Seruca (Porto.CCC Raquel Seruca), R. Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3171-4666
Carmen JerónimoCancer Biology & Epigenetics Group, Research Center of IPO Porto (CI-IPOP)/CI-IPOP @RISE (Health Research Network), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center Raquel Seruca (Porto.CCC Raquel Seruca), R. Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-4186-5345
Universidade do Porto · PTInstituto de Salud Carlos III · ESInstituto Português de Oncologia Francisco Gentil · PTUniversidade de Santiago de Compostela · ES

Funding

Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia 2022.11060.BDFundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia SFRH/BD/143717/2019Instituto de Salud Carlos III JR17/00016Research Centre of Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto PI-189-CI-IPOP-22-2023-MethylProCancer
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate cancer (PCa) is one of the most frequently occurring malignancies. Although most cases are not life-threatening, approximately 20% endure an unfavorable outcome. PSA-based screening reduced mortality but at the cost of an increased overdiagnosis/overtreatment of low-risk (lrPCa) and favorable intermediate-risk (firPCa) PCa. PCa risk-groups are usually identified based on serum Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA), the Gleason score, and clinical T stage, which have consistent although variable specificity or subjectivity. Thus, more effective and specific tools for risk assessment are needed, ideally making use of minimally invasive methods such as liquid biopsies. In this systematic review we assessed the clinical potential and analytical performance of liquid biopsy-based biomarkers for pre-treatment risk stratification of PCa patients.

methodsStudies that assessed PCa pre-treatment risk were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and MedLine. PCa risk biomarkers were analyzed, and the studies' quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

resultsThe final analysis comprised 24 full-text articles, in which case-control studies predominated, mostly reporting urine-based biomarkers (54.2%) and biomarker quantification by qPCR (41.7%). Categorization into risk groups was heterogeneous, predominantly making use of the Gleason score.

conclusionThis systematic review unveils the substantial clinical promise of using circulating biomarkers in assessing the risk for prostate cancer patients. However, the standardization of groups, categories, and biomarker validation are mandatory before this technique can be implemented. Circulating biomarkers might represent a viable alternative to currently available tools, obviating the need for tissue biopsies, and allowing for faster and more cost-effective testing, with superior analytical performance, specificity, and reproducibility.

Indexed as

biomarkersliquid biopsyprostatic neoplasmsrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID38611041
PMCPMC11011064
OpenAlexW4393353292

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.