Dataset Information

A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate specific antigen.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prostate cancer is the fourth commonest cancer in the UK, and the incidence is rising. The reference standard for diagnosing this condition is prostate biopsy, an invasive procedure. This study systematically reviews recent literature on tPSA accuracy. The time period was restricted to ensure that the estimates referred to contemporary tPSA tests and prostate cancer reference standards. The focus of this review was restricted to European populations as tPSA levels are known to vary by population group.

Methods

Medline was searched (from 01/1998 to 01/2008) and Embase (from 01/1998 to 01/2008), which returned 3087 citations. These were assessed by 6 reviewers, who shortlisted 54 of possible relevance. 2 reviewers assessed each using the following inclusion criteria: data collection between 1998-2008; tPSA measurements for all participants; histological confirmation of the diagnosis; samples from a European population and sufficient data to calculate 2 x 2 tables. The final set of 10 included studies represented 5373 participants. Quality of the included studies was assessed in duplicate using criteria suggested by the Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5.0 software was used to analyse the data, including plotting a series of summary receiver operator curve spaces (SROC).

Results

tPSA sensitivities ranged from 0.78 to 1.00 and specificities from 0.06 to 0.66. Positive likelihood ratios ranged from 0.83 to 2.90 and negative likelihood ratios ranged from 0.00 to 3.75

Conclusion

tPSA has a role to play as one of several indicators for prostate biopsy along with abnormal digital rectal examination and urinary symptoms. However, tPSA test has a high false positive and significant false negative rate. It is important that clinicians understand these limitations.

SUBMITTER: Harvey P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2753579 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate specific antigen.

Harvey Philip P Basuita Amman A Endersby Deborah D Curtis Ben B Iacovidou Aphrodite A Walker Mary M

BMC urology 20090910

<h4>Background</h4>Prostate cancer is the fourth commonest cancer in the UK, and the incidence is rising. The reference standard for diagnosing this condition is prostate biopsy, an invasive procedure. This study systematically reviews recent literature on tPSA accuracy. The time period was restricted to ensure that the estimates referred to contemporary tPSA tests and prostate cancer reference standards. The focus of this review was restricted to European populations as tPSA levels are known to ...[more]

PMID: 19744336

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesElectronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, OpenGrey, LILACS, and Medline, and search of scientific meeting abstracts and trial registers to April 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing PSA screening with usual care in men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer.Data extractionAt least two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of eligible studies. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. We used a random effects model to obtain pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) and, when feasible, conducted subgroup analyses (defined a priori) based on age, frequency of screening, family history, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level, as well as a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach.ResultsFive randomised controlled trials, enrolling 721?718 men, were included. Studies varied with respect to screening frequency and intervals, PSA thresholds for biopsy, and risk of bias. When considering the whole body of evidence, screening probably has no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.96, 0.85 to 1.08; low certainty). Sensitivity analysis of studies at lower risk of bias (n=1) also demonstrates that screening seems to have no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 1.0, 0.98 to 1.02; moderate certainty) but may have a small effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.79, 0.69 to 0.91; moderate certainty). This corresponds to one less death from prostate cancer per 1000 men screened over 10 years. Direct comparative data on biopsy and treatment related complications from the included trials were limited. Using modelling, we estimated that for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalised for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively.ConclusionsAt best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but has does not affect overall mortality. Clinicians and patients considering PSA based screening need to weigh these benefits against the potential short and long term harms of screening, including complications from biopsies and subsequent treatment, as well as the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42016042347.

Project description:Objective: To investigate the role of PSMA in the differential diagnosis of adrenocortical carcinoma samples (ACCs) and adrenocortical adenoma samples (ACAs), to validate the prognostic role of PSMA in patients with ACCs, and to explore the possibility that this marker can differentiate localized ACCs from adrenal metastases from other sites. Methods: PSMA protein expression in tissue samples from 50 ACCs, 90 ACAs (including 20 from patients who presented with Cushing's syndrome, 20 aldosterone-producing adenomas and 50 non-functional tumors) and 10 tissues that were metastases from other primary sites was assessed by immunohistochemistry. The clinical and pathological characteristics were compared, the intensity and density were analyzed, and the prognostic role was evaluated. Results: The analysis of clinical and pathological features revealed that the size of ACCs was greater than that of benign tissues and the ACC patients were older than the ACA patients (p < 0.01). The percentage of PSMA-positive vessels, the mean intensity and the degree of staining density were found to be significantly lower in ACAs than in ACCs (p < 0.01). In these 140 samples, 60% of the ACCs were grouped in the positive category. The samples were negative for metastases that were from other primary sites. The ENSAT stage and Ki-67 were correlated with PSMA expression. The survival distribution revealed that high PSMA expression did not show any prognostic relevance in the current ACCs series. Those samples with a score of > 3.5 were 75 times more likely to be malignant (OR = 75). We established a cut-off score of 3.5 (p < 0.05), which had 46% sensitivity and 99% specificity. Paralleling PSMA and Ki-67 maximized the area under the curve, with 72% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Conclusions: Our results strongly confirm that PSMA is helpful for distinguishing benign from malignant tumors and that its high expression levels correlate with a high ENSAT stage and high proliferation. The combination of PSMA and Ki-67 can be particularly useful. Furthermore, PSMA might be a useful tool for the identification of localized adrenal carcinoma and metastatic carcinoma.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate men's values and preferences regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and grey literature up to 2 September 2017.Eligibility criteriaPrimary studies of men's values and preferences regarding the benefits and harms of PSA screening.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with a modified version of a risk of bias tool for values and preferences studies, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument V.3 and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.ResultsWe identified 4172 unique citations, of which 11 studies proved eligible. Five studies investigated PSA screening using a direct choice study design, whereas six used decisions aids displaying patient-important outcomes. The direct choice studies used different methodologies and varied considerably in the reporting of outcomes. Two studies suggested that men were willing to forego screening with a small benefit in prostate cancer mortality if it would decrease the likelihood of unnecessary treatment or biopsies. In contrast, one study reported that men were willing to accept a substantial overdiagnosis to reduce their risk of prostate cancer mortality. Among the six studies involving decision aids, willingness to undergo screening varied substantially from 37% when displaying a hypothetical reduction in mortality of 10 per 1000 men, to 44% when displaying a reduction in mortality of 7 per 1000. We found no studies that specifically investigated whether values and preferences differed among men with family history, of African descent or with lower socioeconomic levels.ConclusionThe variability of men's values and preferences reflect that the decision to screen is highly preference sensitive. Our review highlights the need for shared decision making in men considering prostate cancer screening.Trial registration numberCRD42018095585.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate specific antigen.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate specific antigen.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure