Literature DB >> 33619518

Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Managing the Gap between Clinical and Laboratory Practice.

Simona Ferraro1, Marco Bussetti1, Mauro Panteghini1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for early detection of prostate cancer recommend for clinical decision-making a personalized prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based management to improve the risk-benefit ratio of the screening strategy. Some important critical issues regarding the PSA determination in the clinical framework are, however, still neglected in current guidelines and a major focus of recommendations on those aspects would be needed to improve their effectiveness. CONTENT: Evidence sources in the available literature concerning the interchangeability of total PSA results measured with different commercial methods were critically appraised. We discuss how the heterogeneity of the measurand, the intermethod bias, and the design and selectivity of immunoassays may affect the diagnostic accuracy of selected PSA thresholds, and how knowledge of the analytical characteristics of assays in service, such as the recognized PSA circulating forms and the cross-reactivity with PSA homologs, is basic for improving both clinical decision-making in cancer screening and the reliability of the clinical interpretation of results at the individual level.
SUMMARY: Current CPGs ignore the poor interchangeability of PSA results obtained from different assays and the substantial role of laboratory issues in clinical performance of PSA testing. Involved stakeholders should contribute to fill the existing gap by: (a) preparing commutable reference materials for immunoassay calibration; (b) providing analytical characteristics that may explain the different performance of assays; (c) deriving outcome-based analytical performance specifications for PSA measurement; and (d) giving more focus on laboratory items when CPGs are prepared. © American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2021. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  antibodies; bias; clinical practice guidelines; immunoassays; prostate-specific antigen; risk threshold

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33619518     DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/hvab002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem        ISSN: 0009-9147            Impact factor:   8.327


  3 in total

1.  Standard-free single magnetic bead evaluation: a stable nanoplatform for prostate disease differentiation.

Authors:  Zili Huang; Xiaobo Xie; Bei Xu; Rui Liu; Jianyu Hu; Yi Lv
Journal:  Chem Sci       Date:  2022-04-29       Impact factor: 9.969

2.  PROSHADE Protocol: Designing and Evaluating a Decision Aid for Promoting Shared Decision Making in Opportunistic Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Mix-Method Study.

Authors:  Blanca Lumbreras; Lucy Anne Parker; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Javier Mira-Bernabeu; Luis Gómez-Pérez; Juan Pablo Caballero-Romeu; Salvador Pertusa-Martínez; Ana Cebrián-Cuenca; Irene Moral-Peláez; Maite López-Garrigós; Carlos Canelo-Aybar; Elena Ronda; Mercedes Guilabert; Antonio Prieto-González; Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 4.614

Review 3.  Prognostic Value of Albumin to Globulin Ratio in Non-Metastatic and Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Authors:  Stefano Salciccia; Marco Frisenda; Giulio Bevilacqua; Pietro Viscuso; Paolo Casale; Ettore De Berardinis; Giovanni Battista Di Pierro; Susanna Cattarino; Gloria Giorgino; Davide Rosati; Francesco Del Giudice; Alessandro Sciarra; Gianna Mariotti; Alessandro Gentilucci
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 6.208

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.