ArticleJAMA oncology2024
Development and Validation of an 18-Gene Urine Test for High-Grade Prostate Cancer.
Article in JAMA oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 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
47 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Recent advances in discriminating prostate cancer from benign prostatic diseases in the pre-biopsy population.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2026Review
- Noninvasive Urine Test Predicts Grade Group Upgrading in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Multisite Validation and Comparison with MRI.The Journal of urology · 2026Article
- Evolving role of biomarkers beyond prostate‑specific antigen in refining prostate cancer screening: From blood‑based tests to urinary and genetic markers (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
- Urinary Biomarkers in Urological Oncology: From Biological Origin to Clinical Decision-Making-A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Mechanism-Driven Diagnostic Development: A Specimen-Aware Framework Illustrated by Colorectal Cancer and Solid Tumours.Cancers · 2026Review
- Development and validation of a two-gene urine DNA methylation assay for noninvasive prostate cancer detection: a prospective multicenter study.Molecular biomedicine · 2026Article
- Early-Onset Prostate Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Biology, Clinical Features, Management, and Early Detection.MedComm · 2026Review
- Towards implementation of precision medicine biomarkers in early detection and prognostication of prostate cancer.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2026Review
- Optimizing Sequential Decision Rules for Prostate Cancer Biopsy Management: A Multi-Objective Statistical Framework.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2026Article
- Leveraging Commercially Available Protein Assays as Biomarkers for Lung Cancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Inflammatory and Epigenetic Biomarkers in Prostate Disease: Current Evidence, Clinical Limitations, and Future Multimarker Strategies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Analytical Validation of MyProstateScore 2.0-Active Surveillance: A Urinary-Based Clinical RT-PCR Prostate Cancer Assay.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Prostate Cancer Screening in Contemporary Era: PSA-Based Testing and Risk-Adapted Approaches.Cancers · 2026Review
- Two-Step Error-Controlling Classifiers With Application to Cost-Effective Disease Diagnosis.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Rapid Decentralized Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification by Portable Liquid Biopsy Analysis within a Clinical Biosensor Validation Framework.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Validation and context-dependent effects of a prostate cancer polygenic risk score in the All of Us Research Program.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Urinary miR-191-5p levels are significantly reduced after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer.Cancer cell international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Benefits of prostate cancer (PCa) screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) alone are largely offset by excess negative biopsies and overdetection of indolent cancers resulting from the poor specificity of PSA for high-grade PCa (ie, grade group [GG] 2 or greater). Objective: To develop a multiplex urinary panel for high-grade PCa and validate its external performance relative to current guideline-endorsed biomarkers. Design, Setting, and Participants: RNA sequencing analysis of 58 724 genes identified 54 markers of PCa, including 17 markers uniquely overexpressed by high-grade cancers. Gene expression and clinical factors were modeled in a new urinary test for high-grade PCa (MyProstateScore 2.0 [MPS2]). Optimal models were developed in parallel without prostate volume (MPS2) and with prostate volume (MPS2+). The locked models underwent blinded external validation in a prospective National Cancer Institute trial cohort. Data were collected from January 2008 to December 2020, and data were analyzed from November 2022 to November 2023. Exposure: Protocolized blood and urine collection and transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic prostate biopsy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multiple biomarker tests were assessed in the validation cohort, including serum PSA alone, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator, and the Prostate Health Index (PHI) as well as derived multiplex 2-gene and 3-gene models, the original 2-gene MPS test, and the 18-gene MPS2 models. Under a testing approach with 95% sensitivity for PCa of GG 2 or greater, measures of diagnostic accuracy and clinical consequences of testing were calculated. Cancers of GG 3 or greater were assessed secondarily. Results: Of 761 men included in the development cohort, the median (IQR) age was 63 (58-68) years, and the median (IQR) PSA level was 5.6 (4.6-7.2) ng/mL; of 743 men included in the validation cohort, the median (IQR) age was 62 (57-68) years, and the median (IQR) PSA level was 5.6 (4.1-8.0) ng/mL. In the validation cohort, 151 (20.3%) had high-grade PCa on biopsy. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values were 0.60 using PSA alone, 0.66 using the risk calculator, 0.77 using PHI, 0.76 using the derived multiplex 2-gene model, 0.72 using the derived multiplex 3-gene model, and 0.74 using the original MPS model compared with 0.81 using the MPS2 model and 0.82 using the MPS2+ model. At 95% sensitivity, the MPS2 model would have reduced unnecessary biopsies performed in the initial biopsy population (range for other tests, 15% to 30%; range for MPS2, 35% to 42%) and repeat biopsy population (range for other tests, 9% to 21%; range for MPS2, 46% to 51%). Across pertinent subgroups, the MPS2 models had negative predictive values of 95% to 99% for cancers of GG 2 or greater and of 99% for cancers of GG 3 or greater. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a new 18-gene PCa test had higher diagnostic accuracy for high-grade PCa relative to existing biomarker tests. Clinically, use of this test would have meaningfully reduced unnecessary biopsies performed while maintaining highly sensitive detection of high-grade cancers. These data support use of this new PCa biomarker test in patients with elevated PSA levels to reduce the potential harms of PCa screening while preserving its long-term benefits.
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.