Kit Man Chan1, Jonathan M Gleadle2,3, Michael O'Callaghan3,4, Krasimir Vasilev5, Melanie MacGregor6. 1. UniSA STEM, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5095, Australia. 2. Department of Renal Medicine, Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia. 3. Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia. 4. Urology Unit, Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia. 5. Future Industries Institute, UniSA STEM, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5095, Australia. 6. Future Industries Institute, UniSA STEM, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5095, Australia. melanie.macgregor@unisa.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current diagnostic methods for prostate cancer are invasive and lack specificity towards aggressive forms of the disease, which can lead to overtreatment. A new class of non-invasive alternatives is under development, in which urinary biomarkers are detected using biosensing devices to offer rapid and accurate prostate cancer diagnosis. These different approaches are systematically reviewed and their potential for translation to clinical practice is evaluated. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed in May 2021 using PubMed Medline database, Embase, and Web of Science. The objective was to review the structural designs and performance of biosensors tested on urine samples from patients with prostate cancer. RESULTS: A total of 76 records were identified. After screening and eligibility, 14 articles were included and are discussed in this paper. The biosensors were discussed based on the target biomarkers and detection technologies used, as well as the results of the clinical studies. Most of the works reported good discrimination between patients with prostate cancer and controls. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the potential of urinary biosensors for non-invasive prostate cancer detection. However, clinical studies have so far only been conducted on small cohorts of patient, with large scale trials still needed to validate the proposed approaches. Overall, the consensus arising from the proof of concepts studies reviewed here, is that an adequate combination of biomarkers into multiplex biosensor platforms is required to achieve accurate diagnostic tests. Furthermore, whether such devices can discriminate between aggressive and indolent cancer has not yet been addressed, because it entails optimized biomarkers panels and long-term clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: Current diagnostic methods for prostate cancer are invasive and lack specificity towards aggressive forms of the disease, which can lead to overtreatment. A new class of non-invasive alternatives is under development, in which urinary biomarkers are detected using biosensing devices to offer rapid and accurate prostate cancer diagnosis. These different approaches are systematically reviewed and their potential for translation to clinical practice is evaluated. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed in May 2021 using PubMed Medline database, Embase, and Web of Science. The objective was to review the structural designs and performance of biosensors tested on urine samples from patients with prostate cancer. RESULTS: A total of 76 records were identified. After screening and eligibility, 14 articles were included and are discussed in this paper. The biosensors were discussed based on the target biomarkers and detection technologies used, as well as the results of the clinical studies. Most of the works reported good discrimination between patients with prostate cancer and controls. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the potential of urinary biosensors for non-invasive prostate cancer detection. However, clinical studies have so far only been conducted on small cohorts of patient, with large scale trials still needed to validate the proposed approaches. Overall, the consensus arising from the proof of concepts studies reviewed here, is that an adequate combination of biomarkers into multiplex biosensor platforms is required to achieve accurate diagnostic tests. Furthermore, whether such devices can discriminate between aggressive and indolent cancer has not yet been addressed, because it entails optimized biomarkers panels and long-term clinical trials.
Authors: James McKiernan; Michael J Donovan; Eric Margolis; Alan Partin; Ballentine Carter; Gordon Brown; Phillipp Torkler; Mikkel Noerholm; Johan Skog; Neal Shore; Gerry Andriole; Ian Thompson; Peter Carroll Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Steven L Wood; Margaret A Knowles; Douglas Thompson; Peter J Selby; Rosamonde E Banks Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Melanie MacGregor; Hanieh Safizadeh Shirazi; Kit Man Chan; Kola Ostrikov; Kym McNicholas; Alex Jay; Michael Chong; Alexander H Staudacher; Thomas D Michl; Aigerim Zhalgasbaikyzy; Michael P Brown; Moein Navvab Kashani; Adam Di Fiore; Alex Grochowski; Stephen Robb; Simon Belcher; Jordan Li; Jonathan M Gleadle; Krasimir Vasilev Journal: Biosens Bioelectron Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 10.618
Authors: Nicolas Mottet; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Erik Briers; Thomas Van den Broeck; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Stefano Fanti; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Silke Gillessen; Nikos Grivas; Jeremy Grummet; Ann M Henry; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Thomas B Lam; Michael Lardas; Matthew Liew; Malcolm D Mason; Lisa Moris; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Henk G van der Poel; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Derya Tilki; Thomas Wiegel; Peter-Paul M Willemse; Philip Cornford Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-11-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Ziding Feng; David H Howard; Scott A Tomlins; Lori J Sokoll; Daniel W Chan; Meredith M Regan; Jack Groskopf; Jonathan Chipman; Dattatraya H Patil; Simpa S Salami; Douglas S Scherr; Jacob Kagan; Sudhir Srivastava; Ian M Thompson; Javed Siddiqui; Jing Fan; Aron Y Joon; Leonidas E Bantis; Mark A Rubin; Arul M Chinnayian; John T Wei; Mohamed Bidair; Adam Kibel; Daniel W Lin; Yair Lotan; Alan Partin; Samir Taneja Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 31.777