Evidence Hub

Plasma infrared molecular fingerprinting for prostate cancer detection: Prospective evidence for a partially PSA-independent signal

Jacob P, Chaloupka M, Eissa T, Rebel J, Aschauer J, Pfundmeier C, Witzens S, Brinkmann I et al.

European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990), 2026

752 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing has limited specificity, particularly at intermediate concentrations, contributing to diagnostic uncertainty in prostate cancer (PCa). Infrared molecular fingerprinting (IMF) provides a rapid plasma-based readout of systemic biochemical variation and may capture PCa-associated molecular information not fully reflected by PSA.

METHODS: In the prospective Lasers4Life study, plasma from 2024 men was analysed, including 1012 treatment-naïve PCa patients, 752 men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and 260 asymptomatic controls. Classification models were evaluated using cross-validation and, for PCa-versus-BPH discrimination, temporally independent held-out testing. Performance was quantified by receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) and examined across PSA strata, comorbidities, and medications.

RESULTS: IMF discriminated PCa from asymptomatic controls more strongly than from BPH, with cross-validated AUCs of 0.79 ± 0.08 and 0.67 ± 0.04, respectively. In an exploratory age- and PSA-matched subset of men with PSA below 12 ng/mL, comprising 200 PCa and 200 BPH cases, IMF showed higher discrimination than PSA alone, although performance remained modest (AUC 0.63 vs 0.56; p < 1 ×10⁻⁴). Most examined comorbidities and medications did not substantially alter IMF performance, although prostatitis reduced discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS: Plasma IMF detected PCa-associated variation in a pre-treatment…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case-control, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 752 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free