BJUI compass · 2026
Comparing diagnostic prostate cancer biomarkers using a framework of clinically meaningful criteria.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Wang Shu, Nabavizadeh Behnam, Ramaswamy Ashwin, Davuluri Meena, Zhang Tenny R, Tzeng Michael, Feiertag Nathan, Hu Jim C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To synthesize existing biomarker literature and generate a framework for meaningful comparison between five commonly used diagnostic prostate cancer biomarkers-prostate health index (phi), 4KScore, SelectMDx, ExoDx and MyProstate Score (MPS)-to provide evidence of greatest practical value to providers managing men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) who are considering prostate biopsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten biomarker characteristics reflecting validity, usability and utility were designated as most clinically salient in guiding diagnostic prostate cancer biomarker selection. Whereas usability reflects how well a biomarker individualizes risk and optimizes patient concerns, utility reflects a biomarker's clinical usefulness. A systematic review of the biomarker literature from 2010 to 2022 was performed, and the criteria for each biomarker characteristic were first inductively defined and subsequently determined for each respective biomarker.
RESULTS: Nearly all biomarkers possess wide validity, with phi, 4KScore and MPS validated in Black populations. Compared to other biomarkers, 4KScore had the best usability. For urine-based biomarkers, the better usability of ExoDx versus MPS is offset by its worse validity and utility. All serum-based biomarkers have very high discriminative accuracy and were consequently more accurate in detecting high-grade prostate cancer versus urine-based biomarkers. Overall, 4KScore had the best utility.
CONCLUSION: Our framework enables meaningful comparison of diagnostic prostate cancer biomarkers using criteria most salient to patients and clinicians. We demonstrate that the 4KScore currently possesses the best overall features; despite emerging evidence, more clinical utility, comparative and non-White population validation studies are needed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten biomarker characteristics reflecting validity, usability and utility were designated as most clinically salient in guiding diagnostic prostate cancer biomarker selection. Whereas usability reflects how well a biomarker individualizes risk and optimizes patient concerns, utility reflects a biomarker's clinical usefulness. A systematic review of the biomarker literature from 2010 to 2022 was performed, and the criteria for each biomarker characteristic were first inductively defined and subsequently determined for each respective biomarker.
RESULTS: Nearly all biomarkers possess wide validity, with phi, 4KScore and MPS validated in Black populations. Compared to other biomarkers, 4KScore had the best usability. For urine-based biomarkers, the better usability of ExoDx versus MPS is offset by its worse validity and utility. All serum-based biomarkers have very high discriminative accuracy and were consequently more accurate in detecting high-grade prostate cancer versus urine-based biomarkers. Overall, 4KScore had the best utility.
CONCLUSION: Our framework enables meaningful comparison of diagnostic prostate cancer biomarkers using criteria most salient to patients and clinicians. We demonstrate that the 4KScore currently possesses the best overall features; despite emerging evidence, more clinical utility, comparative and non-White population validation studies are needed.