SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Liquid biopsy-based epigenetic signatures for early detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers among men globally. Early detection remains challenging due to the limited specificity of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, which is widely used for screening and diagnosis. Emerging evidence highlights the critical role of epigenetic alterations, particularly DNA methylation and non-coding RNAs, including microRNAs and long non-coding RNAs, in PCa initiation and progression. Notably, these molecular signatures can be detected in body fluids such as blood and urine, thereby offering promising opportunities for the development of non-invasive diagnostic strategies. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD420251062598). PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for studies published between 2015 and 2025 that evaluated epigenetic signatures in liquid biopsies for PCa detection. Eligible studies included case-control, cohort, cross-sectional, and diagnostic accuracy designs, and data on study characteristics, biomarker types, detection methods, and diagnostic performance were independently extracted. Results: Sixty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria from 5,364 screened records. These comprised 14 DNA methylation studies, 51 miRNA studies, and 2 studies with combined epigenetic signatures. Epigenetic biomarkers demonstrated consistent diagnostic potential across multiple liquid biopsy matrices, including serum, plasma, urine, and seminal fluid. GSTP1 and RASSF1A were the most frequently reported DNA methylation markers and showed moderate performance as single markers; however, multi-gene methylation panels achieved higher accuracy. In contrast, microRNAs, particularly when combined into panels, frequently exceeded PSA, especially within the diagnostic grey zone (4-10 ng/mL). miR-21, miR-141, and miR-375 were the most consistently dysregulated miRNAs, although study heterogeneity remained substantial. Overall, studies integrating methylation and miRNA markers with PSA demonstrated improved sensitivity and specificity. Conclusion: Epigenetic biomarkers detected in liquid biopsies show strong potential as non-invasive tools for early prostate cancer diagnosis. Combining DNA methylation, miRNA markers, and PSA may improve diagnostic accuracy compared with PSA alone. Future studies should prioritise standardised methods, cross-platform validation, and large multicentre cohorts. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251062598.
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.