4.6 Article

Comparative analysis of prostate cancer specific biomarkers PCA3 and ERG in whole urine, urinary sediments and exosomes

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 54, 期 3, 页码 483-492

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2015-0599

关键词

biomarkers; exosomes; PCA3; prostate cancer; urine

资金

  1. EFRO, ULTRASENSE MR [EFRO: 2010-013177]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: PCA3 and ERG are mRNA-based prostate cancer (PCa) specific biomarkers that can be detected in urine. However, urine is a complex substrate that can be separated in several fractions. In this study we compared the levels of PCa-specific biomarkers (PCA3 and ERG) and KLK3 as prostate-specific reference gene in three urine substrates-whole urine, urinary sediment (cell pellet) and exosomes-and evaluated the influence of performing a digital rectal examination (DRE) prior to urine sampling. Methods: First-voided urine samples were prospectively obtained before and after DRE from 29 men undergoing prostate biopsies. The urine was separated in whole urine, cell pellet and exosomes and the biomarker levels were measured with RT-qPCR. Results: PCa was identified in 52% (15/29) of men. In several samples the mRNA levels were below the analytical limit of detection (BDL). The biomarker levels were highest in whole urine and significantly higher after DRE in all substrates. In PCa patients higher levels of PCA3 and ERG were found in all urine substrates after DRE compared to non-PCa patients. Conclusions: This is the first study in which urinary PCaspecific biomarker levels were compared directly in three separate urine fractions. These results suggest that whole urine could be the urine substrate of choice for PCa-diagnostics based on analytical sensitivity, which is reflected directly in the high informative rate. Moreover, the significant positive effect of performing a DRE prior to urine sampling is confirmed. These findings could be of influence in the development of PCa-diagnostic urine tests.

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

4.6
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