ReviewGenes2026
Molecular and Genetic Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: Recent Developments and Future Perspectives.
Review in Genes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Evaluation of Biological Techniques.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesActive surveillance (AS) has become the standard of care for many men with localised prostate cancer, aiming to avoid the overtreatment of indolent disease while maintaining oncological safety. Despite improvements in diagnostic techniques, misclassification at diagnosis and the limited ability to predict disease progression remain major challenges in AS. Novel molecular and genetic biomarkers, assessed through liquid biopsy approaches, offer the potential to refine patient selection and support risk-adapted monitoring in AS.
methodsWe conducted a narrative review of biomarkers in the context of AS for prostate cancer, framing the discussion in terms of the challenges in AS and how biomarkers may address these. PubMed and Embase were searched for English-language peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2025. International guidelines (AUA, EAU, NCCN, NICE) and reference lists were reviewed manually. Priority was given to large prospective cohorts, meta-analyses, and high-impact publications.
resultsBlood-based assays such as PHI and the 4K score, urinary tests including ExoDx and SelectMDx, and the Prostate Urine Risk (PUR) signatures have all shown associations with disease progression or decisions to undergo earlier treatment. However, studies are often small, use surrogate endpoints, and lack validation in MRI-integrated cohorts. Biomarkers appear most informative in men with Gleason Grade 1 (GG1) disease, while evidence in GG2 cohorts is limited. Cost-effectiveness, heterogeneity of endpoints, and uncertainty in managing discordant biomarker and MRI results remain barriers to clinical adoption.
conclusionsMolecular and genetic biomarkers show promise for improving AS by reducing diagnostic misclassification and enhancing prediction of progression. Future research should define clinically relevant cut-offs, clarify integration with MRI, and evaluate longitudinal use. Demonstrating utility in contemporary cohorts could enable the development of biomarker-guided, personalised AS that maintains safety while minimising harm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.