Urinary Biomarkers in Childhood Cancer Survivors with Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction.
In a prospective cohort of childhood cancer survivors, urinary ATP, NGF, proNGF, and BDNF showed poor discrimination for lower urinary tract dysfunction, while prior pelvic radiation was associated with increased odds of abnormal uroflow.
Open original publication →What the AI sees
In a prospective cohort of childhood cancer survivors, urinary ATP, NGF, proNGF, and BDNF showed poor discrimination for lower urinary tract dysfunction, while prior pelvic radiation was associated with increased odds of abnormal uroflow.
Research significance
Evidence: the tested urinary biomarkers did not reliably detect therapy-related lower urinary tract dysfunction, although pelvic EBRT identified a higher-risk survivor group. Inference: alternative objective biomarkers or screening strategies focused on pelvic-irradiated survivors could enable earlier detection and management, but no effective test or treatment is established here.
Source abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate urinary biomarkers in childhood cancer survivors (CCS) as a screening mechanism for therapy-related lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD) resulting from either prior pelvic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or chemotherapy exposures. METHODS: First morning urine samples were collected from CCS enrolled in a prospective cohort study and analyzed for adenosine triphosphate (ATP), nerve growth factor (NGF), proNGF, brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), and creatinine. Each patient completed one non-invasive urodynamic study (niUDS). Biomarkers were compared according to radiation exposure and niUDS outcomes. Conditional logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to evaluate associations with abnormal uroflow and diagnostic performance. RESULTS: Biomarker levels demonstrated minimal differences between survivors with and without pelvic EBRT. Although creatinine-normalized proNGF levels were higher among irradiated participants, no biomarker was significantly associated with abnormal uroflow. In the multivariable analyses, pelvic EBRT was associated with increased odds of abnormal uroflow, but no biomarker demonstrated meaningful associations with LUTD. ROC analysis demonstrated poor discriminatory performance for all biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: The urinary biomarkers evaluated in this exploratory study did not reliably identify LUTD in CCS; neither were any biomarkers associated with prior pelvic EBRT. Given the increased risk of LUTD in CCS, particularly in those who received pelvic EBRT, and the limitations of symptom-based screening, additional objective biomarkers and screening approaches are needed to improve detection of LUTD in survivors of pediatric cancer.