Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25403590›Full record

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.

K S Louie, A Seigneurin, P Cathcart, P Sasieni

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

91 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

K S LouieCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. Electronic address: k.louie@qmul.ac.uk.
A SeigneurinCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Joseph Fourier University-Grenoble 1, CNRS, TIMC-IMAG UMR 5525, Grenoble; Medical Evaluation Unit, Grenoble University Hospital, Grenoble, France.
P CathcartDepartment of Urology, University College Hospital London and St Bartholomew's Hospital London and Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Bart's Cancer Institute, London; The Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.
P SasieniCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15037Cancer Research UK 16892Cancer Research UK C41733/A15037
6 · The paper itself

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

Decision Support TechniquesModels, BiologicalModels, StatisticalArea Under CurveBiopsyDiscriminant AnalysisHumansKallikreinsMalePredictive Value of TestsPrognosisProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsROC CurveKallikreinsKLK3 protein, humanProstate-Specific Antigenmeta-analysisprostate cancerrisk calculatorsrisk prediction modelsscreening

Identifiers

PMID25403590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.