Clinical Chemistry AACC Online Job Center
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 52: 562-573, 2006. First published February 16, 2006; 10.1373/clinchem.2005.062919
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2005.062919v1
52/4/562    most recent
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Müller, H.
Right arrow Articles by Brenner, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Müller, H.
Right arrow Articles by Brenner, H.
Related Collections
Right arrow Cancer Diagnostics (since 2002)
(Clinical Chemistry. 2006;52:562-573.)
© 2006 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Reviews

Urine Markers as Possible Tools for Prostate Cancer Screening: Review of Performance Characteristics and Practicality

Heiko Müller and Hermann Brennera

Department of Epidemiology, German Centre for Research on Ageing, Bergheimer Strasse 20, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany.

aAuthor for correspondence. Fax 49-6221-548142; e-mail h.brenner{at}dkfz-heidelberg.de.

Background: In recent years, an increasing number of urine-based tests have been proposed as potential screening tests for prostate cancer. The goal of this review was to summarize the current status of evidence regarding performance characteristics of the proposed tests and their practicality under screening conditions.

Method: Relevant articles published up to and including May 2005 were identified in the PubMed database. At least 10 cases and 10 controls had to be analyzed for a study to be included in the review. Data concerning the study population, performance characteristics, and the collection and processing of urine samples were extracted from the reviewed articles.

Results: In all, 34 retrospective studies evaluating 21 different markers complied with the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were rather small and included heterogeneous clinical study populations. Promising results were reported for a few markers in single studies, but they have often not been replicated in subsequent larger studies. Some of the more promising results were obtained with 24-h urines or with specimen-handling procedures that might be difficult to perform under screening conditions.

Conclusions: Larger studies with a prospective design are required to confirm promising findings regarding performance characteristics of some novel markers recently reported in mostly small studies. Future studies should also pay particular attention to the practicality of the markers under screening conditions.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.