Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40606769›Full record

ReviewThe journal of liquid biopsy2025

Blood and urine-based biomarkers in prostate cancer: Current advances, clinical applications, and future directions.

Felice Crocetto, Michele Musone, Stefano Chianese, Paolo Conforti, Gaetano Digitale Selvaggio, Vincenzo Francesco Caputo, Roberto Falabella, Francesco Del Giudice, Carlo Giulioni, Angelo Cafarelli and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of liquid biopsy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Current status of prostate cancer screening research].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Solid nano-lipoidal intelligent premix (SNIP): designing, optimization, and characterization.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

16 authors.

Felice CrocettoDepartment of Neurosciences, Sciences of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Michele MusoneDepartment of Neurosciences, Sciences of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Stefano ChianeseDepartment of Neurosciences, Sciences of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Paolo ConfortiDepartment of Neurosciences, Sciences of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Gaetano Digitale SelvaggioDepartment of Neurosciences, Sciences of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Vincenzo Francesco CaputoUrology Unit, San Carlo Hospital, Via Potito Petrone, Potenza, 85100, Italy.
Roberto FalabellaUrology Unit, San Carlo Hospital, Via Potito Petrone, Potenza, 85100, Italy.
Francesco Del GiudiceDepartment of Maternal infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto 1 Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Carlo GiulioniCasa di Cura Villa Igea, Via Maggini, 200, Ancona, Italy.
Angelo CafarelliCasa di Cura Villa Igea, Via Maggini, 200, Ancona, Italy.
Giuseppe LucarelliDepartment of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area-Urology, Andrology and Kidney Transplantation Unit, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy.
Gian Maria BusettoDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, University of Foggia, 71122, Foggia, Italy.
Matteo FerroUnit of Urology, Department of Health Science, University of Milan, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, 20172, Milan, Italy.
Biagio BaroneDepartment of Urology, Ospedale San Paolo, ASL NA1 Centro, 80147, Naples, Italy.
Fabio ZattoniDepartment of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Daniela TerraccianoDepartment of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most prevalent malignancies in men, characterized by high clinical and molecular heterogeneity. Despite the widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for diagnosis and monitoring, its limited specificity and sensitivity necessitate the development of more accurate biomarkers. This review provides a comprehensive overview of current and emerging diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers in PCa, highlighting their clinical applications and future perspectives. PSA, though historically central in PCa screening, lacks tumor specificity, often leading to unnecessary biopsies or missed aggressive cancers. Recent blood-based biomarkers, such as the Prostate Health Index (PHI) and 4Kscore, improve specificity by integrating PSA isoforms or kallikrein protein levels with clinical parameters. Urine-based biomarkers like PCA3 and SelectMDx further enhance diagnostic precision, particularly in distinguishing high-grade tumors, and show potential in active surveillance settings. Prognostic markers such as Bcl-2, Ki-67, and EZH2, alongside genetic alterations like MCM7 and 8q gain, help stratify patients by tumor aggressiveness and risk of recurrence. Liquid biopsies, including circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs), offer non-invasive alternatives for molecular profiling, especially in metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC), and can identify actionable alterations such as BRCA1/2 or ATM mutations. Emerging technologies such as machine learning and single-cell omics are reshaping biomarker discovery. Artificial intelligence-driven models, like the replication stress signature (RSS), show promise in predicting relapse and therapeutic response. Single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics have deepened our understanding of PCa heterogeneity, tumour microenvironment, and resistance mechanisms. Furthermore, novel biomarkers, including exosome RNAs and immune-related markers (PD-L1, SOX2, TcellinfGEP), offer insights into tumour progression and immunotherapeutic potential. The urinary and gut microbiomes are also being explored for their diagnostic and prognostic roles in PCa. In conclusion, integrating advanced molecular tools and biomarker-guided platforms into clinical practice can significantly enhance early detection, personalized treatment, and monitoring in prostate cancer, paving the way for precision oncology.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceBiomarkersLiquid biopsyPrecision medicineProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID40606769
PMCPMC12221370

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.