Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40529042›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2025

Clinical significance of urine-based automated detection of GSTP1 methylation for the diagnosis of suspected prostate cancer patients.

Ruidong Ji, Liang Zhang, Yaping Xing, Yifei Zhu, Kaifeng Mao, Mingchi Wang, Kenan Xuan, Yu Yang, Richard Lo, Bingfeng Luo and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

11 authors.

Ruidong Ji *Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Liang Zhang *Maternal and Child Health Research Institute, Translational Medicine Center, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Yaping XingDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Yifei ZhuDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Kaifeng MaoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3236-7272
Mingchi WangDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Kenan XuanDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Yu YangDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Richard LoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Bingfeng LuoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Zhenquan LuDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Glutathione S-transferase Pi-1 (GSTP1) methylation is detectable in prostate cancer (PCa) tissues, blood, and urine post-prostate massage, with elevated levels in urine samples. But its role in urine samples for PCa diagnosis is still unclear. This study aimed to investigate the clinical significance of urine-based automated detection of GSTP1 methylation technology in the diagnosis of clinical suspected PCa patients. Methods: A retrospective study was performed on 120 patients who underwent prostate biopsy at The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital from September 2022 to June 2024. All patients underwent digital rectal examination (DRE) prior to biopsy, with post-DRE urine samples used for GSTP1 methylation testing. Using biopsy pathology as the gold standard, we compared the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of urinary GSTP1 methylation with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for diagnosing PCa. Additionally, we developed a diagnostic prediction model integrating urinary GSTP1 methylation and PSA to assess the combined method's value in enhancing diagnostic efficacy. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of urinary GSTP1 methylation for PCa diagnosis were 81.4% and 83.6%, respectively, with positive predictive value (PPV) of 82.8% and accuracy of 82.5%. In contrast, PSA had sensitivity and specificity of 67.8% and 54.1%, respectively, with PPV of 58.8% and accuracy of 60.8%. Urinary GSTP1 methylation showed no significant difference in sensitivity compared to PSA (P=0.16) but significantly higher specificity (P=0.001). In the PSA gray zone (4.0-10.0 ng/mL), GSTP1 methylation had sensitivity and specificity of 87.5% and 86.2%, respectively, achieving accuracy of 86.7%, demonstrating good diagnostic efficacy. The area under the curve (AUC) for the combined urinary GSTP1 methylation and PSA method was 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84-0.95], P<0.001, significantly superior to PSA alone, notably improving diagnostic efficacy. Conclusions: Automated detection of urinary GSTP1 methylation significantly enhanced PCa diagnostic value, outperforming PSA in sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Combining urinary GSTP1 methylation with PSA notably improved accuracy, especially in the PSA gray zone (4.0-10.0 ng/mL), demonstrating excellent efficacy. This non-invasive, easily performed method showed high diagnostic efficacy, indicating strong clinical potential.

Indexed as

diagnosisglutathione S-transferase Pi-1 (GSTP1)Prostate cancer (PCa)prostate-specific antigen (PSA)urine-based automated detection

Identifiers

PMID40529042
PMCPMC12170280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.