ArticleBMC cancer2026
The expression significance and non-invasive detection of REEP6 and REEP5 in prostate cancer.
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
Abstract
backgroundProstate cancer remains one of the most common malignancies in men. The diagnostic specificity of prostate-specific antigen is limited, and additional non-invasive biomarkers are needed. This study investigated the expression and clinical relevance of receptor expression-enhancing protein 5 (REEP5) and receptor expression-enhancing protein 6 (REEP6) in prostate cancer and assessed their potential as urinary biomarkers.
methodsUrinary REEP5 and REEP6 concentrations were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in patients with prostate cancer, benign prostatic hyperplasia, urothelial carcinoma, and clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Immunohistochemistry was performed on prostate cancer tissues, adjacent non-tumour prostate tissues, urothelial carcinoma tissues, and clear-cell renal cell carcinoma tissues. Urinary proteomic analysis was also used for cross-disease comparison. Associations with clinicopathological features and survival outcomes were evaluated using chi-square testing, Spearman's correlation coefficient for ranked data (Spearman's ρ), Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression model (Cox regression model).
resultsUrinary REEP6 and REEP5 concentrations were significantly higher in the prostate cancer group than in the other disease groups. The mean concentrations of REEP6 and REEP5 in prostate cancer urine were 0.504 ± 0.052 ng/mL and 0.338 ± 0.031 ng/mL, respectively (both P < 0.0001 versus the comparator groups). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of urinary REEP5 and REEP6, which exhibited numerical sensitivity and specificity of 100% for distinguishing prostate cancer from the comparator groups; notably, this seemingly perfect diagnostic performance should be interpreted with extreme caution due to the limited sample size of the control cohort.In tissue analysis, REEP6 showed a positivity rate of 91.2% in prostate cancer and 10.0% in normal prostate tissue, corresponding to a sensitivity of 91.2% and a specificity of 90.0%. REEP5 showed high sensitivity (98.9%) but low specificity (10.0%) in tissue immunohistochemistry. High REEP6 expression was positively correlated with tissue PSA expression (r = 0.219, P = 0.037). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that high REEP6 expression was associated with longer progression-free survival [(75.650 ± 5.288) months versus (41.255 ± 4.068) months, P = 0.034]. For cancer-specific survival, high REEP6 expression showed a non-significant trend toward longer survival [(79.420 ± 4.156) months versus (51.705 ± 5.417) months, P = 0.067]. Multivariate Cox regression indicated that high REEP6 expression was an independent factor associated with progression-free survival (HR = 0.270, 95% CI 0.074-0.983, P = 0.047).
conclusionsREEP5 and REEP6 are significantly upregulated in urine and tissue samples from patients with prostate cancer. REEP6 showed higher tissue specificity and prognostic relevance, whereas REEP5 showed high sensitivity but limited tissue specificity. These preliminary findings suggest that urinary REEP5 and REEP6, especially REEP6, may serve as potential exploratory candidate biomarkers for non-invasive auxiliary diagnosis of prostate cancer.Larger prospective studies with independent validation cohorts are required.
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.