Diagnostic accuracy of [-2]proPSA versus Gleason score and Prostate Health Index versus Gleason score for the determination of aggressive prostate cancer: a systematic review

被引:1
|
作者
Anyango, Ruth [1 ,2 ]
Ojwando, Joel [1 ,2 ]
Mwita, Clifford [1 ,2 ]
Mugalo, Edward [2 ]
机构
[1] ARA JBI Ctr Excellence, Nairobi, Kenya
[2] Moi Univ Sch Med, Eldoret, Kenya
关键词
diagnostic accuracy; p2PSA; prostate cancer; Prostate Health Index; systematic review; PSA-RELATED INDEXES; ANTIGEN; 3; PCA3; STANDARD TEST PSA; SERUM ISOFORM; SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVES; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; PATHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES; CLINICAL UTILITY; INITIAL BIOPSY; JAPANESE MEN;
D O I
10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00194
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: The objective of this review was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of [-2]proPSA (p2PSA) and the Prostate Health Index compared to the Gleason score in determining the aggressiveness of prostate cancer. Introduction: Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. However, the utility of currently available biomarkers for determining the aggressive form of the disease remains unknown. This review sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of two new biomarkers in determining the aggressive form of prostate cancer. Inclusion criteria: Diagnostic accuracy studies that enrolled men of any age and any prostate specific antigen (PSA) level with histologically confirmed prostate cancer in which Prostate Health Index and p2PSA were assessed in comparison to Gleason score for the determination of aggressive prostate cancer were considered for inclusion. There was no time limitation on study inclusion. Methods: A three-step search strategy was utilized to identify both published and unpublished studies in the English language in the following sources: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, MedNar, and SIGLE. Databases were searched from inception to January 2019. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis were done according to the approach recommended by JBI. Results: A total of 12 studies (n = 8462) that recruited men with aggressive prostate cancer were considered in this review. The majority of included subjects had a total PSA level of 2 to 10ng/mL. The sensitivity of the Prostate Health Index ranged from 67% to 97% while specificity ranged from 6% to 64%. At a Prostate Health Index threshold of 25 and below (three studies, n = 3222), pooled sensitivity was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95% to 98%) and specificity was 10% (95% CI, 6% to 16%). At a Prostate Health Index threshold of between 26 and 35 (six studies, n = 6030), pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI, 8% to 91%) and specificity was 45% (95% CI, 39% to 50%). At a Prostate Health Index threshold of 36 and above (five studies, n = 1476), pooled sensitivity was 72% (95% CI, 64% to 79%) and specificity was 74% (95% CI, 68% to 80%). Only one study assessed p2PSA. Sensitivity ranged from 80% to 95%, and specificity ranged from 9.9% to 27.9% with increasing threshold values from 7.9 to 10.9ng/mL. Conclusions: Overall, both Prostate Health Index and p2PSA have acceptable accuracy for the determination of the likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer. However, the inverse relationship between sensitivity and specificity makes it difficult to determine an optimum cut-off value for positivity. Further research is warranted to determine their utility in the management of prostate cancer.
引用
收藏
页码:1263 / 1291
页数:29
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Can dynamic contrast enhanced MRI predict gleason score in prostate cancer? a systematic review and meta analysis
    Meyer, Hans-Jonas
    Wienke, Andreas
    Surov, Alexey
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2021, 39 (11) : 784.e17 - 784.e25
  • [22] Prostate Specific Antigen Level and Gleason Score in Indonesian Prostate Cancer Patients
    Herawan, Muhammad Imam Al Kautsar
    Adriansjah, Ricky
    MAJALAH KEDOKTERAN BANDUNG, 2024, 56 (03): : 209 - 213
  • [23] Developing a Correct System to Evaluate the Accuracy of Gleason Score in Prostate Cancer of Chinese Population
    Wang, Jun
    Cheng, Gong
    Li, Xiao
    Huang, Yuan
    Pan, Yongsheng
    Qin, Chao
    Hua, Lixin
    Wang, Zengjun
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2016, 96 (03) : 295 - 301
  • [24] Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to predict postoperative Gleason score upgrading in prostate cancer with Gleason score 3+4
    Kim, Hwanik
    Kim, Jung Kwon
    Hong, Sung Kyu
    Jeong, Chang Wook
    Ku, Ja Hyeon
    Kwak, Cheol
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2021, 39 (06) : 1825 - 1830
  • [25] Multimodal Radiomic Features for the Predicting Gleason Score of Prostate Cancer
    Chaddad, Ahmad
    Kucharczyk, Michael J.
    Niazi, Tamim
    CANCERS, 2018, 10 (08)
  • [26] Deep Radiomic Analysis to Predict Gleason Score in Prostate Cancer
    Chaddad, Ahmad
    Kucharczyk, Michael J.
    Desrosiers, Christian
    Okuwobi, Idowu Paul
    Katib, Yousef
    Zhang, Mingli
    Rathore, Saima
    Sargos, Paul
    Niazi, Tamim
    IEEE ACCESS, 2020, 8 : 167767 - 167778
  • [27] Prognostic significance of primary Gleason pattern in Japanese men with Gleason score 7 prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy
    Miyake, Hideaki
    Muramaki, Mototsugu
    Furukawa, Junya
    Tanaka, Hirokazu
    Inoue, Taka-aki
    Fujisawa, Masato
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2013, 31 (08) : 1511 - 1516
  • [28] Beyond the Gleason score: the prognostic significance of prostate cancer subtypes
    Flood, Trevor A.
    Schieda, Nicola
    TRANSLATIONAL ANDROLOGY AND UROLOGY, 2018, 7 : S260 - S261
  • [29] The Quantitative Gleason Score Improves Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment
    Reese, Adam C.
    Cowan, Janet E.
    Brajtbord, Jonathan S.
    Harris, Catherine R.
    Carroll, Peter R.
    Cooperberg, Matthew R.
    CANCER, 2012, 118 (24) : 6046 - 6054
  • [30] Expression signatures that correlated with Gleason score and relapse in prostate cancer
    Bibikova, Marina
    Chudin, Eugene
    Arsanjani, Amir
    Zhou, Lixin
    Garcia, Eliza Wickham
    Modder, Joshua
    Kostelec, Monica
    Barker, David
    Downs, Tracy
    Fan, Jian-Bing
    Wang-Rodriguez, Jessica
    GENOMICS, 2007, 89 (06) : 666 - 672