The International journal of biological markers · 2015
Alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase and hepsin as urinary prostate cancer markers.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sroka Wiktor Dariusz, Adamowski Marek, Słupski Piotr, Siódmiak Joanna, Jarzemski Piotr, Odrowąż-Sypniewska Grażyna, Marszałł Michał Piotr
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Because of the numerous limitations of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), α-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) and hepsin have recently been suggested as potential biomarkers in prostate cancer (PC). This report presents a comparison study of the presence of AMACR and hepsin in urine collected before and after digital rectal examination (DRE) as a previously suggested diagnostic marker for PC.
METHODS: Seventy-six urine samples (38 before and 38 after prostate massage) from patients with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) and 66 urine samples (33 before and 33 after prostate massage) from patients with PC were analyzed. PC was confirmed by prostate biopsy. Urinary levels of AMACR and hepsin were determined by ELISA and related to the tumor stage, Gleason score and PSA level.
RESULTS: AMACR and hepsin levels in urine collected after prostate massage were higher only in the PC group. There were no correlations between AMACR levels, hepsin levels, tumor stage and Gleason score. AMACR and hepsin did not differentiate between BPH and PC with better true positive and false negative rates than serum PSA.
CONCLUSIONS: AMACR and hepsin were unable to diagnose PC with better true positive and false negative rates than PSA. An additional procedure combined with other markers should be applied for the reliable diagnosis of PC.
METHODS: Seventy-six urine samples (38 before and 38 after prostate massage) from patients with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) and 66 urine samples (33 before and 33 after prostate massage) from patients with PC were analyzed. PC was confirmed by prostate biopsy. Urinary levels of AMACR and hepsin were determined by ELISA and related to the tumor stage, Gleason score and PSA level.
RESULTS: AMACR and hepsin levels in urine collected after prostate massage were higher only in the PC group. There were no correlations between AMACR levels, hepsin levels, tumor stage and Gleason score. AMACR and hepsin did not differentiate between BPH and PC with better true positive and false negative rates than serum PSA.
CONCLUSIONS: AMACR and hepsin were unable to diagnose PC with better true positive and false negative rates than PSA. An additional procedure combined with other markers should be applied for the reliable diagnosis of PC.