PURPOSE: We compared the effectiveness of PCA3 (prostate cancer antigen 3) and select comparators for improving initial or repeat biopsy decision making in men at risk for prostate cancer, or treatment choices in men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cochrane Database and gray literature were searched from January 1990 through May 2012. Included studies were matched, and measured PCA3 and comparator(s) within a cohort. No matched analyses were possible. Differences in independent performance estimates between PCA3 and comparators were computed within studies. Studies were assessed for quality using QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) and for strength of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. RESULTS: Among 1,556 publications identified, 34 observational studies were analyzed (24 addressed diagnostic accuracy and 13 addressed treatment decisions). Most studies were conducted in opportunistic cohorts of men referred for procedures and were not designed to answer key questions. Two study biases (partial verification and sampling) were addressed by analyses, allowing some conclusions to be drawn. PCA3 was more discriminatory than total prostate specific antigen increases (eg at an observed 50% specificity, summary sensitivities were 77% and 57%, respectively). Analyses indicated that this finding holds for initial and repeat biopsies, and that the markers were independent predictors. For all other biopsy decision making comparisons and associated health outcomes, strength of evidence was insufficient. For treatment decision making, strength of evidence was insufficient for all outcomes and comparators. CONCLUSIONS: PCA3 had a higher diagnostic accuracy than total prostate specific antigen increases, but strength of evidence was low (limited confidence in effect estimates). Strength of evidence was insufficient to conclude that PCA3 testing leads to improved health outcomes. For all other outcomes and comparators, strength of evidence was insufficient.
PURPOSE: We compared the effectiveness of PCA3 (prostate cancer antigen 3) and select comparators for improving initial or repeat biopsy decision making in men at risk for prostate cancer, or treatment choices in men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cochrane Database and gray literature were searched from January 1990 through May 2012. Included studies were matched, and measured PCA3 and comparator(s) within a cohort. No matched analyses were possible. Differences in independent performance estimates between PCA3 and comparators were computed within studies. Studies were assessed for quality using QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) and for strength of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. RESULTS: Among 1,556 publications identified, 34 observational studies were analyzed (24 addressed diagnostic accuracy and 13 addressed treatment decisions). Most studies were conducted in opportunistic cohorts of men referred for procedures and were not designed to answer key questions. Two study biases (partial verification and sampling) were addressed by analyses, allowing some conclusions to be drawn. PCA3 was more discriminatory than total prostate specific antigen increases (eg at an observed 50% specificity, summary sensitivities were 77% and 57%, respectively). Analyses indicated that this finding holds for initial and repeat biopsies, and that the markers were independent predictors. For all other biopsy decision making comparisons and associated health outcomes, strength of evidence was insufficient. For treatment decision making, strength of evidence was insufficient for all outcomes and comparators. CONCLUSIONS:PCA3 had a higher diagnostic accuracy than total prostate specific antigen increases, but strength of evidence was low (limited confidence in effect estimates). Strength of evidence was insufficient to conclude that PCA3 testing leads to improved health outcomes. For all other outcomes and comparators, strength of evidence was insufficient.
Authors: Pär Stattin; Andrew J Vickers; Daniel D Sjoberg; Robert Johansson; Torvald Granfors; Mattias Johansson; Kim Pettersson; Peter T Scardino; Göran Hallmans; Hans Lilja Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ricardo A Rendon; Ross J Mason; Karim Marzouk; Antonio Finelli; Fred Saad; Alan So; Phillipe Violette; Rodney H Breau Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Raphael B M Aggio; Ben de Lacy Costello; Paul White; Tanzeela Khalid; Norman M Ratcliffe; Raj Persad; Chris S J Probert Journal: J Breath Res Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.262
Authors: David Turay; Salma Khan; Carlos J Diaz Osterman; Matthew P Curtis; Balreet Khaira; Jonathan W Neidigh; Saied Mirshahidi; Carlos A Casiano; Nathan R Wall Journal: Cancer Invest Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 2.176