SynthesisAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2015
Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening? A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
91 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical impact of MRI-based risk calculators for prostate cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Pooled it
- The Benefits and Harms of Screening for Prostate Cancer in Adults Aged 18 Years and Older: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Pooled it
- Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Pooled it
- Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Using microRNAs as Novel Predictors of Urologic Cancer Survival: An Integrated Analysis.EBioMedicine · 2018Pooled it
- Risk of Prostate Cancer-related Death Following a Low PSA Level in the PLCO Trial.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2020Trial
- The significance of urine extracellular vesicle DNA methylation detection in the diagnosis and classification of prostate cancer.Journal of advanced research · 2026Article
- Identification and diagnostic evaluation of an aptamer targeting prostate-cancer-derived small extracellular vesicles.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2026Article
- Meta learning optimized TabNet for small sample repeat prostate biopsy prediction.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Combining Serum PVT1 Exon 4A and Exon 9 with Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Shows Potential for Improving Identification and Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
- Temporal trends of prostate cancer diagnostics in Australia: Has the introduction of a magnetic resonance imaging prostate subsidy fulfilled its cost-saving promises?Prostate international · 2025Article
- Integrating anamnestic and lifestyle data with sphingolipid levels for risk-based prostate cancer screening.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Observational
- The Application of Surface Luminance Distribution Measurements to the Evaluation of Neoplastic Lesions of the Prostate Gland.Cancers · 2025Article
- Integrating radiological and clinical data for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with machine learning techniques.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- PSA testing in primary care: is it time to change our practice?BMC primary care · 2024Review
- Influential factors on urine EV DNA methylation detection and its diagnostic potential in prostate cancer.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Novel machine learning algorithm in risk prediction model for pan-cancer risk: application in a large prospective cohort.BMJ oncology · 2024Article
- Navigating through the Controversies and Emerging Paradigms in Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Bridging the Gap from Classic RCTs to Modern Population-Based Pilot Programs.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Prostate cancer risk assessment by the primary care physician and urologist: transabdominal- versus transrectal ultrasound prostate volume-based use of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Article
- Underlying Features of Prostate Cancer-Statistics, Risk Factors, and Emerging Methods for Its Diagnosis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the extensive development of risk prediction models to aid patient decision-making on prostate screening, it is unknown whether these models could improve predictive accuracy of PSA testing to detect prostate cancer (PCa). The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review to identify PCa risk models and to assess the model's performance to predict PCa by conducting a meta-analysis.
designA systematic literature search of Medline was conducted to identify PCa predictive risk models that used at least two variables, of which one of the variables was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. Model performance (discrimination and calibration) was assessed. Prediction models validated in ≥5 study populations and reported area under the curve (AUC) for prediction of any or clinically significant PCa were eligible for meta-analysis. Summary AUC and 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model.
resultsThe systematic review identified 127 unique PCa prediction models; however, only six models met study criteria for meta-analysis for predicting any PCa: Prostataclass, Finne, Karakiewcz, Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT), Chun, and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator 3 (ERSPC RC3). Summary AUC estimates show that PCPT does not differ from PSA testing (0.66) despite performing better in studies validating both PSA and PCPT. Predictive accuracy to discriminate PCa increases with Finne (AUC = 0.74), Karakiewcz (AUC = 0.74), Chun (AUC = 0.76) and ERSPC RC3 and Prostataclass have the highest discriminative value (AUC = 0.79), which is equivalent to doubling the sensitivity of PSA testing (44% versus 21%) without loss of specificity. The discriminative accuracy of PCPT to detect clinically significant PCa was AUC = 0.71. Calibration measures of the models were poorly reported.
conclusionsRisk prediction models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA testing to detect PCa. Future developments in the use of PCa risk models should evaluate its clinical effectiveness in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25403590What 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.