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 Methods: A three-step search strategy was utilized to identify both published and unpublished studies in the English language in the following sources: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar,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
  • [41] Accuracy of the Prostate Health Index Versus the Urinary Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 Score to Predict Overall and Significant Prostate Cancer at Initial Biopsy
    Seisen, Thomas
    Roupret, Morgan
    Brault, Didier
    Leon, Priscilla
    Cancel-Tassin, Geraldine
    Comperat, Eva
    Renard-Penna, Raphaele
    Mozer, Pierre
    Guechot, Jerome
    Cussenot, Olivier
    PROSTATE, 2015, 75 (01) : 103 - 111
  • [42] Prostate Size as a Predictor of Gleason Score Upgrading in Patients With Low Risk Prostate Cancer
    Davies, Judson D.
    Aghazadeh, Monty A.
    Phillips, Sharon
    Salem, Shady
    Chang, Sam S.
    Clark, Peter E.
    Cookson, Michael S.
    Davis, Rodney
    Herrell, S. Duke
    Penson, David F.
    Smith, Joseph A., Jr.
    Barocas, Daniel A.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2011, 186 (06) : 2221 - 2227
  • [43] Prostate cancer: correlation of intravoxel incoherent motion MR parameters with Gleason score
    Yang, Dal Mo
    Kim, Hyun Cheol
    Kim, Sang Won
    Jahng, Geon-Ho
    Won, Kyu Yeoun
    Lim, Sung Jig
    Oh, Jang-Hoon
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2016, 40 (03) : 445 - 450
  • [44] Differences in histopathological and biochemical outcomes in patients with low Gleason score prostate cancer
    Isbarn, Hendrik
    Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
    Ahyai, Sascha A.
    Chun, Felix K. H.
    Jeldres, Claudio
    Haese, Alexander
    Heinzer, Hans
    Zacharias, Mario
    Heuer, Roman
    Eichelberg, Christian
    Steuber, Thomas
    Budaeus, Lars
    Koellermann, Jens
    Salomon, Georg
    Schlomm, Thorsten
    Perrotte, Paul
    Fisch, Margit
    Huland, Hartwig
    Graefen, Markus
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2010, 105 (06) : 818 - 823
  • [45] Loss of YAP protein in prostate cancer is associated with Gleason score increase
    Hu, Xiaoyong
    Jia, Yingying
    Yu, Jianjun
    Chen, Jie
    Fu, Qiang
    TUMORI, 2015, 101 (02) : 189 - 193
  • [46] Correlation of protein expression, Gleason score and DNA ploidy in prostate cancer
    Lexander, Helena
    Palmberg, Carina
    Hellman, Ulf
    Auer, Gert
    Hellstrom, Magnus
    Franzen, Bo
    Jornvall, Hans
    Egevad, Lars
    PROTEOMICS, 2006, 6 (15) : 4370 - 4380
  • [47] Matrix metalloproteinase 9 is associated with Gleason score in prostate cancer but not with prognosis
    Trudel, Dominique
    Fradet, Yves
    Meyer, Francois
    Tetu, Bernard
    HUMAN PATHOLOGY, 2010, 41 (12) : 1694 - 1701
  • [48] Favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer with biopsy Gleason score of 6
    Oh, Jong Jin
    Ahn, Hyungwoo
    Hwang, Sung Il
    Lee, Hak Jong
    Choe, Gheeyoung
    Lee, Sangchul
    Lee, Hakmin
    Byun, Seok-Soo
    Hong, Sung Kyu
    BMC UROLOGY, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [49] Prognostic Value of Gleason Score at Positive Surgical Margin in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Lysenko, Ivan
    Mori, Keiichiro
    Mostafaei, Hadi
    Enikeev, Dmitry, V
    Karakiewicz, Pierre, I
    Briganti, Alberto
    Quhal, Fahad
    Janisch, Florian
    Shariat, Shahrokh F.
    CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER, 2020, 18 (05) : E517 - E522
  • [50] Favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer with biopsy Gleason score of 6
    Jong Jin Oh
    Hyungwoo Ahn
    Sung Il Hwang
    Hak Jong Lee
    Gheeyoung Choe
    Sangchul Lee
    Hakmin Lee
    Seok-Soo Byun
    Sung Kyu Hong
    BMC Urology, 21