PROSTATE CANCER DETECTION ON URINALYSIS FOR Α METHYLACYL COENZYME a RACEMASE PROTEIN

Rogers, Craig G.; Yan, Gai; Zha, Shan; Gonzalgo, Mark L.; Isaacs, William B.; Luo, Jun; Marzo, Angelo M. De; Nelson, William G.; Pavlovich, Christian P.

doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000137659.53129.14

Cited by 88 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Markers were chosen according to previous studies as being either detectable in urine or appropriate for combined models. AMACR, 7,15,16 SPINK1, 5,17 EZH2, 3,6 GOLM1, 5,18 TRPM8 are overexpressed in CaP, 3,6,19,20 while MSMB is prostate specific but underexpressed in cancer. [21][22][23] Only AMACR was a significant predictor of cancer in the univariate analysis.…”

Section: -13mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quadriplex model enhances urine-based detection of prostate cancer

Jamaspishvili

Král

Khomeriki

et al. 2011

Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:The major advantages of urine-based assays are their non-invasive character and ability to monitor prostate cancer (CaP) with heterogeneous foci. While the test for the prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) is commercially available, the aim of our research was to test other putative urine markers in multiplex settings (AMACR (a-methylacyl-CoA racemase), EZH2 (enhancer of zeste homolog 2), GOLM1 (golgi membrane protein 1), MSMB (microseminoprotein, b), SPINK1 (serine peptidase inhibitor) and TRPM8 (transient receptor potential cation channel, subfamily M, member 8)). METHODS:Expression of the candidate biomarkers was studied in sedimented urine using quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction in two sets of patients with and without restriction on serum PSA levels. RESULTS:We confirmed that PCA3 is an independent predictor of cancer in the patients without restriction of serum PSA values (set 1, n ¼ 176, PSA ¼ 0.1-587 ng ml -1 ). However, AMACR was the only parameter that differentiated CaP from nonCaP patients with serum PSA between 3 and 15 ng ml -1 (set 2, n ¼ 104). The area under curve (AUC) for this gene was 0.645 with both sensitivity and specificity at 65%. Further improvement was achieved by multivariate logistic regression analysis, which identified novel duplex (TRPM8 and MSMB), triplex (plus AMACR) and quadriplex (plus PCA3) models for the detection of early CaPs (AUC ¼ 0.665, 0.726 and 0.741, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Novel quadriplex test could be implemented as an adjunct to serum PSA or urine PCA3 and this could improve decision making for diagnostics in the case of 'PSA dilemma' patients.

show abstract

Section: -13mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quadriplex model enhances urine-based detection of prostate cancer

Jamaspishvili

Král

Khomeriki

et al. 2011

Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Western blot analysis for AMACR was used on voided urine after TRUS and biopsy, showing a 100% sensitivity and 58% specificity for CaP detection in the group of patients with negative biopsy findings. 10 In another study, the quantification of AMACR transcripts normalized to PSA transcripts in prostate secretions was predictive of CaP. 11 On the other hand, AMACR transcripts normalized to PSA were not statistically significant predictors of CaP in a recent multiplex study of urine markers (see below).…”

Section: Advantages and Limitations Of Novel Urine Markersmentioning

confidence: 98%

Urine markers in monitoring for prostate cancer

Jamaspishvili

Král

Khomeriki

et al. 2009

Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The major advantages of urine-based assays are their noninvasive character and ability to monitor prostate cancer with heterogeneous foci. Almost all urine-detectable prostate-specific markers have been recently reviewed. For this reason, we focus here on only a few promising markers which have been independently evaluated (in particular PCA3, fusion genes, TERT, AMACR, GSTP1, MMP9 and VEGF) and very recent ones (ANXA3 and sarcosine). The emphasis is also on multiplex biomarker analysis and on microarray-based analysis of fusion genes. A combination of multiple urine biomarkers may be valuable in the case of men with persistently elevated serum prostatespecific antigen and a history of negative biopsies. The emerging urine tests should help in both early diagnosis of prostate cancer and identifying aggressive tumors for radical treatment.

show abstract

“…If possible, evaluation of diagnostic tests should be performed in a blinded fashion. Only 7 studies explicitly reported using a blinded design (13,15,19,24,36,39,40 ). One of these studies (40 ) used different urine sampling methods among cases and controls, which may hinder comparability of results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urine Markers as Possible Tools for Prostate Cancer Screening: Review of Performance Characteristics and Practicality

Müller¹,

Brenner²

2006

Clinical Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:In recent years, an increasing number of urine-based tests have been proposed as potential screening tests for prostate cancer. The goal of this review was to summarize the current status of evidence regarding performance characteristics of the proposed tests and their practicality under screening conditions. Method: Relevant articles published up to and including May 2005 were identified in the PubMed database. At least 10 cases and 10 controls had to be analyzed for a study to be included in the review. Data concerning the study population, performance characteristics, and the collection and processing of urine samples were extracted from the reviewed articles. Results: In all, 34 retrospective studies evaluating 21 different markers complied with the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were rather small and included heterogeneous clinical study populations. Promising results were reported for a few markers in single studies, but they have often not been replicated in subsequent larger studies. Some of the more promising results were obtained with 24-h urines or with specimenhandling procedures that might be difficult to perform under screening conditions. Conclusions: Larger studies with a prospective design are required to confirm promising findings regarding performance characteristics of some novel markers recently reported in mostly small studies. Future studies should also pay particular attention to the practicality of the markers under screening conditions.

show abstract

PROSTATE CANCER DETECTION ON URINALYSIS FOR Α METHYLACYL COENZYME a RACEMASE PROTEIN

Cited by 88 publications

References 13 publications

Quadriplex model enhances urine-based detection of prostate cancer

Quadriplex model enhances urine-based detection of prostate cancer

Urine markers in monitoring for prostate cancer

Urine Markers as Possible Tools for Prostate Cancer Screening: Review of Performance Characteristics and Practicality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About