Nanomaterials‐Based Biosensors for the Detection of Prostate Cancer Biomarkers: Recent Trends and Future Perspective

Abstract

Cancer is among the leading causes of death and an important barrier to improving life expectancy globally. Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men worldwide. The detection of biomarkers in body fluids is the key topic for the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. Despite advances in prostate cancer detection methods, therapeutic agents and new biomarkers, prostate cancer remains a serious challenge. Prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) is widely recognized as an important biomarker for the diagnosis of prostate cancer although researchers have also investigated the use of alternative biomarkers. Design and development of novel biosensors for prostate cancer detection has become a hot research area with advances in nanotechnology aiding biosensor development. This article reviews recent achievements and progress that nanomaterials and nanotechnology have made in biomarkers based biosensors for prostate cancer detection and covers: i) PSA‐targeted biosensors (immunosensors, aptamer‐based, peptide‐based and nanopore‐based biosensors), ii) sarcosine oxidase‐targeted biosensors, iii) other biomarkers based biosensors (prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and prostate‐specific membrane antigen (PSMA)) including dual biomarkers based biosensors (PSA‐VEGF, PSA‐PSMA, PSA‐PCA3 and PSA‐sarcosine). The aim of this review is to provide insights into how nanomaterials in combination with various biomarkers are now aiding biosensor development in prostate cancer diagnostics.

Phage Display’s Prospects for Early Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer

“…New urgent requirements for fast, sensitive, accurate, and inexpensive tools for the early diagnosis of PC devalue the traditional PSA detection methods [ 16 ], such as ELISA, radioimmunoassay immunoradiometric assay, and time-resolved immunofluorescence assay, which have a complex operation, are difficult to miniaturize, and can have a limited sensitivity [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. Modern immunoassays and biosensors require a biorecognition probe, which is attached to the interface of the analytical device, bind the target biological ligand, and participate in generating a measurable signal [ 13 , 14 , 27 , 28 ], as illustrated in Figure 1 . For example, in electrochemical biosensors, the signal can be displayed in impedimetric, amperometric, or potentiometric formats.…”

“…Therefore, there is an urgent need for standard, sensitive, robust, and commonly available screening tools for the identification of early signs of cancer pathologies [ 9 ]. In this respect, the “Holy Grail” of cancer researchers and bioengineers for decades has been molecular sensing probes that would allow for the diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of cancer diseases via their interaction with tumor-associated cancer cells and/or blood-solubilized PC biomarkers, such as the prostate-specific antigen (PSA), the prostate cancer antigen 3 gene (PCA3), and sarcosine oxidase [ 2 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. At present, most PSA tests are performed at centralized laboratories using high-throughput total PSA immune analyzers.…”

“…Furthermore, an important limitation of PSA analyzers is that they are suitable for dedicated laboratories and are not readily available for the broad healthcare community. Therefore, the emerging trend in the screening and detection of PC is using portable biosensors for mobile laboratories and individual use [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Phage display, since its conception by George Smith, in 1985 has emerged as a premier tool in molecular biology with widespread application.…”

Rapid Near-Patient Impedimetric Sensing Platform for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis

“…In general, specialized equipment and associated support from skilled technicians are necessary for the detection of UZn by atomic absorption spectroscopy, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), and surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS). ,− Colorimetric analysis using reagents such as o-2-(2-hydroxy-5-sulfophenylazo) benzylidenehydrazinobenzoic acid was assessed as a convenient alternative means to detect UZn in patient samples . However, such convenient alternative methodologies tend to suffer from low specificity because of their inability to differentiate metal ions like Zn 2+ and Cu 2+ present in urine . In this context, electrochemical methodologies emerge as a promising avenue for UZn detection, presenting notable advantages such as precision, user-friendliness, heightened specificity, noninvasive protocols, and cost-effectiveness.…”

“… 30 However, such convenient alternative methodologies tend to suffer from low specificity because of their inability to differentiate metal ions like Zn 2+ and Cu 2+ present in urine. 31 In this context, electrochemical methodologies emerge as a promising avenue for UZn detection, presenting notable advantages such as precision, user-friendliness, heightened specificity, noninvasive protocols, and cost-effectiveness. Within electrochemical systems, bismuth and mercury electrodes have been widely employed for zinc detection.…”