Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39412544›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2024

Bladder Cancer detection by urinary methylation markers GHSR/MAL: a validation study.

I J Beijert, Y van den Burgt, A E Hentschel, J Bosschieter, P C Kauer, B I Lissenberg-Witte, R J A van Moorselaar, J A Nieuwenhuijzen, R D M Steenbergen

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

9 authors.

I J BeijertDepartment of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Y van den BurgtDepartment of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A E HentschelDepartment of Urology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J BosschieterDepartment of Urology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
P C KauerDepartment of Urology, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
B I Lissenberg-WitteDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R J A van MoorselaarDepartment of Urology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J A NieuwenhuijzenDepartment of Urology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R D M SteenbergenDepartment of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. r.steenbergen@amsterdamumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough cystoscopy is a reliable tool for detecting bladder cancer, it poses a high burden on patients and entails high costs. This highlights the need for non-invasive and cost-effective alternatives. This study aimed to validate a previously developed urinary methylation marker panel containing GHSR and MAL.

methodsWe enrolled 134 patients who underwent cystoscopy because of hematuria, including 63 individuals with primary bladder cancer and 71 with non-malignant findings. Urine samples were self-collected at home and sent via regular mail. Subsequently, DNA was extracted and the hypermethylation of GHSR and MAL was evaluated using quantitative methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction. The performance of methylation markers was assessed using area-under-the-curve (AUC) analysis and sensitivity and specificity based on pre-established cut-off values.

resultsValidation of the marker panel GHSR/MAL resulted in an AUC of 0.87 at 79% sensitivity and 80% specificity. Sensitivity was comparable to the previous investigation (P > 0.9), though specificity was significantly lower (P = 0.026). Sensitivity was higher for high-grade tumors compared to low-grade tumors (94% vs. 60%, P = 0.002).

conclusionValidation of the GHSR/MAL methylation marker panel on at home collected urine samples confirms its robust performance for bladder cancer detection in a hematuria population, and underscores the diagnostic potential for future clinical application.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorDNA MethylationUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMutL Protein Homolog 1Receptors, GhrelinSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, TumorMutL Protein Homolog 1Receptors, GhrelinBiomarkerDetectionDNA methylationLiquid biopsy(MeSH): bladder CancerUrineValidation

Identifiers

PMID39412544
PMCPMC11485176

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.