Urology Journal

Purpose: Detecting prostate cancer, developing therapeutic plans after negative biopsies, and prognosis-based patient counseling can be challenging for many urologists dealing with prostate cancer-specific antigens. New Biomarkers advances made improvement for prediction of responses to therapeutic option and can tell us about survival and recurrence. In this review, we have assessed current and upcoming biomarkers that are opening a new era in diagnosing the disease.

Materials and Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of studies describing prostate cancer biomarkers. Two independent investigators searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Databases to identify biomarkers in prostate cancer conducted a literature review.

Results: Recently, combining prostate cancer-specific biomarkers into a single test has gained increasing attention, especially since the introduction of genomic and molecular tools. The development of the Prostate Health Index (PHI), SelectMDx, and Confirm MDx have shown promising results for prostate cancer detection, in addition to risk stratification and biopsy avoidance. Conclusion: Despite major improvements and innovations in prostate cancer biomarkers, application in current clinical practice is limited. However, these biomarkers have an important role in determining risk, preventing unnecessary prostate biopsies, and predicting prognoses. Additional confirmatory studies will be needed to fully understand the impact of prostate cancer-specific biomarkers.

Abstract:

The terminology of gonadal dysgenesis conditions is considerably abstruse and variable. Despite some efforts in the 2006 Chicago Consensus Statement on DSD , it is still difficult to assign a category and name for some distinct conditions in this document. The rest of the literature has used redundant and variable words, e.g. partial, pure, and complete gonadal dysgenesis suffering equivocality and redundancy, aggravating this inconclusiveness. We attempted to highlight this problem and propose an easier terminology blueprint.

 

Abstract:

The terminology of gonadal dysgenesis conditions is considerably abstruse and variable. Despite some efforts in the 2006 Chicago Consensus Statement on DSD , it is still difficult to assign a category and name for some distinct conditions in this document. The rest of the literature has used redundant and variable words, e.g. partial, pure, and complete gonadal dysgenesis suffering equivocality and redundancy, aggravating this inconclusiveness. We attempted to highlight this problem and propose an easier terminology blueprint.