↓ Skip to main content

Differential blood-based diagnosis between benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer: miRNA as source for biomarkers independent of PSA level, Gleason score, or TNM status

Overview of attention for article published in Tumor Biology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Differential blood-based diagnosis between benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer: miRNA as source for biomarkers independent of PSA level, Gleason score, or TNM status
Published in
Tumor Biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13277-016-4883-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Petra Leidinger, Martin Hart, Christina Backes, Stefanie Rheinheimer, Bastian Keck, Bernd Wullich, Andreas Keller, Eckart Meese

Abstract

Since the benefit of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening remains controversial, new non-invasive biomarkers for prostate carcinoma (PCa) are still required. There is evidence that microRNAs (miRNAs) in whole peripheral blood can separate patients with localized prostate cancer from healthy individuals. However, the potential of blood-based miRNAs for the differential diagnosis of PCa and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has not been tested. We compared the miRNome from blood of PCa and BPH patients and further investigated the influence of the tumor volume, tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification, Gleason score, pretreatment risk status, and the pretreatment PSA value on the miRNA pattern. By microarray approach, we identified seven miRNAs that were significantly deregulated in PCa patients compared to BPH patients. Using quantitative real time PCR (qRT-PCR), we confirmed downregulation of hsa-miR-221* (now hsa-miR-221-5p) and hsa-miR-708* (now hsa-miR-708-3p) in PCa compared to BPH. Clinical parameters like PSA level, Gleason score, or TNM status seem to have only limited impact on the overall abundance of miRNAs in patients' blood, suggesting a no influence of these factors on the expression of deregulated miRNAs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 69 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Computer Science 4 6%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 20 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 December 2016.
All research outputs
#17,783,561
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#1,219
of 2,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,858
of 396,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#65
of 225 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,622 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 396,349 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 225 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.