Literature DB >> 30993424

A critical appraisal of biomarkers in prostate cancer.

Vikram M Narayan1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A number of urine and blood-based biomarker tests have been described for prostate cancer, although to date there has only been a limited exploration of the methodology behind the validation studies that underpin these tests.
METHODS: In this review, a selection of commercially available urine and blood-based biomarker tests for prostate cancer are described, and the underlying key validation studies for each test are critically appraised using the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 statement.
RESULTS: The ExoDx Prostate Intelliscore, SelectMDx, Progensa PCA3, Mi-Prostate Score, 4K Score, and Prostate Health Index (PHI) tests were reviewed. Most of the validation studies supporting these tests perform exploratory analyses to determine cut-off values in a post hoc manner, comprise cohorts that are primarily Caucasian, report receiver operating characteristic curves that combine the biomarker's result with established clinical nomograms and are based on a reference standard (prostate biopsy) that lacks central pathology review. Deficiencies in STARD reporting guidelines include frequent failure to provide a published study protocol, prospective study registration in a registry, a flow diagram, justification for sample size determination, a discussion of adverse events with testing, and information on how missing or indeterminate test results should be managed.
CONCLUSIONS: Key validation studies that support many commercially available urine and blood-based biomarkers for prostate cancers have deficiencies in transparency based on STARD reporting guidelines, and limitations in methodology must be considered when deciding when these tests should be applied in clinical practice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomarkers; Critical appraisal; Diagnostic test accuracy; Genomic tests; Prostate cancer; STARD

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30993424     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02759-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  39 in total

1.  CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

Authors:  David Moher; Sally Hopewell; Kenneth F Schulz; Victor Montori; Peter C Gøtzsche; P J Devereaux; Diana Elbourne; Matthias Egger; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-03-23

2.  Post hoc choice of cut points introduced bias to diagnostic research.

Authors:  Ben Ewald
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-05-26       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Cancer statistics for African Americans, 2016: Progress and opportunities in reducing racial disparities.

Authors:  Carol E DeSantis; Rebecca L Siegel; Ann Goding Sauer; Kimberly D Miller; Stacey A Fedewa; Kassandra I Alcaraz; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 4.  Novel biomarkers for prostate cancer: An evidence-based review for use in clinical practice.

Authors:  Vikram M Narayan; Badrinath R Konety; Christopher Warlick
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 3.369

5.  Urine TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcript integrated with PCA3 score, genotyping, and biological features are correlated to the results of prostatic biopsies in men at risk of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jean-Nicolas Cornu; Géraldine Cancel-Tassin; Christophe Egrot; Cécile Gaffory; François Haab; Olivier Cussenot
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2012-07-20       Impact factor: 4.104

6.  Screening for Prostate Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Authors:  David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Douglas K Owens; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Aaron B Caughey; Karina W Davidson; Chyke A Doubeni; Mark Ebell; John W Epling; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Martha Kubik; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Albert L Siu; Chien-Wen Tseng
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  A multicenter study of [-2]pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range.

Authors:  William J Catalona; Alan W Partin; Martin G Sanda; John T Wei; George G Klee; Chris H Bangma; Kevin M Slawin; Leonard S Marks; Stacy Loeb; Dennis L Broyles; Sanghyuk S Shin; Amabelle B Cruz; Daniel W Chan; Lori J Sokoll; William L Roberts; Ron H N van Schaik; Isaac A Mizrahi
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Incorporating Biomarkers into the Primary Prostate Biopsy Setting: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Niranjan J Sathianathen; Karen M Kuntz; Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Nathan L Lawrentschuk; Damien M Bolton; Declan G Murphy; Christopher J Weight; Badrinath R Konety
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both.

Authors:  Beverley J Shea; Barnaby C Reeves; George Wells; Micere Thuku; Candyce Hamel; Julian Moran; David Moher; Peter Tugwell; Vivian Welch; Elizabeth Kristjansson; David A Henry
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2017-09-21

10.  A panel of kallikrein markers can reduce unnecessary biopsy for prostate cancer: data from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening in Göteborg, Sweden.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Gunnar Aus; Carl-Gustav Pihl; Charlotte Becker; Kim Pettersson; Peter T Scardino; Jonas Hugosson; Hans Lilja
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2008-07-08       Impact factor: 8.775

View more
  5 in total

1.  PCA3 in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Roberta Gunelli; Eugenia Fragalà; Massimo Fiori
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

Review 2.  Prostate Cancer Epigenetic Plasticity and Enhancer Heterogeneity: Molecular Causes, Consequences and Clinical Implications.

Authors:  Jeroen Kneppers; Andries M Bergman; Wilbert Zwart
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2022       Impact factor: 3.650

3.  Heterogeneity in Genomic Risk Assessment from Tissue Based Prognostic Signatures Used in the Biopsy Setting and the Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy.

Authors:  Sanoj Punnen; Radka Stoyanova; Deukwoo Kwon; Isildinha M Reis; Nachiketh Soodana-Prakash; Chad R Ritch; Bruno Nahar; Mark L Gonzalgo; Bruce Kava; Yang Liu; Himanshu Arora; Sandra M Gaston; Rosa P Castillo Acosta; Alan Dal Pra; Matthew Abramowitz; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Elai Davicioni; Alan Pollack; Dipen J Parekh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-12-24       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Random forest-based modelling to detect biomarkers for prostate cancer progression.

Authors:  Reka Toth; Heiko Schiffmann; Claudia Hube-Magg; Franziska Büscheck; Doris Höflmayer; Sören Weidemann; Patrick Lebok; Christoph Fraune; Sarah Minner; Thorsten Schlomm; Guido Sauter; Christoph Plass; Yassen Assenov; Ronald Simon; Jan Meiners; Clarissa Gerhäuser
Journal:  Clin Epigenetics       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 6.551

5.  Fascin-1 and its role as a serological marker in prostate cancer: a prospective case-control study.

Authors:  Octavian Sabin Tătaru; Orsolya Martha; Felice Crocetto; Biagio Barone; Septimiu Voidazan; Angela Borda; Anca Sin; Adina Hutanu; Andrada Loghin; Ileana Sin; Daniel Porav-Hodade; Calin Bogdan Chibelean; Liliana Vartolomei; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Matteo Ferro; Virgil Gheorghe Osan; Carlo Buonerba; Mihai Dorin Vartolomei
Journal:  Future Sci OA       Date:  2021-06-30
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.