ArticleWorld journal of urology2014
Additional value of PCA3 density to predict initial prostate biopsy outcome.
Article in World journal of urology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis accuracy of PCA3 level in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyPooled it
- Molecular Biomarkers for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.European urology open science · 2022Review
- The long non-coding RNAOncotarget · 2019Article
- Plasma lncRNA GAS8-AS1 as a Potential Biomarker of Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma in Chinese Patients.International journal of endocrinology · 2017Article
- The role of biomarkers in the assessment of prostate cancer risk prior to prostate biopsy: which markers matter and how should they be used?World journal of urology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSimilar to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density, PCA3 density (PCA3D: ratio of urinary PCA3 score/prostate volume) can be calculated, but whether it can be an aid to decide biopsy in patients at risk of prostate cancer (PCa) is uncertain. The objective was to demonstrate that PCA3D provides better specificity than PCA3 in predicting initial prostate biopsy outcome.
methodsSerum and urine samples were obtained from 595 consecutive patients scheduled for initial prostate biopsy. The urinary PCA3 test was performed before biopsy. Additional measures were prostate volume, PSA density (PSAD) and PCA3D. Multivariate logistic regression models including baseline characteristics and the markers were evaluated. The presumed net benefit was assessed through decision curve analyses.
resultsPSAD and PCA3D performed better than PSA and PCA3 score, respectively. PCA3D provided the best specificity (76 %). The best calculated cutoff for PCA3D was 1. The risk of positive biopsy significantly increased to 70 % if PCA3D ≥ 1 versus 29 % if PCA3D was <1. Using a cutoff at 0.5 for PCA3D, biopsies could have been avoided in up to 52 % of the patients without PCa while missing 15 % of any PCa and 10 % of PCa with Gleason score ≥7. Decision curve analyses showed that PSAD was the best predictor of Gleason score at biopsy while PCA3D best predicted the proportion of invaded cores.
conclusionsPCA3D showed a significant increase in specificity when compared with PSA, PSAD and PCA3. PCA3D can be considered an easy-to-use mini-nomogram with a 70 % risk of positive initial biopsy when PCA3D > 1, i.e., PCA3 score > prostate volume.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.