scholarly journals Detection of renal cell carcinoma using plasma and urine cell-free DNA methylomes

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 1041-1043 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pier Vitale Nuzzo ◽  
Jacob E. Berchuck ◽  
Keegan Korthauer ◽  
Sandor Spisak ◽  
Amin H. Nassar ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Selena Lin ◽  
Jennifer A. Linehan ◽  
Ruby Kuang ◽  
Selvi Guharaj ◽  
Timothy G. Wilson ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. 1366-1373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Lasseter ◽  
Amin H. Nassar ◽  
Lana Hamieh ◽  
Jacob E. Berchuck ◽  
Pier Vitale Nuzzo ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 569-569
Author(s):  
Marco Adelmo James Iafolla ◽  
Sarah Louise Picardo ◽  
Kyaw Lwin Aung ◽  
Aaron Richard Hansen

569 Background: No validated biomarkers exist to help guide prognosis of RCC patients. This study seeks to determine the current state of published prognostic RCC biomarker manuscripts and evaluate their quality using the REMARK criteria. Methods: The phrase “(renal cell carcinoma OR renal cancer OR kidney cancer OR kidney carcinoma) AND circulating AND (biomarkers OR cell free DNA OR tumor DNA OR methylated cell free DNA OR methylated tumor DNA)” was searched in Embase, Medline and PubMed during March 2018. One author (MI) selected all relevant manuscripts from the search results, and two authors (MI and SP) independently scored all relevant manuscripts using the REMARK guidelines (maximum 20 points comprised of 20 items subdivided into 48 criteria). Results: The search identified 525 publications: 73 were valid, 436 were rejected, and 26 were uncertain of their relevance. Amongst the valid publications, 33 were manuscripts of primary research (remainder: 26 review papers, 14 abstracts): manuscripts evaluating ≥ 2 biomarkers (n = 8) and novel biomarkers not published elsewhere (n = 7) comprised the majority. The median REMARK score was 10.6 (range 6.4-14.2). All manuscripts stated their marker, study objectives and method of case selection. The lowest scoring criteria were lack of: description of time between storage of blood/serum and marker assay (n = 2); flow or study profile diagram (n = 2); blinding of the person making the marker assessment to clinical outcomes (n = 3); and pre-specified hypotheses (n = 3). In total, only 8 studies reported a hazard or odds ratio. Using Pearson’s correlation, there was no association with either year of publication (median 2014; range 2004-2018; r2 = 0.14; p = 0.44) or impact factor (median 5.168; range 1.2-26.303; r2 = 0.24; p = 0.17) with REMARK score. Conclusions: Despite several published manuscripts on RCC prognostic biomarkers, most poorly adhere to the REMARK guidelines; this may be the cause for the paucity of a validated RCC biomarker to help supplement or supplant current clinical prognostic criteria. Better designed studies and appropriate reporting of methods, results and interpretation are required to address this urgent unmet need.


2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 707-710 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keren Rouvinov ◽  
Wilmosh Mermershtain ◽  
Hadas Dresler ◽  
Samuel Ariad ◽  
Reut Riff ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. e114-e115
Author(s):  
M. Uemura ◽  
Y. Yamamoto ◽  
K. Nakano ◽  
Y. Hayashi ◽  
C. Wang ◽  
...  

Urology ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feng Gang ◽  
Li Guorong ◽  
Zhao An ◽  
Gentil-Perret Anne ◽  
Genin Christian ◽  
...  

Oncotarget ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (29) ◽  
pp. 20467-20475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiyuki Yamamoto ◽  
Motohide Uemura ◽  
Kosuke Nakano ◽  
Yujiro Hayashi ◽  
Cong Wang ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document