4.6 Review

Combinations of Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen and Plasma Expression Levels of let-7c, miR-30c, miR-141, and miR-375 as Potential Better Diagnostic Biomarkers for Prostate Cancer

期刊

DNA AND CELL BIOLOGY
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 189-200

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/dna.2014.2663

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Fund, Ministry of Education, Youth and Science, Bulgaria [DFNI-B01/28/2012, DUNK01-2/2009]
  2. 7D from - Science Fund, Medical University-Sofia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the current study, expression levels of let-7c, miR-30c, miR-141, and miR-375 in plasma from 59 prostate cancer (PC) patients with different clinicopathological characteristics and two groups of controls: 16 benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) samples and 11 young asymptomatic men (YAM) were analyzed to evaluate their diagnostic and prognostic value in comparison to prostate-specific antigen (PSA). miR-375 was significantly downregulated in 83.5% of patients compared to BPH controls and showed stronger diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve [AUC]=0.809, 95% CI: 0.697-0.922, p=0.00016) compared with PSA (AUC=0.710, 95% CI: 0.559-0.861, p=0.013). Expression levels of let-7c showed potential to distinguish PC patients from BPH controls with AUC=0.757, but the result did not reach significance. Better discriminating performance was observed when combinations of studied biomarkers were used. Sensitivity of 86.8% and specificity of 81.8% were reached when all biomarkers were combined (AUC=0.877) and YAM were used as calibrators. None of the studied microRNAs (miRNAs) showed correlation with clinicopathological characteristics. PSA levels were significantly correlated with the Gleason score, tumor stage, and lymph node metastasis with Spearman correlation coefficients: 0.612, 0.576, and 0.458. In conclusion, the combination of the studied circulating plasma miRNAs and serum PSA has the potential to be used as a noninvasive diagnostic biomarker for PC screening outperforming the PSA testing alone.

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