Urinary proteome analysis for prostate cancer diagnosis: Cost-effective application in routine clinical practice in Germany

International Journal of Urology

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 118-125

  Schiffer, Eric ^a,c   Bick, Carsten ^b   Grizelj, Branko ^d   Pietzker, Stephan ^e   Schöfer, Wolfgang ^b  

^a MOSAIQUES DIAGNOSTICS GMBH   (Germany)

^b Urological Office   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^d Urological Office   (Liechtenstein)

^e Urological Office   (Spain)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Diagnosis; Prostate cancer; Proteome analysis; Urine

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROTEOME;

AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; FOLLOW UP; GERMANY; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NON INVASIVE PROCEDURE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN URINE LEVEL; PROTEOMICS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TEMPERATURE; URINALYSIS; URINARY PROTEOME ANALYSIS; WORK EXPERIENCE;

AGED; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; ELECTROPHORESIS, CAPILLARY; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GERMANY; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SPECTROMETRY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; PROTEOME; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84856222454     PISSN: 09198172     EISSN: 14422042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02901.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E. Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. N. Engl. J. Med. 1987; 317: 909-16.
2. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M etal. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur. Urol. 2011; 59: 61-71.
3. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E etal. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2006; 56: 106-30.
4. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ etal. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009; 360: 1320-8.
5. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G etal. Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11: 725-32.
6. Presti JC Jr. Prostate cancer: assessment of risk using digital rectal examination, tumor grade, prostate-specific antigen, and systematic biopsy. Radiol. Clin. North Am. 2000; 38: 49-58.
7. Terris MK. Sensitivity and specificity of sextant biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: preliminary report. Urology 1999; 54: 486-9.
8. Wefer AE, Hricak H, Vigneron DB etal. Sextant localization of prostate cancer: comparison of sextant biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with step section histology. J. Urol. 2000; 164: 400-4.
9. Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ. Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study. J. Urol. 2002; 167: 2435-9.
10. Fink KG, Esterbauer B, Hutarew G, Jungwirth A, Schmeller N. Effizienz der Rebiopsie der Prostata: untersuchungen von Transitionalzonen- und lateralen Biopsien. J. Urol. 2003; 4: 7-11.
11. Amsellem-Ouazana D, Younes P, Conquy S etal. Negative prostatic biopsies in patients with a high risk of prostate cancer. Is the combination of endorectal MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) a useful tool? A preliminary study. Eur. Urol. 2005; 47: 582-6.
12. Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U etal. MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur. Urol. 2006; 50: 738-48.
13. Wittke S, Schiffer E, Bauer HW. Capillary electrophoresis coupled to mass spectrometry for proteome analysis: an innovative diagnostic method for prostate and bladder cancer. Urologe A 2007; 46: 733-9.
14. Theodorescu D, Schiffer E, Bauer HW etal. Discovery and validation of urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer. Proteomics Clin. Appl. 2008; 2: 556-70.
15. Dakna M, He Z, Yu WC, Mischak H, Kolch W. Technical, bioinformatical and statistical aspects of liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry (CE-MS) based clinical proteomics: a critical assessment. J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2009; 877: 1250-8.
16. Chun FK, Karakiewicz PI, Briganti A etal. A critical appraisal of logistic regression-based nomograms, artificial neural networks, classification and regression-tree models, look-up tables and risk-group stratification models for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2007; 99: 794-800.
17. Kolch W, Neususs C, Pelzing M, Mischak H. Capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry as a powerful tool in clinical diagnosis and biomarker discovery. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 2005; 24: 959-77.
18. Theodorescu D, Wittke S, Ross MM etal. Discovery and validation of new protein biomarkers for urothelial cancer: a prospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2006; 7: 230-40.
19. Oberpenning F, von KR, Sprute W etal. DiaPat urine test for prostate cancer: predictive value for results of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies. Urologe A 2008; 47: 735-9.
20. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ 1996; 313: 275-83.