Literature DB >> 18511177

The comparability of models for predicting the risk of a positive prostate biopsy with prostate-specific antigen alone: a systematic review.

Fritz Schröder1, Michael W Kattan.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: The sensitivity and specificity profile of measuring levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to select men for prostate biopsy is not optimal. This has prompted the construction of nomograms and artificial neural networks (ANNs) to increase the performance of PSA measurements.
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of nomograms and ANNs designed to predict the risk of a positive prostate biopsy for cancer was conducted in order to determine their value versus measuring PSA levels alone. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (U.S. National Library of Medicine's life science database; MEDLINE) was searched using the terms "nomogram" "artificial neural network" and "prostate cancer" for dates up to and including July 2007 and was supplemented by manual searches of reference lists. Included studies used an assessment tool to examine the risk of a positive prostate biopsy in a man without a known cancer diagnosis. Intramodel comparisons with evaluation of PSA levels alone, and intermodel comparisons of area under the curve (AUC) from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were conducted. Individual case examples were also used for comparisons. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three studies examining 36 models were included. With the exception of two studies, all the models had AUC values of 0.70 or greater, with eight reporting an AUC of >/=0.80 and four (all ANNs) reporting an AUC >/=0.85, with variable validation status. Fourteen studies compared the AUC with PSA levels alone: all showed a benefit from using AUCs which varied from 0.02 to 0.26. Of the 16 external validation comparisons, in 13 the AUC was lower in the external population than in the model population.
CONCLUSIONS: Nomograms and ANNs produce improvements in AUC over measurement of PSA levels alone, but many lack external validation. Where this is available, the benefits are often diminished, although most remain significantly better than with evaluation of PSA levels alone. In men without additional risk factors, PSA cutoff values alone provide a relatively precise risk estimate, but if additional risk factors are known, PSA values alone are less accurate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18511177     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.05.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  37 in total

1.  Impact of recent screening on predicting the outcome of prostate cancer biopsy in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: data from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening in Gothenburg, Sweden.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Gunnar Aus; Carl-Gustav Pihl; Charlotte Becker; Kim Pettersson; Peter T Scardino; Jonas Hugosson; Hans Lilja
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 2.  Artificial neural networks and prostate cancer--tools for diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Xinhai Hu; Henning Cammann; Hellmuth-A Meyer; Kurt Miller; Klaus Jung; Carsten Stephan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 3.  Risk stratification of prostate cancer: integrating multiparametric MRI, nomograms and biomarkers.

Authors:  Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Mahir Maruf; Thomas P Frye; Akhil Muthigi; Michael Kongnyuy; Subin G Valayil; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 3.404

4.  The relationship between prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer risk: the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Monique J Roobol; Jonas Hugosson; J Stephen Jones; Michael W Kattan; Eric Klein; Freddie Hamdy; David Neal; Jenny Donovan; Dipen J Parekh; Donna Ankerst; George Bartsch; Helmut Klocker; Wolfgang Horninger; Amine Benchikh; Gilles Salama; Arnauld Villers; Steve J Freedland; Daniel M Moreira; Fritz H Schröder; Hans Lilja
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2010-08-24       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 5.  [Value of biomarkers in urology].

Authors:  P J Goebell; B Keck; S Wach; B Wullich
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 6.  Prostate cancer in young men: an important clinical entity.

Authors:  Claudia A Salinas; Alex Tsodikov; Miriam Ishak-Howard; Kathleen A Cooney
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 7.  Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol; Sigrid V Carlsson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 14.432

8.  Natriuretic Peptides and Assessment of Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Asymptomatic Persons.

Authors:  Lori B Daniels
Journal:  Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep       Date:  2010-02-17

9.  Prostate specific antigen concentration at age 60 and death or metastasis from prostate cancer: case-control study.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Thomas Björk; Jonas Manjer; Peter M Nilsson; Anders Dahlin; Anders Bjartell; Peter T Scardino; David Ulmert; Hans Lilja
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-09-14

10.  External Evaluation of a Novel Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ProstateCheck) Based on Data from the Swiss Arm of the ERSPC.

Authors:  Cédric Poyet; Marian S Wettstein; Dara J Lundon; Bimal Bhindi; Girish S Kulkarni; Karim Saba; Tullio Sulser; A J Vickers; Thomas Hermanns
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-05-14       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.