gms | German Medical Science

27th German Cancer Congress Berlin 2006

German Cancer Society (Frankfurt/M.)

22. - 26.03.2006, Berlin

Urine markers as possible tools for prostate cancer screening: a review focusing on performance characteristics and practicalness

Meeting Abstract

Search Medline for

  • corresponding author presenting/speaker Heiko Müller - Deutsches Zentrum für Alternsforschung, Heidelberg, Deutschland
  • Hermann Brenner - Deutsches Zentrum für Alternsforschung, Heidelberg

27. Deutscher Krebskongress. Berlin, 22.-26.03.2006. Düsseldorf, Köln: German Medical Science; 2006. DocPE328

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.egms.de/en/meetings/dkk2006/06dkk438.shtml

Published: March 20, 2006

© 2006 Müller et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.


Outline

Text

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 practicalness under screening conditions.

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

Results: All in all 32 retrospective studies – evaluating 19 different markers - complied with the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were rather small and were conducted among 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 urine or with handling of specimens that might be difficult to realize under screening conditions.

Conclusion: 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 practicalness of the markers under screening conditions.