Cross-sectional analysis highlights elevated plasma urotensin-2 in metastatic prostate cancer, suggesting utility as a biomarker.
Prostate cancer (PCa) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality among men. Although prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a key biomarker, its diagnostic and prognostic limitations necessitate the identification of novel markers. Urotensin-2 (UT-2), a potent vasoactive peptide, has been implicated in the pathogenesis of several malignancies, but its role in prostate cancer remains underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate plasma UT-2 levels across disease stages in PCa and assess its potential as a biomarker for metastatic disease. This cross-sectional study included 147 male patients: 100 with metastatic PCa and 47 controls (comprising benign prostatic hyperplasia [BPH], localized, and locally advanced PCa). Plasma UT-2 levels were quantified using ELISA. Statistical analyses included analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to assess UT-2's discriminative ability and its correlation with clinical parameters such as Gleason score, ISUP grade, and PSA. UT-2 levels were significantly elevated in metastatic PCa patients (mean: 2.03 ± 0.91 ng/mL) compared to control groups (BPH: 1.42 ± 0.61 ng/mL; localized: 1.46 ± 0.71 ng/mL; locally advanced: 1.41 ± 0.76 ng/mL; P = .002). ROC analysis demonstrated a moderate discriminatory ability for metastasis (AUC = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.61-0.79), with a cutoff of 1.269 ng/mL yielding 81% sensitivity and 53% specificity. No significant associations were observed between UT-2 levels and Gleason score, ISUP grade, PSA levels, or metastatic site. This is the first clinical study to evaluate plasma UT-2 levels in PCa patients. Elevated UT-2 levels in metastatic cases, independent of traditional prognostic markers, suggest its potential utility in identifying systemic disease burden. While not suitable as a standalone diagnostic tool, UT-2 may serve as a complementary biomarker within a multiparameter panel to improve prognostication and risk stratification in PCa. Further prospective and longitudinal studies are warranted to validate its prognostic significance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dinçkal et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: