PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 6, 2026View0 citationsOpen Access

Prostate cancer diagnosis using plasma extracellular vesicles isolated via aqueous two‐phase systems

View Full Paper
YKYongmin KwonMLMinyeob LimSKSuyeon Kim

Key Points

  • The aim is to improve prostate cancer diagnosis using a novel method for isolating extracellular vesicles from patient plasma.
  • Isolated plasma extracellular vesicles using an aqueous two-phase system (ATPS).
  • Conducted single extracellular vesicle analysis to improve biomarker profiling.
  • Developed a two-step machine learning model for screening and staging prostate cancer.
  • Machine learning analysis indicates PSA, CD81, and other markers vary in diagnostic value.
  • The model reduces diagnostic errors while using fewer biomarkers for prostate cancer detection.
  • Provided a practical method for prostate cancer diagnosis in limited resource settings.

Abstract

Abstract Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most prevalent cancer in men, with early detection and precise staging remaining critical for improving outcomes. While PSA tests and biopsies are widely used, they suffer from low specificity and often lead to unnecessary procedures. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) have emerged as promising noninvasive biomarkers, but their broader application is hindered by the difficulty of isolation and purification from biofluids. Here, we propose an aqueous two‐phase system (ATPS)‐based approach for EV purification to support PCa detection and staging. We isolated plasma EVs (pEVs) from patient plasma using ATPS, a simple and rapid method that requires no specialized equipment. Single EV analysis confirmed efficient removal of plasma impurities and improved accessibility of EV surface biomarker profiling. Machine learning‐based analyses of pEV‐derived markers alongside PSA revealed that the contribution of each marker varies with the diagnostic objective: PSA was most informative for distinguishing benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) from cancer cases, while CD81 and PSMA were more informative for tumor staging. Based on these findings, we developed a two‐step machine learning model comprising a screening step (BPH vs. PCa) and a staging step (localized vs. locally advanced PCa). Each step employs selected markers optimized for its diagnostic objective. This step‐optimized sequential model reduces diagnostic errors while using fewer biomarkers, supporting model simplification and clinical scalability. Our approach provides a practical alternative for PCa diagnosis, particularly in settings with limited resources.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kwon et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69faa2b504f884e66b533591https://doi.org/10.1002/viw.20250180
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper