Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2013 Dec;5(6):318-29.
doi: 10.1177/1756287213495915.

Biomarkers in prostate cancer surveillance and screening: past, present, and future

K Clint Cary  1 , Mathew R Cooperberg
Affiliations
Review

Biomarkers in prostate cancer surveillance and screening: past, present, and future

K Clint Cary et al. Ther Adv Urol. 2013 Dec.

Abstract

The use of biomarkers for prostate cancer (PCa) screening, detection, and prognostication have revolutionized the diagnosis and management of the disease. Current clinical practice has been driven largely by the utilization of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). The lack of specificity of PSA for PCa has led to both unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of indolent cancers. The recent controversial recommendation by the United States Preventive Services Task Force against PCa screening has highlighted the need for novel clinically useful biomarkers. We review the literature on PCa biomarkers in serum, urine, and tissue. While these markers show promise, none seems poised to replace PSA, but rather may augment it. Further validation and consideration of how these novel markers improve clinical outcome is necessary. The discovery of new genetic markers shows promise in stratifying men with aggressive PCa.

Keywords: Biomarkers; cancer screening; prostate cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest in preparing this article.

References

    1. Abdollah F., Sun M., Thuret R., Jeldres C., Tian Z., Briganti A., et al. (2011) A competing-risks analysis of survival after alternative treatment modalities for prostate cancer patients: 1988–2006. Eur Urol 59: 88–95 - PubMed
    1. Andriole G., Crawford E., Grubb R., Buys S., Chia D., Church T., et al. (2009) Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360: 1310–1319 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ankerst D., Groskopf J., Day J., Blase A., Rittenhouse H., Pollock B., et al. (2008) Predicting prostate cancer risk through incorporation of prostate cancer gene 3. J Urol 180: 1303–1308 - PubMed
    1. Antenor J., Han M., Roehl K., Nadler R., Catalona W. (2004) Relationship between initial prostate specific antigen level and subsequent prostate cancer detection in a longitudinal screening study. J Urol 172: 90–93 - PubMed
    1. Aubin S., Reid J., Sarno M., Blase A., Aussie J., Rittenhouse H., et al. (2010) PCA3 molecular urine test for predicting repeat prostate biopsy outcome in populations at risk: validation in the placebo arm of the dutasteride REDUCE trial. J Urol 184: 1947–1952 - PubMed