Julian Little1, Brenda Wilson1, Ron Carter2, Kate Walker3, Pasqualina Santaguida3, Eva Tomiak4, Joseph Beyene3, Muhammad Usman Ali3, Parminder Raina3. 1. School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 4. The Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel tests have been proposed for use in the detection of, and prediction of risk for, prostate cancer and as prognostic indicator in affected men. A systematic review was undertaken to address three research questions to evaluate the analytic validity, clinical validity, clinical utility, and prognostic validity of SNP-based panels. METHODS: Data sources comprised MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EMBASE; these were searched from inception to April 2013. The gray-literature searches included contact with manufacturers. Eligible studies included English-language studies evaluating commercially available SNP panels. Study selection and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met eligibility criteria. All focused on clinical validity and evaluated 18 individual panels with 2 to 35 SNPs. All had poor discriminative ability (overall area under receiver-operator characteristic curves, 58-74%; incremental gain resulting from inclusion of SNP data, 2.5-11%) for predicting risk of prostate cancer and/or distinguishing between aggressive and asymptomatic/latent disease. The risk of bias of the studies, as assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tools, was moderate. CONCLUSION: The evidence on currently available SNP panels is insufficient to assess analytic validity, and at best the panels assessed would add a small and clinically unimportant improvement to factors such as age and family history in risk stratification (clinical validity). No evidence on the clinical utility of current panels is available.Genet Med 18 6, 535-544.
PURPOSE: Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel tests have been proposed for use in the detection of, and prediction of risk for, prostate cancer and as prognostic indicator in affected men. A systematic review was undertaken to address three research questions to evaluate the analytic validity, clinical validity, clinical utility, and prognostic validity of SNP-based panels. METHODS: Data sources comprised MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EMBASE; these were searched from inception to April 2013. The gray-literature searches included contact with manufacturers. Eligible studies included English-language studies evaluating commercially available SNP panels. Study selection and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met eligibility criteria. All focused on clinical validity and evaluated 18 individual panels with 2 to 35 SNPs. All had poor discriminative ability (overall area under receiver-operator characteristic curves, 58-74%; incremental gain resulting from inclusion of SNP data, 2.5-11%) for predicting risk of prostate cancer and/or distinguishing between aggressive and asymptomatic/latent disease. The risk of bias of the studies, as assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tools, was moderate. CONCLUSION: The evidence on currently available SNP panels is insufficient to assess analytic validity, and at best the panels assessed would add a small and clinically unimportant improvement to factors such as age and family history in risk stratification (clinical validity). No evidence on the clinical utility of current panels is available.Genet Med 18 6, 535-544.
Authors: Robert J Macinnis; Antonis C Antoniou; Rosalind A Eeles; Gianluca Severi; Ali Amin Al Olama; Lesley McGuffog; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Michelle Guy; Lynne T O'Brien; Amanda L Hall; Rosemary A Wilkinson; Emma Sawyer; Audrey T Ardern-Jones; David P Dearnaley; Alan Horwich; Vincent S Khoo; Christopher C Parker; Robert A Huddart; Nicholas Van As; Margaret R McCredie; Dallas R English; Graham G Giles; John L Hopper; Douglas F Easton Journal: Genet Epidemiol Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 2.135
Authors: Eva Johansson; Gunnar Steineck; Lars Holmberg; Jan-Erik Johansson; Tommy Nyberg; Mirja Ruutu; Anna Bill-Axelson Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-08-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: David S Weinberg; Ronald E Myers; Eileen Keenan; Karen Ruth; Randa Sifri; Barry Ziring; Eric Ross; Sharon L Manne Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Mia Djulbegovic; Rebecca J Beyth; Molly M Neuberger; Taryn L Stoffs; Johannes Vieweg; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Philipp Dahm Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-09-14
Authors: Michael S Manak; Jonathan S Varsanik; Brad J Hogan; Matt J Whitfield; Wendell R Su; Nikhil Joshi; Nicolai Steinke; Andrew Min; Delaney Berger; Robert J Saphirstein; Gauri Dixit; Thiagarajan Meyyappan; Hui-May Chu; Kevin B Knopf; David M Albala; Grannum R Sant; Ashok C Chander Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 25.671
Authors: Elena Tagliabue; Sara Gandini; Rino Bellocco; Patrick Maisonneuve; Julia Newton-Bishop; David Polsky; DeAnn Lazovich; Peter A Kanetsky; Paola Ghiorzo; Nelleke A Gruis; Maria Teresa Landi; Chiara Menin; Maria Concetta Fargnoli; Jose Carlos García-Borrón; Jiali Han; Julian Little; Francesco Sera; Sara Raimondi Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 3.989
Authors: Lingyun Xu; Jung-Rok Lee; Shiying Hao; Xuefeng Bruce Ling; James D Brooks; Shan X Wang; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 3.240