Next Article in Journal
Tumors Involving the Infratemporal Fossa: A Systematic Review of Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes
Previous Article in Journal
Global, Regional, and National Burdens with Temporal Trends of Early-, Intermediate-, and Later-Onset Gastric Cancer from 1990 to 2019 and Predictions up to 2035
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Potential of MicroRNAs as Non-Invasive Prostate Cancer Biomarkers: A Systematic Literature Review Based on a Machine Learning Approach

1
Department of Pharmacy, Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy
2
Department of Mechanical, Energy and Management Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2022, 14(21), 5418; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14215418
Submission received: 23 August 2022 / Revised: 28 October 2022 / Accepted: 30 October 2022 / Published: 3 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Cancer Biomarkers)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men worldwide. Screening and diagnosis are based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood testing and digital rectal examination. Nevertheless, these methods are not specific and have a high risk of mistaken results. This has led to overtreatment and unnecessary radical therapy; thus, better prognostic tools are urgently needed. In this view, microRNAs (miRs) appear as potential non-invasive biomarkers for PCa diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy. As the scientific literature available in this field is huge and very often controversial, we identified and discussed three topics that characterize the investigated research area by combining the big data from the literature together with a novel machine learning approach. By analyzing the papers clustered into these topics we have offered a deeper understanding of the current research, which helps to contribute to the advancement of this research field.

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in men. Although the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is used in clinical practice for screening and/or early detection of PCa, it is not specific, thus resulting in high false-positive rates. MicroRNAs (miRs) provide an opportunity as biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis, and recurrence of PCa. Because the size of the literature on it is increasing and often controversial, this study aims to consolidate the state-of-art of relevant published research. Methods: A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach was applied to analyze a set of 213 scientific publications through a text mining method that makes use of the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) algorithm. Results and Conclusions: The result of this activity, performed through the MySLR digital platform, allowed us to identify a set of three relevant topics characterizing the investigated research area. We analyzed and discussed all the papers clustered into them. We highlighted that several miRs are associated with PCa progression, and that their detection in patients’ urine seems to be the more reliable and promising non-invasive tool for PCa diagnosis. Finally, we proposed some future research directions to help future scientists advance the field further.

1. Introduction

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the developed world [1], with a mortality rate expected to approximately double over the next 20 years [2]. Prostate cancer can be clinically insignificant (low-risk and localized to the prostate) or significant, in this case it is a potentially metastatic and aggressive tumor, which requires early detection, and is lethal if untreated. The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is used as a screening biomarker of PCa, but alone it is not indicative of the disease, therefore digital rectal examination is also required. Its diagnosis is based only on histopathological analysis of prostate biopsies. Due to the widespread use of the PSA test for PCa detection, its incidence rapidly increased, even if mortality remained stable. The main reason is that, although this test is still a gold-standard, it is not a specific biomarker, and is not very helpful in distinguishing aggressive from non-aggressive diseases, thus resulting in a high number of false positives, as well as it fails to detect indolent disease. This has led to overtreatment with radical therapy, resulting in a dramatic impact on men and their quality of life. Distinguishing the aggressive and lethal tumoral form from the indolent one is, therefore, extremely relevant to limit overtreatment and improve patient outcome. This highlights the urgent need for more specific and sensitive diagnostic and prognostic tools.
MicroRNAs (MiRs) are small non-coding RNAs that modulate gene expression and play significant roles in almost all biological pathways, influencing cancer-relevant processes, such as proliferation, apoptosis, cell cycle, invasion and migration [3]. Profiling of miRs in human cancer has generated great interest, and several studies have described their critical role in PCa pathogenesis [4,5]. More interesting is their potential use as biomarkers for the early detection, diagnosis, and prognosis of cancer. Indeed, miRs are actively released by different cell types and detectable in all human bio-fluids, especially in plasma, serum, and urine, making them suitable as circulating biomarkers for PCa [6,7]
As a considerable number of papers on both miRs and PCa are available in the literature, a systematic review approach was required to carry out a deep and comprehensive investigation of the whole literature [8]. The systematic review approach is used when the number of contributions to be analyzed is huge and, as in this case, heterogeneous and often controversial. Several studies, for example, reported that upregulated expression of miR-200 family members in PCa facilitates oncogenic activity and promotes metastasis [9], despite the prevailing opinion that under-expression of the miR-200 family promotes EMT and metastasis [10,11].
Machine learning has transformed oncological research in recent years. For instance, it has been used to classify tissue samples as benign or malignant, or for the early and automatic detection of cancer by using whole slide images [12]. The technical reason of massive machine learning adoption in medicine resides in the fast progresses in classification models, which supports the adoption of these techniques in many tools such as image-based ones [13].
This study is the first of its kind in medicine, as the machine learning classification approach has been used to locate existing studies, select and evaluate quality contributions, analyze and synthesize results and, finally, report results that can highlight clear conclusions about what is known and what is not yet known [14]. According to Petticrew [15] “a systematic review is an efficient technique for hypothesis testing, for summarizing the results of existing studies, and for assessing the consistency among previous studies”. However, the approach we used is not the traditional one used in medicine, as exemplified by the Cochrane Collaboration [16], but an innovative qualitative approach useful to provide a comprehensive/integrated analysis on all articles published in prestigious scientific journals [17]. Consequently, we performed a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach by using the MySLR digital platform to analyze a large number of scientific publications through a text mining method, which makes use of the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) algorithm.
Therefore, the main aim of the present study was to consolidate the state-of-art of the research published over the last 15 years on the prognostic significance of miRs expression in PCa, and on their potential use as alternative non-invasive biomarkers. This has produced a systematic mapping of the insights and knowledge gaps present in existing research, thus providing useful insights that can contribute to the development of this research field and suggesting promising directions for future research. This study represents the first attempt in which a text mining approach was applied on a sample of scientific original articles in a medical setting.

2. Methods

We adopted a machine learning approach to deeply analyze a large number of papers present in the scientific literature to extract latent knowledge useful for the aim of this research.
We did not contrast studies conducted with the same medical protocol, as in traditional SLR in medicine. The original research protocol adopted in this study considered scientific papers that, regardless of the adopted medical protocol, somehow dealt with potential connections between miRs and PCa.
Although traditional algorithms are developed around numerical and structured data, the information generated in the scientific literature consists of documents (papers) that are generally unstructured. Consequently, the LDA algorithm was chosen to extend machine learning applications, in order to extract information from unstructured textual data, i.e., scientific journal articles [18]. The behavior that the MySLR platform reproduces by implementing the LDA algorithm, simulates as close as possible that of a “human-like intelligence”, it can process a large amount of data, read the texts, understand their content, extract the required information, and highlight hidden connections among papers. More in detail, this approach is based on the creation of a model that is able, by analyzing texts, to autonomously identify within them a set of “topics” (or themes), to identify the topic addressed by each of them and subsequently to recognize within the various papers the presence of the topics identified above.
Therefore, we carried out a SLR to offer a complete and exhaustive overview of scientific research on the potential value of miRs as non-invasive biomarkers for PCa. This was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [19]. In order to perform this activity, we adopted the MySLR digital platform [17], a semi-automated tool supporting scientists in performing SLR, which is available at https://myslr.unical.it (accessed on 20 May 2022) upon registration.
The methodological approach is based on three steps, namely: paper location and selection, paper analysis, and results presentation, according to Denyer and Tranfield [14], as discussed below.

2.1. Paper Location and Selection

We searched the PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge online databases up to 20 May 2022, to identify relevant studies published between 2007 (year in which the first paper in the investigated field was published) and 2022. The terms associated with the keywords were: (“microRNA” OR “miRNA” OR “miR”) AND (“prostate cancer” OR “prostate carcinoma” OR “prostate tumour” OR “prostate tumor” OR “prostate neoplasm”) AND “biomarkers” AND “prognosis”. The search string was structured in such a way that the results contained papers with at least one term from each set in the title, abstract and keywords.

2.2. Paper Analysis

At this stage, after removing duplicates, we examined papers (n = 618) to identify relations and common points among them.
Studies that met the following inclusion criteria were considered eligible:
  • The study was conducted on human cells, tissue or patients with PCa (not xenografts or other animal models).
  • The study measured the expression of miRs in serum/plasma/urine or cells/tissues.
  • The study investigated the association between prognosis outcomes and miRs expression.
Studies were excluded if:
  • The study tested the prognostic role of target genes instead of the miR itself.
  • The study involved other non-coding RNAs with as yet unknown functions, such as circular RNAs, long non-coding RNAs and small nucleolar RNAs.
  • The clinical study lacked key information such as hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), p value, and survival curves.
  • The study was a review, an editorial article, a meta-analysis, a letter to editors, a short communication, a conference paper, an erratum, a chapter book, a note, a personal opinion and commentary, or a retracted publication.
We independently evaluated pertinent papers by examining titles, abstracts, and full texts matching the appropriate criteria. At the end, 213 journal articles were included in the final set of eligible documents for further topic extraction analysis.
To highlight the main research topics in the context of miRs as potential biomarkers in PCa, we performed a text mining method on the final set of 213 papers. This method is based on LDA, a statistical procedure that provides each document with a distribution along a certain number of topics. The model treats documents as topics probability distribution and topics as words distributions.
In Natural Language Processing, a topic model is a statistical model whose objective is to find the abstract “topics” (or themes) contained in a set of documents. The topics are not known a priori but are independently identified by the algorithm based on the frequency and number of occurrences of the words in the various texts. By exploiting statistics of this type, the used algorithm was able to identify three main general topics (the so-called topics) related to the keywords given by the LDA procedure present in the various texts, and to correctly assign each text its respective semantic topic. This procedure provides as output:
  • k sets of relevant keywords (where each set represents a topic).
  • The document-term matrix, i.e., a matrix describing how much each paper is statistically related to a specific topic (namely, the topic proportion).

2.3. Results Presentation

The last step of the methodological approach is elucidated in the sections “Results” and “Discussion”. The aim of this step is to clearly describe and discuss the results of the LDA procedure by means of a detailed human-based review of significant papers gathered around the three topics.

3. Results

An overall number of 618 unique studies were retrieved from the initial literature search. Of these, 138 papers were removed as they reported non-relevant studies such as reviews, book chapters, meta-analyses, and other not relevant publications. Full-text reading and analysis resulted in removal of 267 other studies for reasons such as inability to access full text or unsatisfactory reporting of results, or that they did not meet the above inclusion criteria. Ultimately, a total number of 213 studies were considered eligible. The flowchart shown in Figure 1 elaborates the algorithm of selection of final studies for this systematic review.
As shown in Figure 2, the interest of the scientific community on the issue is evident. It is not surprising that the debate around this theme has received the attention of numerous original articles over time, especially starting from 2017. In fact, if we do not consider 2022, which is still ongoing, over 60% of the articles have been published in the last 5 years.
According to the indication provided in Blei [18], we selected the k value (number of topics to be extracted) of 3, which ensured a satisfactory value of topic coherence (−1.09) [20] in unison with an easy interpretation of the results for a human reader.
Thanks to the LDA procedure, we identified relevant keywords associated to each of the three topics. In Figure 3, a graphical representation of the most relevant keywords for each topic is provided in the form of “word cloud”.
As shown in Figure 4, although the issue under investigation has been increasingly considered by researchers over recent years, the trend of the topic papers over time is different. First, topic 1, after a fairly slow start, has had a rapid increase since 2017, and recently it has gained increasing interest (Figure 4, blue). In contrast, topic 2 has had a steady growth over time until it reached its highest peak in 2018, then its interest decreased (Figure 4, green). A similar trend can be observed for topic 3, which reached its peak of interest around 2018–2019 (Figure 4, yellow).
The three topics identified through the LDA algorithm are presented and discussed below. Then we performed a human-based review on a subset of relevant papers to infer a meaningful description of each topic. Based on the main concepts of the papers, we developed the discussion starting from topic 3, then we treated topic 2 and finally topic 1.

3.1. Topic 3—Study of miRs in Human PCa

Looking at the top-30 most relevant terms and their frequency within papers grouped around the selected topic (Figure 5), and then by analyzing the 91 papers clustered into this topic, it was evident that the cornerstone of the topic was the role of miRs in PCa progression and development.
The miRs can act as oncogenes (if upregulated in PCa) or tumor suppressors (downregulated miRs) and contribute to the development and progression of tumors, thus affecting the prognosis and survival of cancer patients. Most of these papers share results obtained from in vitro experiments to explore the function of candidate miRs. Authors identified miR signatures that were able to differentiate malignant PCa from benign prostate hyperplasia. The MiR expressions were determined mostly by qPCR. Furthermore, the identification of miR target genes and their pathways played a significant role in a better knowledge of PCa. Thus, miRs can act as oncogenes or tumor suppressors in PCa by influencing multiple cancer-related processes, among which the main are cell growth and proliferation, apoptosis, migration, invasion, and metastasis, as well as epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT). The most relevant and representative papers clustered in the topic are summarized in Table 1, from which deregulated miRs in PCa, their putative targets and main regulatory effects on tumors, together with other pathological data, can be found.

3.2. Topic 2—Potential of miRs as Biomarkers in Translational Research of PCa

The top-30 most relevant terms of this topic (i.e., the most frequent terms within papers grouped in this topic) (Figure 6), are indicative of a research “network” focus on the evaluation of miRs potential in translation research. Indeed, the 66 analyzed articles aimed to elucidate the relationship of miRs expression with clinicopathological data, and to evaluate the potential of miRs as prognostic and diagnostic biomarkers in PCa.
Because of the molecular heterogeneity of PCa, the ideal biomarker for early diagnosis and prognosis should be capable of identifying potentially aggressive tumors at the stage in which they are still treatable, while minimizing the detection of indolent disease. Aberrant expression of miRs in PCa patients could be a prognostic biomarker, associated with aggressive progression or indicative of poor prognosis. A limitation of these studies is that they often report inconsistent and/or controversial results, due to differences in clinical heterogeneity, study designs and methods of sample collection. Clearly, all these controversial results delay translation from bench to bedside.
Using the MySLR digital platform, we were able to analyze this huge and heterogeneous number of papers, and select and evaluate quality contributions that matched the selected search criteria. In most of the papers, survival was assessed by using the Kaplan–Meier method, differences in survival according to miRs expression were compared by using the log-rank test, while the prognostic values of miRs expression and clinical outcomes were evaluated by Cox regression analysis. Moreover, many analyses were also performed by using bioinformatics tools, such as the “PANTHER” online tool or a deep learning “autoencoder” model.
Therefore, the most relevant publications in the scientific literature reporting miRs as potential prognostic biomarkers in PCa are clustered in this topic (Table 2).

3.3. Topic 1—Use of miRs as Biomarkers for PCa in the Clinical Setting

As shown in Figure 7, some of the most relevant terms in all 56 papers clustered into topic 1 are “urinary”, “urine”, “urine_sample”. Analysis of all the papers singularly clearly revealed the focus of this topic is the possible use of miRs in the clinical setting as diagnostic or prognostic markers for PCa.
Studies clustered in this topic monitored human miRs in PCa patients by both liquid and tissue biopsies approaches. Scientists assessed miRs expression profiles in PCa tissues and biofluids, including urine, serum/plasma, semen, and prostate secretion fluids at various stages of the disease, and examine their potential as prognostic markers in PCa, as can be seen from Table 3, in which the most relevant papers clustered in the topic are summarized. This research area that investigates circulating miRs as markers is a rapidly developing area; indeed, the topic is based on a growing body of studies whose interest has grown especially over the last 5 years (Figure 4, blue and Table 3). Analysis of miRs in prostate tissue is routinely performed on fresh tissue, but also in formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissue (FFPE) due to the stable nature of miRs, by using microarrays, next generation sequencing (NGS) and qRT-PCR. For many years, biopsies have been the gold standard to determine clinicopathological characteristics of cancer tissues, but the procedure is very aggressive and uncomfortable for patients. During the last years, non-invasive methods have shown relevance, because they could be good indicators for cancer detection at the molecular level. Cancer cells can release miRs, which are stabilized by their incorporation into microvesicles secreted by the prostate, these are detectable in body fluids without requiring invasive biopsies. Several body fluids such as blood/serum, semen, urine, etc. have been used. Detection of miRs in blood/serum has some limitations and is often controversial. Appropriate endogenous controls for miRs quantification in serum are under debate because many mRNA and rRNA species are absent in blood/serum due to circulating RNases. Furthermore, changes in circulating miRs can occur because of therapies, diet, or other factors, thus increasing noise in these assays. However, in addition to serum and plasma, miRs have been identified in other body fluids, in particular semen and urine, which makes them even more interesting biomarkers candidate for PCa. Most of the papers clustered in topic 1 report urine as an excellent option and a reliable non-invasive tool for identifying PCa, and several diagnostic methods have also been described. They are available to detect the presence or absence of miRs involved in the development of the disease by using a non-invasive urine-based test.

4. Discussion

Considering the above, advances in early detection are crucial. Scientists have just started to evaluate the role of miRs as clinical biomarkers for PCa detection. Urine-based miR tests seem to be the most useful in PCa diagnosis and prognosis and may help to reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies and guide treatment decisions. Tumor cells release exosomes into biological fluids, and so also into urine, molecules inside are protected from degradation by the exosomal lipid bilayer. As exosomes contain tumor-driven molecules (including miRs), urinary exosomes have been considered ideal substrates for the development of non-invasive biomarkers. Furthermore, the number and composition of exosomal miRs are different between healthy and diseased patients, therefore, the study of novel biomarkers in exosomes is a promising research field for studying PCa prognostic biomarkers [95]. Zhuo et al. investigated whether exosomal miR-141 is an effective biomarker for human PCa. They showed that miR-141 expression was higher in exosomes and in PCa patients than in whole serum and patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Expression levels were also significantly higher in metastatic PCa than in localized PCa (p < 0.0001) [115]. Recently, levels of specific miRs were also measured in exosomes from urine samples in order to develop a model for the prediction of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for curative purposes [103]. An alternative method uses field-effect transistor (FET)-based sensors, which allow to measure chemicals and biomolecules with electrical signals. In particular, a label-free urinary miR sensing system was reported, it was based on a disposable and switchable graphene-based electrical sensor with high sensitivity and specificity in urine samples useful as a non-invasive method. This sensor enables rapid and direct detection of target miRs over a wide dynamic range, with a detection limit of up to 10 fM in human urine samples within 20 min, and it also allows for simultaneous quantification of multiple miRs [100]. To identify and validate urinary miRs with the aim of increasing the specificity of PCa diagnosis, several clinicopathological parameters of patients are taken into account. Among these, PSA is used as a clinical biomarker for PCa diagnosis. Guadarrama et al. demonstrated that the model including the miR-100/200b signature significantly outperformed the ability of PSA to discriminate between PCa and benign prostatic hyperplasia [114]. Fredsoe et al. observed expression levels of different miRs by qPCR in cell-free urine samples from patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and from those with clinically localized PCa. Furthermore, they developed a new diagnostic model of three miRs (miR-222-3p*miR-24-3p/miR-30c-5p) which distinguished benign prostatic hyperplasia from PCa [105]. Moreover, urinary levels of miR-21 also had significant discriminatory power (p = 0.010) to separate benign prostatic hyperplasia from PCa by using real time PCR [112]. A different approach is to analyze serial urine samples from patients with localized PCa. Urine miRs validation was generated from three patient cohorts with different Gleason scores. First, temporally stable miRs were measured, and a predictive biomarker of the Gleason score, used as a clinicophatological parameter, was created by using machine-learning techniques [96]. Although most of the papers clustered in topic 1 agree to consider urine as a reliable non-invasive sample for identifying PCa status by testing miRs, the diagnostic methodologies used are several and different, as described above, thus highlighting the limitations of any clinical application of miRs.
Although, as already noted, the research in the field is moving in this direction, before an actual clinical test can be developed further studies are needed, including large sample sets with well-supported validation through long-term clinical data. It seems necessary to establish widely accepted guidelines in the near future, which will determine the best urine-related method, sampling and processing, sample storage, miRs isolation and quantification, quality control and data analysis, in order to minimize the high inter- and intra-tumoral variability. Finally, prior to any clinical application of miRs, optimization is critical to enhance PCa detection, as well as to use miRs in cancer therapy. Moreover, the use of miRs as prognostic markers in PCa may help to define subpopulations of patients with significantly different expected outcomes, who could benefit from different therapies. Patients with a good prognosis may not require additional treatment beyond the primary surgical resection, while patients with a poor prognosis may derive improved survival from adjuvant therapy. Hence, prognostic markers could potentially be “drivers” of cancer progression. Apart from well-noted diagnostic and prognostic values, miRs also provide a potential treatment option for PCa. MiR-based therapy has a great potential to be a more powerful tool in tumor treatment due the simultaneous modulation of multiple genes involved in distinct tumor-related signaling networks. In this view, personalized anticancer therapy is the most ambitious challenge of modern medicine, aiming to identify novel patient-tailored treatments based on the unique features of patient’s disease. This approach, based on miRs delivery, could represent a potential non-toxic successful therapy for a large subset of PCa patients, which could not only decrease the socio-economic costs of this disease, but also improve its burden on patients’ life, thus improving their quality of life.

5. Conclusions

Prostate cancer has attracted a great deal of interest due to its high rate of mortality among cancers worldwide [1]. Prostate cancer patients are typically asymptomatic in their early stages, and are often diagnosed too late, thus failing in successful treatment. Although mortality rates have been reduced, thanks to early detection and improved treatment strategies, diagnostic methods are very aggressive for patients and a lot remains to be done to avoid overtreatment.
Extensive studies over the last 15 years have clearly suggested that miRs are critical regulators in PCa progression and development and indicate the use of miRs as promising non-invasive markers of tumoral diagnosis and prognosis. All this huge scientific literature highlights how fascinating but also complicated the world around miRs can be. Studies are often controversial, some questions are being answered, while many new ones need to be answered. Contradictory results between studies can be caused, for example, by differences in the methodology used to analyze and isolate miRs. The use of miRs as markers is promising, but it is not yet a reality in daily clinical practice, and there is still no clear vision of where scientists should turn their attention.
This study aimed to deepen the understanding of existing literature on the role of miRs as potential non-invasive biomarkers in PCa, in terms of major research topics. A machine learning method was used to automatically extract knowledge from scientific literature by means of the LDA algorithm. The innovative concept is based on the ability to independently analyze the texts and identify a certain number of “topics”, and subsequently be able to recognize their presence within the texts themselves. The developed algorithm simulates an intelligence that is as human and complete as possible. Therefore, a systematic review of the literature based on LDA was employed. By analyzing 213 papers we found three main topics that the literature focused on, which are also areas for future research. A first observation that arises quite easily from reading the topics is that the literature passes from the basic research level (topic 3) to the translational level (topic 2), to then consider clinical aspects of increasing complexity (topic 1). Our analysis suggests a prevalence of studies (91) aimed to identify deregulated miRs in PCa, their putative targets and their role in tumoral development and progression. Translational and clinical research studies were a minority (66 and 56 papers, respectively) but their interest is growing more and more over time, thus pointing the direction for future research. Furthermore, our analysis leads us to conclude that several miRs are associated with PCa development and progression, they are indicative of poor prognosis and aggressiveness, are stable under adverse conditions, and can be easily detected in urine. Hence, urinary miRs are valid and promising candidates as non-invasive biomarkers for PCa, as their presence or absence in urine is correlated with that of matched tumor tissues. As highlighted in the Discussion, methodologies used in miRs analysis are several and different, making it necessary to determine the best urine-related method along with accepted guidelines for sampling and processing, quality control and data analysis. To date, we are not yet able to know exactly which miR candidate is the best to be used as a biomarker. Analyzing the papers, we noticed indeed that the number of miRs detected within individuals is different, thus suggesting high variability of miRs within individuals, and high inter- and intra-tumoral variability. Nevertheless, miR-200 family members (including miR-200a, miR-200b, miR-200c, miR-429, and miR-141) were the most repeated miRs in our selected papers, and they could represent potential urine-based biomarkers for PCa detection and prognosis because: (i) their expression is necessary for the maintenance of the epithelial phenotype, as they are important negative regulators of epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT), an essential developmental process implicated in cancer metastasis [10,11]; (ii) their expression is deregulated in PCa, in tissue as well as in blood [73]; and (iii) they have unusually high stability in biological fluids, as this is an important prerequisite for usefulness as a biomarker [107,111,112,115]. Of all candidates, miR-141 showed the greatest differential expression (46-fold overexpressed) in PCa patients compared to healthy controls. In this regard, promising results were recently obtained in PCa detection by analyzing miR-141 in urinary exosomes isolated by differential centrifugation [43,73,86,91,108].
Obviously, as already mentioned, further studies and validation in a large tightly defined patient population are needed to confirm the usefulness of these urinary miRs as PCa biomarkers. Although significant efforts remain to be made, we expect this innovative miR-based technology to drastically change medical practice in the foreseeable future.
In conclusion, this is the first time that a text mining technique, led by using an innovative machine learning approach, has been applied to a sample of original scientific articles in a medical setting. The methodology was used to specifically address the role of miRs in PCa, and their potential as non-invasive biomarkers for early diagnosis and prognosis. Certainly, this study could pave the way for other studies with larger cohorts, and it could be applied and extended in order to study other cancers or diseases.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.A. and P.T.; methodology, S.A. and P.T.; software, S.A.; data curation, E.B., E.C., R.C., V.D. and P.T.; writing—original draft preparation, E.B. and E.C.; writing—review and editing, R.C., V.D. and P.T.; visualization, V.D. and P.T.; supervision, V.D. and P.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Supports by University of Calabria funds ex 60%-MIUR 2021.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gupta, S.; Coronado, G.D.; Argenbright, K.; Brenner, A.T.; Castaneda, S.F.; Dominitz, J.A.; Green, B.; Issaka, R.B.; Levin, T.R.; Reuland, D.S.; et al. Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Summit. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2020, 70, 283–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bartel, D.P. MicroRNAs: Genomics, Biogenesis, Mechanism, and Function. Cell 2004, 116, 281–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Calin, G.A.; Sevignani, C.; Dumitru, C.D.; Hyslop, T.; Noch, E.; Yendamuri, S.; Shimizu, M.; Rattan, S.; Bullrich, F.; Negrini, M.; et al. Human microRNA genes are frequently located at fragile sites and genomic regions involved in cancers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 2999–3004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Tucci, P.; Agostini, M.; Grespi, F.; Markert, E.K.; Terrinoni, A.; Vousden, K.H.; Muller, P.A.; Dotsch, V.; Kehrloesser, S.; Sayan, B.S.; et al. Loss of p63 and its microRNA-205 target results in enhanced cell migration and metastasis in prostate cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 15312–15317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Aghdam, A.M.; Amiri, A.; Salarinia, R.; Masoudifar, A.; Ghasemi, F.; Mirzaei, H. MicroRNAs as Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer. Crit. Rev. Eukaryot. Gene Expr. 2019, 29, 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Casanova-Salas, I.; Rubio-Briones, J.; Fernandez-Serra, A.; Lopez-Guerrero, J.A. miRNAs as biomarkers in prostate cancer. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2012, 14, 803–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; Group, P.-P. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Gurbuz, V.; Sozen, S.; Bilen, C.Y.; Konac, E.J.O.L. miR-148a, miR-152 and miR-200b promote prostate cancer metastasis by targeting DNMT1 and PTEN expression. Oncol. Lett. 2021, 22, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Williams, L.V.; Veliceasa, D.; Vinokour, E.; Volpert, O.V.J.P.O. miR-200b inhibits prostate cancer EMT, growth and metastasis. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e83991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Basu, S.; Chaudhary, A.; Chowdhury, P.; Karmakar, D.; Basu, K.; Karmakar, D.; Chatterjee, J.; Sengupta, S. Evaluating the role of hsa-miR-200c in reversing the epithelial to mesenchymal transition in prostate cancer. Gene 2020, 730, 144264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vulli, A.; Srinivasu, P.N.; Sashank, M.S.K.; Shafi, J.; Choi, J.; Ijaz, M.F.J.S. Fine-Tuned DenseNet-169 for Breast Cancer Metastasis Prediction Using FastAI and 1-Cycle Policy. Sensors 2022, 22, 2988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Singh, J.; Thakur, D.; Gera, T.; Shah, B.; Abuhmed, T.; Ali, F.J.I.A. Classification and analysis of android malware images using feature fusion technique. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 90102–90117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D. Producing a systematic review. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods; Sage Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009; pp. 671–689. [Google Scholar]
  15. Petticrew, M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: Myths and misconceptions. BMJ 2001, 322, 98–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Chandler, J.; Welch, V.A.; Higgins, J.P.; Thomas, J. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: A new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 10, ED000142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Ammirato, S.; Felicetti, A.; Rogano, D.; Linzalone, R.; Corvello, V. Digitalising the Systematic Literature Review process: The MySLR platform. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2022, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Blei, D.M.; Ng, A.Y.; Jordan, M.I. Latent dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2003, 3, 993–1022. [Google Scholar]
  19. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Chen, Z.; Liu, B. Topic Modeling using Topics from Many Domains, Lifelong Learning and Big Data. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Bejing, China, 22–24 June 2014; pp. 703–711. [Google Scholar]
  21. Chang, Y.; Deng, Q.; Guan, Z.; Cheng, Y.; Sun, Y. MiR-1273 g-3p Promotes Malignant Progression and has Prognostic Implications in Prostate Cancer. Mol. Biotechnol. 2022, 64, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhao, Z.; Zhao, S.; Luo, L.; Xiang, Q.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, J.; Liu, Y.; Luo, J. miR-199b-5p-DDR1-ERK signalling axis suppresses prostate cancer metastasis via inhibiting epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Br. J. Cancer 2021, 124, 982–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yang, B.; Diao, H.; Wang, P.; Guan, F.; Liu, H. microRNA-877-5p exerts tumor-suppressive functions in prostate cancer through repressing transcription of forkhead box M1. Bioengineered 2021, 12, 9094–9102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Wang, G.; Cheng, B.; Jia, R.; Tan, B.; Liu, W. Altered expression of microRNA-92b-3p predicts survival outcomes of patients with prostate cancer and functions as an oncogene in tumor progression. Oncol. Lett. 2021, 21, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Mu, H.Q.; He, Y.H.; Wang, S.B.; Yang, S.; Wang, Y.J.; Nan, C.J.; Bao, Y.F.; Xie, Q.P.; Chen, Y.H. MiR-130b/TNF-alpha/NF-kappaB/VEGFA loop inhibits prostate cancer angiogenesis. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2020, 22, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Du, C.; Lv, C.; Feng, Y.; Yu, S. Activation of the KDM5A/miRNA-495/YTHDF2/m6A-MOB3B axis facilitates prostate cancer progression. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020, 39, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Zhu, Z.; Luo, L.; Xiang, Q.; Wang, J.; Liu, Y.; Deng, Y.; Zhao, Z. MiRNA-671-5p Promotes prostate cancer development and metastasis by targeting NFIA/CRYAB axis. Cell Death Dis. 2020, 11, 949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zang, Y.; Zhu, J.; Li, Q.; Tu, J.; Li, X.; Hu, R.; Yang, D. miR-137-3p Modulates the Progression of Prostate Cancer by Regulating the JNK3/EZH2 Axis. Onco. Targets Ther. 2020, 13, 7921–7932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, D.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, X. miR-138-5p inhibits the malignant progression of prostate cancer by targeting FOXC1. Cancer Cell Int. 2020, 20, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhao, S.; Jie, C.; Xu, P.; Diao, Y. MicroRNA-140 inhibit prostate cancer cell invasion and migration by targeting YES proto-oncogene 1. J. Cell Biochem. 2020, 121, 482–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, X.; Zhou, J.; Xue, D.; Li, Z.; Liu, Y.; Dong, L. MiR-515-5p acts as a tumor suppressor via targeting TRIP13 in prostate cancer. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 129, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lo, U.G.; Pong, R.C.; Yang, D.; Gandee, L.; Hernandez, E.; Dang, A.; Lin, C.J.; Santoyo, J.; Ma, S.; Sonavane, R.; et al. IFNgamma-Induced IFIT5 Promotes Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition in Prostate Cancer via miRNA Processing. Cancer Res. 2019, 79, 1098–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Feng, F.; Liu, H.; Chen, A.; Xia, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Jin, X.; Huang, J. miR-148-3p and miR-152-3p synergistically regulate prostate cancer progression via repressing KLF4. J. Cell Biochem. 2019, 120, 17228–17239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zheng, C.; Guo, K.; Chen, B.; Wen, Y.; Xu, Y. miR-214-5p inhibits human prostate cancer proliferation and migration through regulating CRMP5. Cancer Biomark. 2019, 26, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Xing, Q.; Xie, H.; Zhu, B.; Sun, Z.; Huang, Y. MiR-455-5p Suppresses the Progression of Prostate Cancer by Targeting CCR5. Biomed. Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 6394784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Zhang, J.Y.; Su, X.P.; Li, Y.N.; Guo, Y.H. MicroRNA-425-5p promotes the development of prostate cancer via targeting forkhead box J3. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2019, 23, 547–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ray, J.; Hoey, C.; Huang, X.; Jeon, J.; Taeb, S.; Downes, M.R.; Boutros, P.C.; Liu, S.K. MicroRNA198 suppresses prostate tumorigenesis by targeting MIB1. Oncol. Rep. 2019, 42, 1047–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ling, X.H.; Fu, H.; Chen, Z.Y.; Lu, J.M.; Zhuo, Y.J.; Chen, J.H.; Zhong, W.D.; Jia, Z. miR505 suppresses prostate cancer progression by targeting NRCAM. Oncol. Rep. 2019, 42, 991–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Qu, H.W.; Jin, Y.; Cui, Z.L.; Jin, X.B. MicroRNA-373-3p inhibits prostate cancer progression by targeting AKT1. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2018, 22, 6252–6259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bhagirath, D.; Yang, T.L.; Bucay, N.; Sekhon, K.; Majid, S.; Shahryari, V.; Dahiya, R.; Tanaka, Y.; Saini, S. microRNA-1246 Is an Exosomal Biomarker for Aggressive Prostate Cancer. Cancer Res. 2018, 78, 1833–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Lv, J.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Q. miR-410-3p promotes prostate cancer progression via regulating PTEN/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway. Biochem. Biophys Res. Commun. 2018, 503, 2459–2465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xu, S.; Ge, J.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, W. miR-141 inhibits prostatic cancer cell proliferation and migration, and induces cell apoptosis via targeting of RUNX1. Oncol. Rep. 2018, 39, 1454–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, J.; Fu, F.; Wan, X.; Huang, S.; Wu, D.; Li, Y. Up-regulated miR-29c inhibits cell proliferation and glycolysis by inhibiting SLC2A3 expression in prostate cancer. Gene 2018, 665, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lin, Z.Y.; Chen, G.; Zhang, Y.Q.; He, H.C.; Liang, Y.X.; Ye, J.H.; Liang, Y.K.; Mo, R.J.; Lu, J.M.; Zhuo, Y.J.; et al. MicroRNA-30d promotes angiogenesis and tumor growth via MYPT1/c-JUN/VEGFA pathway and predicts aggressive outcome in prostate cancer. Mol. Cancer 2017, 16, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; Peng, R.; Lin, Z.; Wang, Y.; Hu, B.; Wang, J.; Shi, G. Low expression of microRNA-30c promotes prostate cancer cells invasion involved in downregulation of KRAS protein. Oncol. Lett. 2017, 14, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Ayub, S.G.; Kaul, D.; Ayub, T. An androgen-regulated miR-2909 modulates TGFbeta signalling through AR/miR-2909 axis in prostate cancer. Gene 2017, 631, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lynch, S.M.; McKenna, M.M.; Walsh, C.P.; McKenna, D.J. miR-24 regulates CDKN1B/p27 expression in prostate cancer. Prostate 2016, 76, 637–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Zhang, X.; Tao, T.; Liu, C.; Guan, H.; Huang, Y.; Xu, B.; Chen, M. Downregulation of miR-195 promotes prostate cancer progression by targeting HMGA1. Oncol. Rep. 2016, 36, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Guo, J.; Liu, X.; Wang, M. miR-503 suppresses tumor cell proliferation and metastasis by directly targeting RNF31 in prostate cancer. Biochem. Biophys Res. Commun. 2015, 464, 1302–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lin, Z.Y.; Huang, Y.Q.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Han, Z.D.; He, H.C.; Ling, X.H.; Fu, X.; Dai, Q.S.; Cai, C.; Chen, J.H.; et al. MicroRNA-224 inhibits progression of human prostate cancer by downregulating TRIB1. Int. J. Cancer 2014, 135, 541–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Arora, S.; Saini, S.; Fukuhara, S.; Majid, S.; Shahryari, V.; Yamamura, S.; Chiyomaru, T.; Deng, G.; Tanaka, Y.; Dahiya, R. MicroRNA-4723 Inhibits Prostate Cancer Growth through Inactivation of the Abelson Family of Nonreceptor Protein Tyrosine Kinases. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e78023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Majid, S.; Dar, A.A.; Saini, S.; Arora, S.; Shahryari, V.; Zaman, M.S.; Chang, I.; Yamamura, S.; Tanaka, Y.; Deng, G.; et al. miR-23b represses proto-oncogene Src kinase and functions as methylation-silenced tumor suppressor with diagnostic and prognostic significance in prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2012, 72, 6435–6446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Saini, S.; Majid, S.; Shahryari, V.; Arora, S.; Yamamura, S.; Chang, I.; Zaman, M.S.; Deng, G.; Tanaka, Y.; Dahiya, R. miRNA-708 control of CD44(+) prostate cancer-initiating cells. Cancer Res. 2012, 72, 3618–3630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Santo, G.D.; Frasca, M.; Bertoli, G.; Castiglioni, I.; Cava, C. Identification of key miRNAs in prostate cancer progression based on miRNA-mRNA network construction. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2022, 20, 864–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Camargo, J.A.; Lopes, R.E.; Ferreira, G.F.D.; Viana, N.I.; Guimaraes, V.; Leite, K.R.M.; Nahas, W.C.; Srougi, M.; Antunes, A.A.; Reis, S.T. The role of single nucleotide polymorphisms of miRNAs 100 and 146a as prognostic factors for prostate cancer. Int. J. Biol. Markers 2021, 36, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, T.H.; Lee, C.Y.; Lee, T.Y.; Huang, H.D.; Hsu, J.B.; Chang, T.H. Biomarker Identification through Multiomics Data Analysis of Prostate Cancer Prognostication Using a Deep Learning Model and Similarity Network Fusion. Cancers 2021, 13, 2528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Liu, H.; Li, L.; Fan, Y.; Lu, Y.; Zhu, C.; Xia, W. Construction of Potential Gene Expression and Regulation Networks in Prostate Cancer Using Bioinformatics Tools. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2021, 2021, 8846951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wei, J.; Yin, Y.; Deng, Q.; Zhou, J.; Wang, Y.; Yin, G.; Yang, J.; Tang, Y. Integrative Analysis of MicroRNA and Gene Interactions for Revealing Candidate Signatures in Prostate Cancer. Front. Genet. 2020, 11, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Parra-Medina, R.; Lopez-Kleine, L.; Ramirez-Clavijo, S.; Payan-Gomez, C. Identification of candidate miRNAs in early-onset and late-onset prostate cancer by network analysis. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yang, Y.; Jia, B.; Zhao, X.; Wang, Y.; Ye, W. miR-93-5p may be an important oncogene in prostate cancer by bioinformatics analysis. J. Cell Biochem. 2019, 120, 10463–10483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Baumann, B.; Acosta, A.M.; Richards, Z.; Deaton, R.; Sapatynska, A.; Murphy, A.; Kajdacsy-Balla, A.; Gann, P.H.; Nonn, L. Association of High miR-182 Levels with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer. Am. J. Pathol. 2019, 189, 911–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Barcelo, M.; Castells, M.; Bassas, L.; Vigues, F.; Larriba, S. Semen miRNAs Contained in Exosomes as Non-Invasive Biomarkers for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 13772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Ibrahim, N.H.; Abdellateif, M.S.; Thabet, G.; Kassem, S.H.; El-Salam, M.A.; El-Leithy, A.A.; Selim, M.M. Combining PHI and miRNAs as Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis. Clin. Lab. 2019, 65, 1159–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Marrone, M.T.; Joshu, C.E.; Peskoe, S.B.; De Marzo, A.M.; Heaphy, C.M.; Lupold, S.E.; Meeker, A.K.; Platz, E.A. Adding the Team into T1 Translational Research: A Case Study of Multidisciplinary Team Science in the Evaluation of Biomarkers of Prostate Cancer Risk and Prognosis. Clin. Chem. 2019, 65, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Xue, Z.; Xi, Q.; Liu, H.; Guo, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Z.; Li, Y.; Yang, G.; Zhou, D.; Yang, H.; et al. miR-21 promotes NLRP3 inflammasome activation to mediate pyroptosis and endotoxic shock. Cell Death Dis. 2019, 10, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Xu, N.; Wu, Y.P.; Yin, H.B.; Xue, X.Y.; Gou, X. Molecular network-based identification of competing endogenous RNAs and mRNA signatures that predict survival in prostate cancer. J. Transl. Med. 2018, 16, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Lin, Y.; Chen, F.; Shen, L.; Tang, X.; Du, C.; Sun, Z.; Ding, H.; Chen, J.; Shen, B. Biomarker microRNAs for prostate cancer metastasis: Screened with a network vulnerability analysis model. J. Transl. Med. 2018, 16, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Schmidt, L.; Fredsoe, J.; Kristensen, H.; Strand, S.H.; Rasmussen, A.; Hoyer, S.; Borre, M.; Mouritzen, P.; Orntoft, T.; Sorensen, K.D. Training and validation of a novel 4-miRNA ratio model (MiCaP) for prediction of postoperative outcome in prostate cancer patients. Ann. Oncol. 2018, 29, 2003–2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zidan, H.E.; Abdul-Maksoud, R.S.; Elsayed, W.S.H.; Desoky, E.A.M. Diagnostic and prognostic value of serum miR-15a and miR-16-1 expression among egyptian patients with prostate cancer. IUBMB Life 2018, 70, 437–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Chen, Z.; Zhan, Y.; Chi, J.; Guo, S.; Zhong, X.; He, A.; Zheng, J.; Gong, Y.; Li, X.; Zhou, L. Using microRNAs as Novel Predictors of Urologic Cancer Survival: An Integrated Analysis. EBioMedicine 2018, 34, 94–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Yan, H.B.; Zhang, Y.; Cen, J.M.; Wang, X.; Gan, B.L.; Huang, J.C.; Li, J.Y.; Song, Q.H.; Li, S.H.; Chen, G. Expression of microRNA-99a-3p in Prostate Cancer Based on Bioinformatics Data and Meta-Analysis of a Literature Review of 965 Cases. Med. Sci. Monit. 2018, 24, 4807–4822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ali, R.; El Tabbakh, S.; El Delgawy, W.; Kotb, A.; Desouky, M.N. microRNA-141 as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for prostate cancer in Egyptian population: Pilot study. Afr. J. Urol. 2018, 24, 347–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Souza, M.F.; Kuasne, H.; Barros-Filho, M.C.; Ciliao, H.L.; Marchi, F.A.; Fuganti, P.E.; Paschoal, A.R.; Rogatto, S.R.; Colus, I.M.S. Circulating mRNAs and miRNAs as candidate markers for the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0184094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Lin, H.M.; Mahon, K.L.; Spielman, C.; Gurney, H.; Mallesara, G.; Stockler, M.R.; Bastick, P.; Briscoe, K.; Marx, G.; Swarbrick, A.; et al. Phase 2 study of circulating microRNA biomarkers in castration-resistant prostate cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2017, 116, 1002–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Wei, W.; Leng, J.; Shao, H.; Wang, W. MiR-1, a Potential Predictive Biomarker for Recurrence in Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy. Am. J. Med. Sci. 2017, 353, 315–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Zedan, A.H.; Blavnsfeldt, S.G.; Hansen, T.F.; Nielsen, B.S.; Marcussen, N.; Pleckaitis, M.; Osther, P.J.S.; Sorensen, F.B. Heterogeneity of miRNA expression in localized prostate cancer with clinicopathological correlations. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0179113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Waseem, M.; Ahmad, M.K.; Srivatava, V.K.; Rastogi, N.; Serajuddin, M.; Kumar, S.; Mishra, D.P.; Sankhwar, S.N.; Mahdi, A.A. Evaluation of miR-711 as Novel Biomarker in Prostate Cancer Progression. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2017, 18, 2185–2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cochetti, G.; Poli, G.; Guelfi, G.; Boni, A.; Egidi, M.G.; Mearini, E. Different levels of serum microRNAs in prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia: Evaluation of potential diagnostic and prognostic role. Onco Targets Ther. 2016, 9, 7545–7553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Yang, B.; Liu, Z.; Ning, H.; Zhang, K.; Pan, D.; Ding, K.; Huang, W.; Kang, X.L.; Wang, Y.; Chen, X. MicroRNA-21 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells as a novel biomarker in the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. Cancer Biomark. 2016, 17, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sun, Y.; Jia, X.; Hou, L.; Liu, X. Screening of Differently Expressed miRNA and mRNA in Prostate Cancer by Integrated Analysis of Transcription Data. Urology 2016, 94, 313.e1–313.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Huang, Z.; Zhang, L.; Yi, X.; Yu, X. Diagnostic and prognostic values of tissue hsa-miR-30c and hsa-miR-203 in prostate carcinoma. Tumour Biol. 2016, 37, 4359–4365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Huang, X.; Yuan, T.; Liang, M.; Du, M.; Xia, S.; Dittmar, R.; Wang, D.; See, W.; Costello, B.A.; Quevedo, F.; et al. Exosomal miR-1290 and miR-375 as prognostic markers in castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2015, 67, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Xiaoli, Z.; Yawei, W.; Lianna, L.; Haifeng, L.; Hui, Z. Screening of Target Genes and Regulatory Function of miRNAs as Prognostic Indicators for Prostate Cancer. Med. Sci. Monit. 2015, 21, 3748–3759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Huang, W.; Kang, X.L.; Cen, S.; Wang, Y.; Chen, X. High-Level Expression of microRNA-21 in Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells Is a Diagnostic and Prognostic Marker in Prostate Cancer. Genet. Test Mol. Biomark. 2015, 19, 469–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Zheng, Q.; Peskoe, S.B.; Ribas, J.; Rafiqi, F.; Kudrolli, T.; Meeker, A.K.; De Marzo, A.M.; Platz, E.A.; Lupold, S.E. Investigation of miR-21, miR-141, and miR-221 expression levels in prostate adenocarcinoma for associated risk of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Prostate 2014, 74, 1655–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Srivastava, A.; Goldberger, H.; Dimtchev, A.; Marian, C.; Soldin, O.; Li, X.; Collins, S.P.; Suy, S.; Kumar, D. Circulatory miR-628-5p is downregulated in prostate cancer patients. Tumour Biol. 2014, 35, 4867–4873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Huang, S.P.; Levesque, E.; Guillemette, C.; Yu, C.C.; Huang, C.Y.; Lin, V.C.; Chung, I.C.; Chen, L.C.; Laverdiere, I.; Lacombe, L.; et al. Genetic variants in microRNAs and microRNA target sites predict biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in localized prostate cancer. Int. J. Cancer 2014, 135, 2661–2667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Melbo-Jorgensen, C.; Ness, N.; Andersen, S.; Valkov, A.; Donnem, T.; Al-Saad, S.; Kiselev, Y.; Berg, T.; Nordby, Y.; Bremnes, R.M.; et al. Stromal expression of MiR-21 predicts biochemical failure in prostate cancer patients with Gleason score 6. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e113039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Santos, J.I.; Teixeira, A.L.; Dias, F.; Maurício, J.; Lobo, F.; Morais, A.; Medeiros, R. Influence of peripheral whole-blood microRNA-7 and microRNA-221 high expression levels on the acquisition of castration-resistant prostate cancer: Evidences from in vitro and in vivo studies. Tumor Biol. 2014, 35, 7105–7113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Selth, L.A.; Townley, S.L.; Bert, A.G.; Stricker, P.D.; Sutherland, P.D.; Horvath, L.G.; Goodall, G.J.; Butler, L.M.; Tilley, W.D. Circulating microRNAs predict biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer patients. Br. J. Cancer 2013, 109, 641–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Mavridis, K.; Stravodimos, K.; Scorilas, A. Downregulation and prognostic performance of microRNA 224 expression in prostate cancer. Clin. Chem. 2013, 59, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Chen, Z.H.; Zhang, G.L.; Li, H.R.; Luo, J.D.; Li, Z.X.; Chen, G.M.; Yang, J. A panel of five circulating microRNAs as potential biomarkers for prostate cancer. Prostate 2012, 72, 1443–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Alshalalfa, M.; Bader, G.D.; Goldenberg, A.; Morris, Q.; Alhajj, R. Detecting microRNAs of high influence on protein functional interaction networks: A prostate cancer case study. BMC Syst. Biol. 2012, 6, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Watahiki, A.; Wang, Y.; Morris, J.; Dennis, K.; O’Dwyer, H.M.; Gleave, M.; Gout, P.W.; Wang, Y. MicroRNAs associated with metastatic prostate cancer. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e24950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Shin, S.; Park, Y.H.; Jung, S.H.; Jang, S.H.; Kim, M.Y.; Lee, J.Y.; Chung, Y.J. Urinary exosome microRNA signatures as a noninvasive prognostic biomarker for prostate cancer. NPJ Genom. Med. 2021, 6, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Jeon, J.; Olkhov-Mitsel, E.; Xie, H.; Yao, C.Q.; Zhao, F.; Jahangiri, S.; Cuizon, C.; Scarcello, S.; Jeyapala, R.; Watson, J.D.; et al. Temporal Stability and Prognostic Biomarker Potential of the Prostate Cancer Urine miRNA Transcriptome. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2020, 112, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Mello-Grand, M.; Bruno, A.; Sacchetto, L.; Cristoni, S.; Gregnanin, I.; Dematteis, A.; Zitella, A.; Gontero, P.; Peraldo-Neia, C.; Ricotta, R.; et al. Two Novel Ceramide-Like Molecules and miR-5100 Levels as Biomarkers Improve Prediction of Prostate Cancer in Gray-Zone PSA. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 769158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Rajendiran, S.; Maji, S.; Haddad, A.; Lotan, Y.; Nandy, R.R.; Vishwanatha, J.K.; Chaudhary, P. MicroRNA-940 as a Potential Serum Biomarker for Prostate Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 628094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Giglio, S.; De Nunzio, C.; Cirombella, R.; Stoppacciaro, A.; Faruq, O.; Volinia, S.; Baldassarre, G.; Tubaro, A.; Ishii, H.; Croce, C.M.; et al. A preliminary study of micro-RNAs as minimally invasive biomarkers for the diagnosis of prostate cancer patients. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2021, 40, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kim, S.; Park, S.; Cho, Y.S.; Kim, Y.; Tae, J.H.; No, T.I.; Shim, J.S.; Jeong, Y.; Kang, S.H.; Lee, K.H. Electrical Cartridge Sensor Enables Reliable and Direct Identification of MicroRNAs in Urine of Patients. ACS Sens. 2021, 6, 833–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Nayak, B.; Khan, N.; Garg, H.; Rustagi, Y.; Singh, P.; Seth, A.; Dinda, A.K.; Kaushal, S. Role of miRNA-182 and miRNA-187 as potential biomarkers in prostate cancer and its correlation with the staging of prostate cancer. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 2020, 46, 614–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Mercadal, M.; Herrero, C.; Lopez-Rodrigo, O.; Castells, M.; de la Fuente, A.; Vigues, F.; Bassas, L.; Larriba, S. Impact of Extracellular Vesicle Isolation Methods on Downstream Mirna Analysis in Semen: A Comparative Study. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 5949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Fredsoe, J.; Rasmussen, A.K.I.; Mouritzen, P.; Borre, M.; Orntoft, T.; Sorensen, K.D. A five-microRNA model (pCaP) for predicting prostate cancer aggressiveness using cell-free urine. Int. J. Cancer 2019, 145, 2558–2567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Cai, B.; Peng, J.H. Increased Expression of miR-494 in Serum of Patients with Prostate Cancer and its Potential Diagnostic Value. Clin. Lab. 2019, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Fredsoe, J.; Rasmussen, A.K.I.; Thomsen, A.R.; Mouritzen, P.; Hoyer, S.; Borre, M.; Orntoft, T.F.; Sorensen, K.D. Diagnostic and Prognostic MicroRNA Biomarkers for Prostate Cancer in Cell-free Urine. Eur. Urol. Focus 2018, 4, 825–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Endzelins, E.; Berger, A.; Melne, V.; Bajo-Santos, C.; Sobolevska, K.; Abols, A.; Rodriguez, M.; Santare, D.; Rudnickiha, A.; Lietuvietis, V.; et al. Detection of circulating miRNAs: Comparative analysis of extracellular vesicle-incorporated miRNAs and cell-free miRNAs in whole plasma of prostate cancer patients. BMC Cancer 2017, 17, 730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Foj, L.; Ferrer, F.; Serra, M.; Arevalo, A.; Gavagnach, M.; Gimenez, N.; Filella, X. Exosomal and Non-Exosomal Urinary miRNAs in Prostate Cancer Detection and Prognosis. Prostate 2017, 77, 573–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Torres-Ferreira, J.; Ramalho-Carvalho, J.; Gomez, A.; Menezes, F.D.; Freitas, R.; Oliveira, J.; Antunes, L.; Bento, M.J.; Esteller, M.; Henrique, R.; et al. MiR-193b promoter methylation accurately detects prostate cancer in urine sediments and miR-34b/c or miR-129-2 promoter methylation define subsets of clinically aggressive tumors. Mol. Cancer 2017, 16, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Daniunaite, K.; Dubikaityte, M.; Gibas, P.; Bakavicius, A.; Rimantas Lazutka, J.; Ulys, A.; Jankevicius, F.; Jarmalaite, S. Clinical significance of miRNA host gene promoter methylation in prostate cancer. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2017, 26, 2451–2461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Rodríguez-Báez, A.; Comoto-Santacruz, D.A.; Huerta-Núñez, L.F.E.; Campos-Saucedo, J.G.; Estrada-Carrasco, C.E.J. Circulating miRNA expression as a clinical option for the detection of prostate cancer. Rev. Mex. Urol. 2017, 77, 199–206. [Google Scholar]
  111. Alhasan, A.H.; Scott, A.W.; Wu, J.J.; Feng, G.; Meeks, J.J.; Thaxton, C.S.; Mirkin, C.A. Circulating microRNA signature for the diagnosis of very high-risk prostate cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 10655–10660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Stuopelyte, K.; Daniunaite, K.; Jankevicius, F.; Jarmalaite, S. Detection of miRNAs in urine of prostate cancer patients. Medicina 2016, 52, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wang, J.; Ye, H.; Zhang, D.; Hu, Y.; Yu, X.; Wang, L.; Zuo, C.; Yu, Y.; Xu, G.; Liu, S. MicroRNA-410-5p as a potential serum biomarker for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Cancer Cell Int. 2016, 16, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Salido-Guadarrama, A.I.; Morales-Montor, J.G.; Rangel-Escareno, C.; Langley, E.; Peralta-Zaragoza, O.; Cruz Colin, J.L.; Rodriguez-Dorantes, M. Urinary microRNA-based signature improves accuracy of detection of clinically relevant prostate cancer within the prostate-specific antigen grey zone. Mol. Med. Rep. 2016, 13, 4549–4560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Li, Z.; Ma, Y.Y.; Wang, J.; Zeng, X.F.; Li, R.; Kang, W.; Hao, X.K. Exosomal microRNA-141 is upregulated in the serum of prostate cancer patients. Onco Targets Ther. 2016, 9, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Kachakova, D.; Mitkova, A.; Popov, E.; Popov, I.; Vlahova, A.; Dikov, T.; Christova, S.; Mitev, V.; Slavov, C.; Kaneva, R. Combinations of serum prostate-specific antigen and plasma expression levels of let-7c, miR-30c, miR-141, and miR-375 as potential better diagnostic biomarkers for prostate cancer. DNA Cell Biol. 2015, 34, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Wach, S.; Al-Janabi, O.; Weigelt, K.; Fischer, K.; Greither, T.; Marcou, M.; Theil, G.; Nolte, E.; Holzhausen, H.J.; Stohr, R.; et al. The combined serum levels of miR-375 and urokinase plasminogen activator receptor are suggested as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer. Int. J. Cancer 2015, 137, 1406–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Guzel, E.; Karatas, O.F.; Semercioz, A.; Ekici, S.; Aykan, S.; Yentur, S.; Creighton, C.J.; Ittmann, M.; Ozen, M. Identification of microRNAs differentially expressed in prostatic secretions of patients with prostate cancer. Int. J. Cancer 2015, 136, 875–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Casanova-Salas, I.; Rubio-Briones, J.; Calatrava, A.; Mancarella, C.; Masia, E.; Casanova, J.; Fernandez-Serra, A.; Rubio, L.; Ramirez-Backhaus, M.; Arminan, A.; et al. Identification of miR-187 and miR-182 as biomarkers of early diagnosis and prognosis in patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2014, 192, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Bryant, R.J.; Pawlowski, T.; Catto, J.W.; Marsden, G.; Vessella, R.L.; Rhees, B.; Kuslich, C.; Visakorpi, T.; Hamdy, F.C. Changes in circulating microRNA levels associated with prostate cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2012, 106, 768–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Brase, J.C.; Johannes, M.; Schlomm, T.; Falth, M.; Haese, A.; Steuber, T.; Beissbarth, T.; Kuner, R.; Sultmann, H. Circulating miRNAs are correlated with tumor progression in prostate cancer. Int. J. Cancer 2011, 128, 608–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Moltzahn, F.; Olshen, A.B.; Baehner, L.; Peek, A.; Fong, L.; Stoppler, H.; Simko, J.; Hilton, J.F.; Carroll, P.; Blelloch, R. Microfluidic-based multiplex qRT-PCR identifies diagnostic and prognostic microRNA signatures in the sera of prostate cancer patients. Cancer Res. 2011, 71, 550–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Mitchell, P.S.; Parkin, R.K.; Kroh, E.M.; Fritz, B.R.; Wyman, S.K.; Pogosova-Agadjanyan, E.L.; Peterson, A.; Noteboom, J.; O’Briant, K.C.; Allen, A.J. Circulating microRNAs as stable blood-based markers for cancer detection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 10513–10518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Flow diagram showing the algorithm of selection of eligible studies included in the SLR. The search process was carried out until 20 May 2022.
Figure 1. Flow diagram showing the algorithm of selection of eligible studies included in the SLR. The search process was carried out until 20 May 2022.
Cancers 14 05418 g001
Figure 2. Published articles by year.
Figure 2. Published articles by year.
Cancers 14 05418 g002
Figure 3. Word cloud highlighting the importance of the topic keywords.
Figure 3. Word cloud highlighting the importance of the topic keywords.
Cancers 14 05418 g003
Figure 4. Topic papers over time.
Figure 4. Topic papers over time.
Cancers 14 05418 g004
Figure 5. Inter-topic Distance Map related to topic 3. Circle 1 indicates topic 1, circle 2 is topic 2 and circle 3 is topic 3.
Figure 5. Inter-topic Distance Map related to topic 3. Circle 1 indicates topic 1, circle 2 is topic 2 and circle 3 is topic 3.
Cancers 14 05418 g005
Figure 6. Inter-topic Distance Map related to the topic 2. Circle 1 indicates topic 1, circle 2 is topic 2 and circle 3 is topic 3.
Figure 6. Inter-topic Distance Map related to the topic 2. Circle 1 indicates topic 1, circle 2 is topic 2 and circle 3 is topic 3.
Cancers 14 05418 g006
Figure 7. Inter-topic Distance Map related to topic 1. Circle 1 indicates topic 1, circle 2 is topic 2 and circle 3 is topic 3.
Figure 7. Inter-topic Distance Map related to topic 1. Circle 1 indicates topic 1, circle 2 is topic 2 and circle 3 is topic 3.
Cancers 14 05418 g007
Table 1. List of the most relevant and representative papers clustered in the topic 3 over time.
Table 1. List of the most relevant and representative papers clustered in the topic 3 over time.
YearRef.miRNAsMain Regulatory EffectClinicopathological
Data
CategoryNumber of
Patients
p Value
2022[21]miR-1273 g-3pPromotes tumor progression by increasing cell proliferation, migration and invasionAge≤65; >6554; 510.378
PSA (ng/mL)<10; ≥1051; 540.284
DifferentiationPoor; well moderate48; 570.139
Gleason score≤7; >755; 500.024
TNM stageI-II; III-IV57; 480.008
Clinical stageT1- T254; 510.015
Lymph node metastasisNo; Yes56; 490.014
2021[22]miR-199-5pSuppresses PCa metastasis by inhibiting EMT pathwayAge≤65; >6558; 360.424
PSA (ng/mL)<10; 10–20; >2027; 30; 370.061
Gleason score<7; =7; >738;28; 28<0.001
Clinical stage≤T2; ≥T365; 290.278
Lymph node involvementNeg; Pos89; 50.636
Distal metastasesYes; No38; 560.003
[23]miR-877-5pSuppresses PCa via forkhead box M1Age<60; ≥6553; 480.940
Tumor size≤3; >362; 390.849
PSA (ng/mL)≤10; >1065; 360.196
Surgical marginNeg; Pos72; 290.433
Prostate volume (ml)≤50, >5066; 350.878
TNM stageI–II; III54; 470.011
Gleason score≤7; >768; 330.047
[24]miR-92b-3pSuppresses PCa by inhibiting cell proliferation, migration, and invasionAge<60; ≥6041; 670.685
PSA (ng/mL)<10; ≥1034; 740.009
Bone metastasis Neg; Pos55; 530.033
Gleason score≤7; >759; 490.001
2020[25]miR-130bInhibits PCa angiogenesis via TNF-α/NF-kB/VEGFA axis N/AN/AN/AN/A
[26]miR-495Promotes cancer progression via KDM5A/miRNA-495/YTHDF2/m6A-MOB3B axis N/AN/AN/AN/A
[27]miR-671-5pPromotes PCa development and metastasis via NFIA/CRYAB axisAge ≤72; >7223; 170.31
Clinical stageT2; T3–T426; 140.75
Gleason score<7; ≥75; 350.70
Lymph node metastasisN0; N128; 120.42
Distant metastasisM0; M125; 150.004
[28]miR-137- 3pInhibits PCa progression via JNK3/EZH2 axisGleason score6; 7; 84; 10; 6N/A
Grading System1, 2, 3, 46; 4; 4; 6
Tumor StageI; II; III, IV4; 9; 6; 1
[29]miR-138-5pInhibits PCa progression via FOXC1Age<60; ≥6024; 360.830
Tumor size (cm)<4; ≥428; 320.526
Gleason score≤7; >740; 200.025
Lymph node metastasisNo; Yes37; 230.009
Bone metastasisNo; Yes35; 250.109
[30]miR-140Inhibits PCa cell invasion and migration via YES proto-oncogene 1N/AN/AN/AN/A
2019[31]miR-515-5pInhibits PCa progression via TRIP13 Gleason score<7; =7; >745; 15; 36<1
Clinical stageT1–T2; T3–T441; 550.007
[32]miR-106a-363 clusterInhibits PCa progression by inhibiting IFNϒ pathwayN/AN/AN/AN/A
[33]miR-148—3p
miR-152-3p
Inhibits PCa progression by repressing KLF4Age≤65; >6526; 16N/A
PSA (ng/mL)≤10; >1023; 19
Tumor size (mm)≤20; >2020; 22
pT-stagepT2; pT3a; pT3b19; 16; 7
Gleason grade1; 2; 3; 4; 512; 16; 3; 5; 6
[34]miR-214-5pInhibits PCa proliferation and migration by increasing levels of CRMP5N/AN/AN/AN/A
[35]miR-455-5pSuppresses PCa progression by targeting CCR5Gleason score<7; =7; >732; 55; 19<0.001
PSA (ng/mL)≤10; >1044; 630.006
[36]miR-425-5pPromotes PCa development by targeting FOXJ3N/AN/AN/AN/A
[37]miR-198Suppresses PCa by targeting MIB1Gleason score<7; >7149; 130.02
[38]miR-505Suppresses PCa progression by targeting NRCAMTissueCancer; non cancer50; 230.432
Age≤60; >6012; 680.331
Gleason score≤7; >731; 190.032
Pathological grade≤2; >24; 460.010
Tumor stageT1; T2-T429; 210.351
Lymph node metastasis N0; N143; 715; 2
Distant metastasis M0; M144; 60.093
2018[39]miR-373-3pInhibits PCa progression by targeting AKT1N/AN/AN/AN/A
[40]miR-1246Inhibits PCa cell proliferation, invasiveness, and migration via EMT pathwayPathological stagepT2a; pT2b; pT3; pT43; 17; 11; 360.002
Gleason score≤7; >731; 340.7263
Lymph node metastasis Yes; No25; 430.0436
Age40–59; 60–7918; 490.9576
Serum PSA≤6.78; >6.7832; 330.1778
RaceWhite; Black61; 70.3528
[41]miR-410-3pPromotes PCa progression by regulating PTEN/AKT/mTOR signaling pathwayAge<70; ≥7016; 260.596
MetastasisNo; Yes9; 330.001
Gleason score<7; ≥719; 230.006
Clinical stageT1; T2-T317; 250.003
PSA levels (ng/mL)<10; ≥1020; 220.370
[42]miR-141Inhibits PCa cell proliferation, migration, and induces cell apoptosis by targeting RUNX1N/AN/AN/AN/A
[43]miR-29cInhibits PCa cell proliferation and glycolysis by inhibiting SLC2A3 expressionMetastasis No; Yes127; 14<0.001
Gleason score<7; 8; 9227; 49; 76<0.001
Pathological stageII; IIIa; IIIb; IV148; 31; 81; 4<0.01
2017[44]miR-30dPromotes angiogenesis and tumor growth via MYPT1/c-JUN/VEGFA pathway Age<66; ≥6693; 200.613
PSA levels (ng/mL)<4; ≥422; 890.003
Gleason score<8; ≥887; 190.010
Clinical stage<T2a; ≥T2a65; 440.007
Pathological stageT2a–T2c; T3a–T471; 370.004
MetastasisNo; Yes94; 190.001
Overall survivalAlive; Died99; 140.097
[45]miR-30cPromotes PCa cells invasion by downregulating KRAS proteinN/AN/AN/AN/A
[46]miR-2909Promotes oncogenic functions by attenuating TGFβ signalingN/AN/AN/AN/A
2016[47]miR-24Inhibits PCa by regulating CDKN1B/p27 Age≥41; ≤67N/AN/A
PSA levels (ng/mL)≥4.5; ≤17.7
Gleason score≥5; ≤8
TMNpT2; pT3a
[48]miR-195Promotes PCa progression by targeting HMGA1N/AN/AN/AN/A
2015[49]miR-503Suppresses PCa cell proliferation and metastasis by targeting RNF31 Age<70; ≥7077; 630.886
Lymph node metastasisNo; yes124; 160.051
Clinical stageT1; T2–T385; 550.004
Gleason score<7; =7; >765; 34; 41<0.001
PSA levels<4; 4–10; >106; 45; 79<0.001
2014[50]miR-224Inhibits PCa progression by targeting TRIB1Age<66; ≥6689; 250.08
PSA levels (ng/mL)<4; ≥424; 900.02
Gleason score<8; ≥8;91; 230.09
Clinical stage<T2a; ≥T2a66; 480.04
Pathological stageT2a; T2c; T3a–T476; 380.08
MetastasisNo; Yes91; 23<0.001
2013[51]miR-4723Inhibits PCa growth by targeting AbI kinaseGleason grade4–6; 7; 8–1051; 33; 14N/A
Pathological stagepT2; pT365; 19
Biochemical recurrenceYes; no47; 42
2012[52]miR-23bSuppresses PCa by repressing proto-oncogene Src kinasePathological stagepT2; pT3–pT489; 61<1 × 10−4
Gleason score4–6; 7; 8–1046; 52; 34<0.001
Biochemical recurrenceyes36<1 × 10−4
[53]miR-708Promotes PCa progression by regulating CD44+ and AKT2Age40–59; 60–8933; 680.6557
Gleason score4–6; 7; 8–1036; 41; 238 × 10−4
Pathological stagepT2; pT3; pT457; 42; 20.1095
Biochemical recurrenceYes; No24; 760.0138
[5]miR-205Inhibits PCa cell migration and metastasis via the EMT pathwayMetastasis N/AN/A<1 × 10−5
Lymph node involvement <0.01
Biochemical recurrence0.00191
Gleason score
PSA levels
Abbreviations: N/A means Not Applicable.
Table 2. List of the most relevant and representative papers clustered in topic 2 over time. N/A: Not Applicable.
Table 2. List of the most relevant and representative papers clustered in topic 2 over time. N/A: Not Applicable.
YearRef.miRNAsBioinformatic AnalysisClinicopathological
Data
CategoryNumber of
Patients
p Value
2022[54]miR-25-3p, miR-93-3p, miR-122-5p, miR-183-5p, miR-615-3p, miR-7-5p, miR-375 and miR-92a-3pN/AGleason score6–9493<0.01
2021[55]miR-146aN/AGleason score<7; ≥71000.43
Clinical stagepT2; pT30.004
mi-100Biochemical recurrenceYes; No0.011
PSA levels (ng/mL)<10; ≥100.003
[56]miR-143, miR-378aN/AOverall 494
188; 290; 9
46; 245; 64; 136; 3
5.33 × 10−9
<0.001
TNM stage2; 3; 4
Gleason score6; 7; 8; 9; 10
C-index0.684
[57]70 miRsPANTHER N/AN/AN/AN/A
2020[58]miR-17-5p, miR-20a-5p, miR-92a-3p, miR-93-5pCancer Genome AtlasN/AN/AN/AN/A
[59]69 miRNAsCytoHubbaClinical stage
Gleason score
PSA levels
Race
T2
7
≤10
49N/A
2019[60]miR-93-5pCancer Genome Atlas and Gene OntologyN/AN/AN/AN/A
[61]miR-182N/AAge60133
Race/ethnicityWhite, black0.97
Gleason score5–90.22
Clinical stageT2–T30.16
[62]miR-142-3p, miR-142-5p, miR-223-3p, miR-342-3p, miR-374b-5pN/APSA levels4–10 ng/mL240.02
Gleason score6–8
Clinical stageT1–T3
[63]miR-21, miR-221N/AGleason score6–10100<0.01
Clinical stageT1–T4
[64]miR-21, miR-141, miR-221N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
[65]miR-21Gene Expression OmnibusN/AN/AN/AN/A
2018[66]13 miRNAsmiRcode, Gene OntologyN/AN/A499<0.05
[67]miR-101-3p, miR-145-5p, miR-204-5p, miR-198, miR-152Gene expression omnibusN/AN/A142<0.05
[68]miR-23a, miR-10b-5p, miR-133a, miR-374-5pN/AAge65123
Clinical stageT2–T3
Gleason scoreI–V
[69]miR-15a, miR-16-1N/AAge65700.02,
0.007
0.001
Gleason score≤7, >7
Clinical stage≤T2, >T2
[70]miR-21Cancer genome Atlas; Gene Expression OmnibusClinical stageT2–T4N/A<0.001,
Tumor stageIII–IV
PSA levels≥10
Gleason score≥7
[71]miR-99a-3pCancer genome Atlas; Gene Expression Omnibus, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and GenomesAge<60, ≥60201, 2030.917
RaceWhite, black, Asian146, 7, 20.759
StageI–II, III–IV187, 3000.347
[72]miR-141N/AAge67300.389
PSA levels (ng/mL)30<0.001,
Prostate volume (g)89<0.001,
2017[73]miR-200c, miR-200bN/AAge<65, ≥6530; 720.007
AncestryCaucasian; African79; 230.94
Smoking habitYes; No31; 710.96
Alcohol consumptionYes; No58; 440.55
Family history of cancerYes; Yes, prostate; No62; 16; 400.09
[74]14 miRNAsN/AAgeN/A89N/A
PSA levels
Metastasis
[75]miR-1N/AN/AN/A78<0.001
[76]miR-21, miR-34a, miR-125b, miR-126, miR-143, miR-145N/AAge52–71490.016
PSA level<10; 10–20; >2028; 17; 4
Gleason score≤6; 7; ≥819; 28; 2
Clinical stageT2a; T2b; T2c; T3a; T3b4; 5; 32; 3; 5
[77]miR-711GO, KEGGAge<60, ≥6013; 61<0.05
Smoking habitsYes; No49; 25
PSA levelsMedian; High23; 51
Gleason score7; ≥731; 43
2016[78]Let-7c, let-7e, let-7i, miR-26a-5p, miR-26b-5p, miR-24-3p, miR-23b-3p, miR-27-b-3p, miR-106a-5p, miR-20b-5p, miR-18b-5p, miR-19b-2-5p, miR-363-3p, miR-497, miR-195, miR-25-3p, miR-30c-5p, miR-622, miR-874-3p, miR-346, miR-940N/AAge>7564N/A
PSA levels (ng/mL)>3, <10
Gleason score6; 7; 835; 15; 4
Clinical stagecT1c; cT2a; T2b; T2c40; 4; 8; 12
[79]miR-21N/AN/AN/A92<0.05
[80]miR-301aGEO 197<0.01
[81]miR-30c; miR-2013N/AAge<50; >5021; 230.091
TNM stageI + II; III + IV19; 250.039
Metastatic statusYes; No18; 26<0.001
Clinical stageT1 + T2; T3; T417; 14; 130.0167
2015[82]miR-1290 miR-375N/AOverall 23N/A
Gleason score7; 8; 910; 4; 9
Clinical stageT1-T423
[83]miR-29a, miR-10a, miR-221TCGA, GO, KEGG 5511 × 10−5
[84]miR-21N/AClinical stageN/A75<0.001
Lymph node metastasis
Tumor differentiation
2014[85]miR-21;
miR-141;
miR-221
N/AAge58.5 ± 7590.0149;
<1 × 10−4;
2 × 10−4
RaceWhite
Pathologic stageT2–T3
Gleason score6–8
[86]miR-628-5pN/AN/AN/A36<1 × 10−4
[87]miR-605N/APSA levels (ng/mL)2–7; 8–10846<0.001
Gleason score<0.001
Pathologic stage<0.001
Surgical margin<0.001
[88]miR-21N/AAge≤65; <65357; 176
Clinical stageT2; T3a; T3b324; 114; 47<0.001
PSA levels (ng/mL)<10; >10308; 221<0.001
Gleason score6; 7; 8; >8183; 300; 19; 33<0.001
Tumor size (mm)0–20; >20250; 285<0.001
[89]miR-7N/AN/AN/AN/A0.012;
miR-2210.002
miR-2220.002
2013[90]miR-141, miR-146b-3p, mir-194N/AAge60160.0857
PSA levels<10; ≥1011; 50.0282
Gleason score7; 912; 40.001
Clinical stageT2-T36; 100.001
[91]miR-224N/AOverall9.23 ± 0.69
64.8 ± 0.74
73
PSA levels (ng/mL)
Age
Gleason score<0.001
Clinical stage0.005
2012[92]Let-7e, let-7c, miR-346; miR-622, miR-940, miR-1285N/AAge73 ± 81050.18
<0.001
PSA levels (ng/mL)0–4; 4.1–20; >2042; 28; 31
Gleason score6–7; 8–962; 37
[93]miR-96, miR-182, miR-143GEON/AN/AN/AN/A
2011[94]miR-16, miR-34a, miR-126, miR-145, miR-205MicroCosm,
KEGG
N/AN/AN/A0.001
Table 3. List of the most relevant and representative papers clustered in topic 1 over the time. N/A: Not Applicable.
Table 3. List of the most relevant and representative papers clustered in topic 1 over the time. N/A: Not Applicable.
YearRef.miRNAsBiological FluidNumber of
Patients
Interval Time of miRNA Processed after Sample Collection
2021[95]miR-21, miR-16, miR-142-3p, miR-451, miR-636Urine149Exosomes isolation from samples and incubation overnight at 4 °C
[96]miR-3195, let-7b-5p, miR-144-3p, miR-451, miR-148a-3p, miR-512-5p, miR-431-5pUrine149Overnight at −80 °C
[97]miR-5100Plasma102After 1 h
[98]miR-940Serum and urine32N/A
[99]miR4732-3p, mir-98-5p, miR-let-7a-5p, miR-26b-5p, miR-21-5pPlasma290N/A
[100]miR-21, miR-1246, miR-let-7bUrine10After 20 min
2020[101]miR-182, miR-187Urine63N/A
[102]miR-142-3p, miR-142-5p, miR-223-3pSemen7After 30 min at 37 °C
2019[103]miR-151 a-5p, miR-204-5p, miR-222-3p, miR-23b-3p, miR-331-3pUrine215Fresh urine samples
[104]miR-494Serum90N/A
2018[105]miR-222-3p
miR-24-3p/miR-30c-5p
Urine215N/A
2017[106]miR-375, miR-200c-3p, miR-21-5p, let-7a-5pPlasma50Within 2 h
[107]miR-21, miR-141, miR-214, miR-375, let-7cUrine60Stored at 4 °C and processed within 4 h
[108]miR-193bTissue and urine180Fresh samples
[109]miR-155, miR-152, miR-137 and miR-31Tissue129N/A
[110]miR-32-5p, miR-455-4p, miR-184, miR-31-5p, miR-200b-3p, miR-19b-3p, miR-34a-5p, miR-32-5p, miR-143-5p, miR-200b-3p and miR-375Blood34Fresh samples
2016[111]miR-200c, miR-605, miR-135a, miR-433 and miR-106aSerum16N/A
[112]miR-21, miR-19a and miR-19bUrine143within half an hour
[113]miR-410-5pSerum149within 1 h
[114]miR-100, miR-200bUrine Samples were stored at −80 °C for one week and further processed
2015[115]miR-141Serum111 h at room temperature
[116]let-7c, miR-30c, miR-141 and miR-375Plasma111 h
[117]miR-375Serum146Samples stored at −80 °C until RNA isolation
[118]miR-133b, miR-221, miR-361-3pProstate secretion samples23Samples stored at −80 °C until RNA isolation
2014[119]miR-187 and miR-182Tissue and urine92Fresh samples
2012[120]miR-107 and miR-574-3pPlasma and urine78 and 13510 min plasma samples; stored at 4 °C for up 4 h urine samples
2011[121]miR-375 and miR-141Serum7130 min at room temperature
[122]384 human miRNAsSerum36N/A
2008[123]miR-100, miR-125b, miR-141, miR-143, miR-205, miR296Plasma and serum25Within 2 h
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bevacqua, E.; Ammirato, S.; Cione, E.; Curcio, R.; Dolce, V.; Tucci, P. The Potential of MicroRNAs as Non-Invasive Prostate Cancer Biomarkers: A Systematic Literature Review Based on a Machine Learning Approach. Cancers 2022, 14, 5418. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14215418

AMA Style

Bevacqua E, Ammirato S, Cione E, Curcio R, Dolce V, Tucci P. The Potential of MicroRNAs as Non-Invasive Prostate Cancer Biomarkers: A Systematic Literature Review Based on a Machine Learning Approach. Cancers. 2022; 14(21):5418. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14215418

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bevacqua, Emilia, Salvatore Ammirato, Erika Cione, Rosita Curcio, Vincenza Dolce, and Paola Tucci. 2022. "The Potential of MicroRNAs as Non-Invasive Prostate Cancer Biomarkers: A Systematic Literature Review Based on a Machine Learning Approach" Cancers 14, no. 21: 5418. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14215418

APA Style

Bevacqua, E., Ammirato, S., Cione, E., Curcio, R., Dolce, V., & Tucci, P. (2022). The Potential of MicroRNAs as Non-Invasive Prostate Cancer Biomarkers: A Systematic Literature Review Based on a Machine Learning Approach. Cancers, 14(21), 5418. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14215418

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop