ArticleBMC cancer2026
Proclarix' performance in ruling out patients with no or indolent prostate cancer: evaluation in a Danish population.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPSA testing is widely used for the early detection of prostate cancer (PCa), but its low specificity leads to overdiagnosis and unnecessary interventions. Proclarix, a novel blood test combining serum levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA), percentage of free PSA (%fPSA), Cathepsin D (CTSD) and Thrombospondin 1 (THBS1) with age into a risk score, aims to improve risk stratification by predicting clinically significant PCa (csPCa). This study evaluated its diagnostic performance in a Danish population using retrospective serum samples collected consecutively from patients with suspected PCa.
methodsProclarix' ability to reduce biopsies and detection of clinically insignificant PCa (ciPCa, defined as Grade Group < 2) was assessed in men with a PSA 2-10 ng/ml and a prostate volume of ≥ 35 ml (targeted population) compared with the percentage of free PSA (%fPSA) and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ERSPC-RC). The secondary analysis included the performance of Proclarix' and Proclarix density compared with the %fPSA and PSA density (PSA-D) in a broader population with a PSA 2-20 ng/ml regardless of both prostate volume and DRE (extended population). Proclarix score is considered negative when it's below the cutoff 10%.
resultsIn the targeted population (n = 373), a negative Proclarix test significantly reduced the probability of csPCa from 27% (pretest) to 5% (posttest, 95%CI: 0-10%), (p < 0.028) outperforming %fPSA (posttest 14%, 95%CI: 4-24%) and ERSPC-RC (posttest 20%, 95%CI: 4-36%). For the diagnosis of csPCa, Proclarix had a significantly (p < 0.01) greater specificity of 22% (95%CI: 17-27%) at 97% sensitivity (95%CI: 94-100%) and 95% NPV (95%CI: 90-100%) than did %fPSA and the ERSPC-RC, with 14% (95%CI: 10-18%) and 7% (95%CI: 4-11%) specificity, respectively. In the extended population (n = 656), Proclarix density had significantly (p < 0.01) greater specificity (39%, 95%CI: 35-44%) than did PSA-D (32%, 95%CI: 27-36%) at an equal sensitivity of 90%.
conclusionsProclarix reduces prostate biopsies and ciPCa detection while maintaining a low risk of missing csPCa.
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.