Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39838708›Full record

ArticleThe Prostate2025

Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity of the PROSTest in an American Cohort.

Kambiz Rahbar, Mark Kidd, Vikas Prasad, R David Rosin, Ignat Drozdov, Abdel Halim

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Prostate, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT06872619 enrolling by invitationnot on this map

A Registry for Prostate Cancers

TypeobservationalSponsorWren Laboratories LLCRan2020 to 2030Enrolled1,000ConditionsProstate Cancer (Adenocarcinoma), Prostate Biopsy, Prostatectomy, RadioligandArmsPROSTest
NCT07454603 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

A Single-arm, Multicenter Prospective Study to Evaluate the Diagnostic Performance of PROSTest in Men With PSA ≥ 3ng/ml Using Biopsy as the Sole Ground Truth

TypeobservationalSponsorWren Laboratories LLCRan2026 to 2027Enrolled1,500ConditionsProstate Cancer, Urology, Prostate Cancer (Diagnosis)ArmsPROSTEST
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
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

6 authors.

Kambiz RahbarDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Munster, Munster, Germany.
Mark KiddWren Laboratories, Branford, Connecticut, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1525-5167
Vikas PrasadDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
R David RosinUniversity of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus, Barbados.
Ignat DrozdovBering Research, London, UK.
Abdel HalimWren Laboratories, Branford, Connecticut, USA.

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionProstate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men in the United States, following skin cancer, with an incidence rate of 112.7 per 100,000 men per year. The need for a reliable, non-invasive diagnostic tool for early PCa detection (screening, biochemical residual disease) remains unmet due to the limitations of PSA testing, which often leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The PROSTest is a novel, blood-based qPCR assay that assesses gene expression to diagnose PCa and predict patient outcomes to different treatments. This study aimed to validate the sensitivity and specificity of the PROSTest in a diverse cohort of US-based PCa patients compared to healthy controls. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis prospective study included 143 PCa patients and 92 healthy controls. Blood samples were collected, and the PROSTest was conducted following RNA isolation and cDNA production, using a predefined 27-gene algorithm to provide a binary output. The assay's sensitivity and specificity were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, with a 50% score cut-off distinguishing PCa from non-PCa patients. Analytical reproducibility was assessed with intra- and inter-assay comparisons of Ct values and PROSTest scores.

resultsThe PROSTest demonstrated a sensitivity of 94% (95% CI 89-98%) and a specificity of 88% (95% CI 80-94%) in distinguishing PCa patients from controls, with an area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of 0.97. The false positive rate among controls was 12%. Intra- and inter-assay reproducibility was confirmed with no significant differences in Ct values or PROSTest scores between operators or assays. PROSTest scores were significantly higher in PCa patients compared to controls and in those undergoing treatment versus untreated patients.

conclusionThis validation study confirms the high sensitivity and specificity of the PROSTest in detecting PCa in a diverse USA cohort. The assay's robustness and reproducibility support its potential as a reliable diagnostic tool for PCa detection and monitoring. Further studies are warranted to evaluate its utility across broader populations and treatment settings.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorEarly Detection of CancerProstatic NeoplasmsAgedCohort StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityUnited StatesBiomarkers, Tumoractive surveillancebiomarkerdiagnostic accuracyProstate cancerPROSTestqPCR

Identifiers

PMID39838708
PMCPMC11934832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.