Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40176971›Full record

ArticleResearch and reports in urology2025

Performance of PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG Within the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator Version 2 in a Lithuanian Cohort.

Jurate Kemesiene, Carlos Nicolau, Gytis Cholstauskas, Kristina Zviniene, Mantvydas Lopeta, Simona Veneviciute, Ieva Asmenaviciute, Kamile Tamosauskaite, Ingrida Pikuniene, Mindaugas Jievaltas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research and reports in urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Jurate KemesieneDepartment of Radiology, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Carlos NicolauDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Gytis CholstauskasDepartment of Urology, Medical Academy, Lithuanian university of health sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Kristina ZvinieneDepartment of Radiology, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Mantvydas LopetaJSC Diagnolita, Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0002-8674-8989
Simona VeneviciuteJSC Diagnolita, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Ieva AsmenaviciuteJSC Diagnolita, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Kamile TamosauskaiteJSC Diagnolita, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Ingrida PikunieneDepartment of Radiology, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Kaunas Clinics, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Mindaugas JievaltasDepartment of Urology, Medical Academy, Lithuanian university of health sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) remains a significant health concern due to its high incidence and associated mortality. Conventional screening approaches, like PSA testing, often lack specificity, resulting in unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment. This study seeks to overcome these limitations by assessing the integration of novel urinary biomarkers into established risk prediction models. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of incorporating urinary biomarkers - prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) gene and ETS-related gene (ERG) fusion genes (T:E) - into the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator version 2 (PCPTRC2) in a Lithuanian cohort to enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Materials and methods: A single-centre prospective study included 246 men scheduled for initial prostate biopsy between January 2021 and August 2024 due to elevated total PSA levels or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE). Following ethical approval and informed consent, urinary samples were collected post-DRE and analysed for PCA3 and T:E. Each patient's risk was calculated using the basic PCPTRC2 and updated versions incorporating biomarkers. Biopsies were performed based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings. Results: Of 209 biopsy samples analysed, 111 (53.1%) were diagnosed with csPCa. The AUC for PCa detection was 59.6% for the original PCPTRC2, improving to 76.2% with PCA3 and further to 79.5% when both PCA3 and T:E were included. Both updated versions demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to the original (p<0.001). However, no significant differences were noted in distinguishing csPCa from non-csPCa. Conclusion: Incorporating PCA3 and T:E into PCPTRC2 substantially enhances diagnostic accuracy for detecting PCa in biopsy-naïve patients. Despite limitations, these findings underscore the potential for optimizing risk calculators in clinical practice, advocating for larger cohorts to validate these results.

Indexed as

biomarker-based risk assessmentmultiparametric MRIPCA3prostate cancerrisk calculatorTMPRSS2:ERG

Identifiers

PMID40176971
PMCPMC11963794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.