Adnan Ali1, Alexander Hoyle, Esther Baena, Noel W Clarke. 1. aProstate Oncobiology bCancer Research UK Manchester Institute cBelfast-Manchester Movember Centre of Excellence, Cancer Research UK Manchester Institute, University of Manchester dDepartment of Surgery, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester eDepartment of Urology, Salford NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics are evolving rapidly. The quest to differentiate 'clinically significant' from 'clinically insignificant' disease has gathered momentum, leading to substantial change in traditional diagnostic approaches. Herein, we review the relevant information on currently available biomarkers and assess their ability to help physicians and patients in making a shared and personalized decision based on their individual risk of harbouring clinically significant disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Serum, urine, tissue and imaging biomarkers have been evaluated to improve the identification of clinically significant disease, and this international effort has yielded promising, but not always consistent results. Changes in MRI technology have realized a quantum change, and this facility is now becoming more widely incorporated into diagnostic and disease risk-stratification protocols. However, standardization and further validation is required. SUMMARY: Acceptance and widespread adoption of serum, urine and genetic markers is awaited, but novel and promising techniques alone and in combination have emerged. With validation and further focus, these may be adopted more widely.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics are evolving rapidly. The quest to differentiate 'clinically significant' from 'clinically insignificant' disease has gathered momentum, leading to substantial change in traditional diagnostic approaches. Herein, we review the relevant information on currently available biomarkers and assess their ability to help physicians and patients in making a shared and personalized decision based on their individual risk of harbouring clinically significant disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Serum, urine, tissue and imaging biomarkers have been evaluated to improve the identification of clinically significant disease, and this international effort has yielded promising, but not always consistent results. Changes in MRI technology have realized a quantum change, and this facility is now becoming more widely incorporated into diagnostic and disease risk-stratification protocols. However, standardization and further validation is required. SUMMARY: Acceptance and widespread adoption of serum, urine and genetic markers is awaited, but novel and promising techniques alone and in combination have emerged. With validation and further focus, these may be adopted more widely.
Authors: Elena S Kotova; Yulia A Savochkina; Yuriy V Doludin; Alexander O Vasilyev; Elena A Prilepskay; Natalia V Potoldykova; Konstantin A Babalyan; Alexandra V Kanygina; Andrey O Morozov; Alexander V Govorov; Dmitry V Enikeev; Elena S Kostryukova; Elena N Ilina; Vadim M Govorun; Dmitry Y Pushkar; Elena I Sharova Journal: Res Rep Urol Date: 2020-09-17
Authors: Christopher Antonio Febres-Aldana; Sarah Alghamdi; Thomas A Weppelmann; Emilio Lastarria; Akshay Bhandari; Yumna Omarzai; Robert J Poppiti Journal: Urol Ann Date: 2020-10-15
Authors: Tae Il Noh; Jong Hyun Tae; Hyung Keun Kim; Ji Sung Shim; Sung Gu Kang; Deuk Jae Sung; Jun Cheon; Jeong Gu Lee; Seok Ho Kang Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 4.679