From Supplemental Table S2 in the paper: Non cancer patients: 26, Cancer patients: 25 So, they only had 51 individuals in the study. Then they actually di

From Supplemental Table S2 in the paper: Non cancer patients: 26, Cancer patients: 25 So, they only had 51 individuals in the study. Then they actually divided the patients in to 3 groups: normal, PCa with pre-DRE, and PCa with post-DRE. The cancer patients thus had 2 samples, pre and post-exam: 26 + (2*25) = 76. Given the false positive rate of PSA screening, I would imagine that including more normal samples would have been more beneficial here. The method of analysis is pretty interesting though, which is where I think the novelty is for this paper. I assume that a more thorough clinical trial is planned with better numbers. This paper looks like it is more of a validation of the device than anything else.