ArticleUrology2015
Impact of prostate-specific antigen on a baseline prostate cancer risk assessment including genetic risk.
Article in Urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine to what extent prostate cancer (PCa) risk prediction is improved by adding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to a baseline model including genetic risk.
methodsPeripheral blood deoxyribonucleic acid was obtained from Caucasian men undergoing prostate biopsy at the University of Toronto (September 1, 2008 to January 31, 2010). Thirty-three PCa risk-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms were genotyped to generate the prostate cancer genetic score 33 (PGS-33). Primary outcome is PCa on study prostate biopsy. Logistic regression, area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC), and net reclassification improvement were used to compare models.
resultsAmong 670 patients, 323 (48.2%) were diagnosed with PCa. The PGS-33 was highly associated with biopsy-detectable PCa (odds ratio, 1.66; P = 5.86E-05; AUC, 0.59) compared with PSA (odds ratio, 1.33; P = .01; AUC, 0.55). PSA did not improve risk prediction when added to a baseline model (age, family history, digital rectal examination, and PGS-33) for overall risk (AUC, 0.66 vs 0.66; P = .86) or Gleason score ≥7 PCa (AUC, 0.71 vs 0.73; P = .15). Net reclassification improvement analyses demonstrated no appropriate reclassifications with the addition of PSA to the baseline model for overall PCa but did show some benefit for reclassification of men thought to be at higher baseline risk in the high-grade PCa analysis.
conclusionIn a baseline model of PCa risk including the PGS-33, PSA does not add to risk prediction for overall PCa for men presenting for "for-cause" biopsy. These findings suggest that PSA screening may be minimized in men at low baseline risk.
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.