4.5 Review

Merging new-age biomarkers and nanodiagnostics for precision prostate cancer management

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS UROLOGY
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 302-317

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41585-019-0178-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
  2. University of Queensland Graduate School International Travel Award
  3. National Breast Cancer Foundation of Australia [CG 1207]
  4. Australian Research Council [DP 140104006, DP 160102836]
  5. Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital Foundation
  6. US National Institutes of Health
  7. US Department of Defense
  8. Prostate Cancer Foundation
  9. A. Alfred Taubman Medical Research Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The accurate identification and stratified treatment of clinically significant early-stage prostate cancer have been ongoing concerns since the outcomes of large international prostate cancer screening trials were reported. The controversy surrounding clinical and cost benefits of prostate cancer screening has highlighted the lack of strategies for discriminating high-risk disease (that requires early treatment) from low-risk disease (that could be managed using watchful waiting or active surveillance). Advances in molecular subtyping and multiomics nanotechnology-based prostate cancer risk delineation can enable refinement of prostate cancer molecular taxonomy into clinically meaningful and treatable subtypes. Furthermore, the presence of intertumoural and intratumoural heterogeneity in prostate cancer warrants the development of novel nanodiagnostic technologies to identify clinically significant prostate cancer in a rapid, cost-effective and accurate manner. Circulating and urinary next-generation prostate cancer biomarkers for disease molecular subtyping and the newest complementary nanodiagnostic platforms for enhanced biomarker detection are promising tools for precision prostate cancer management. However, challenges in merging both aspects and clinical translation still need to be overcome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据