Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26975483›Full record

ArticleAsian journal of andrology

Performance of the Prostate Health Index in predicting prostate biopsy outcomes among men with a negative digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography.

Guo-Peng Yu, Rong Na, Ding-Wei Ye, Jun Qi, Fang Liu, Hai-Tao Chen, Yi-Shuo Wu, Gui-Ming Zhang, Jie-Lin Sun, Yao Zhu and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian journal of andrology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Guo-Peng YuFudan Institute of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai; Department of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Rong NaFudan Institute of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai; Department of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ding-Wei YeDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center and Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Jun QiDepartment of Urology, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Fang LiuFudan Institute of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, School of Life Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Center for Cancer Genomics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA, .
Hai-Tao ChenState Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, School of Life Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yi-Shuo WuFudan Institute of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai; Department of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Gui-Ming ZhangDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center and Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Jie-Lin SunCenter for Cancer Genomics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Yao ZhuDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center and Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Li-Qun HuangDepartment of Urology, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Shan-Cheng RenDepartment of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
De-Ke JiangState Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, School of Life Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Program for Personalized Cancer Care, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA, .
S Lilly ZhengCenter for Cancer Genomics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Program for Personalized Cancer Care, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA.
Hao-Wen JiangFudan Institute of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai; Department of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ying-Hao SunDepartment of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Qiang DingFudan Institute of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai; Department of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Jianfeng XuFudan Institute of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Department of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, School of Life Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Program for Personalized Cancer Care, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA, .
Fudan University · CNFudan University Shanghai Cancer Center · CNHuashan Hospital · CNWake Forest University · USChanghai Hospital · CNSecond Military Medical University · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CNXinHua Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The [-2]proPSA (p2PSA) and its derivatives, the p2PSA-to-free PSA ratio (%p2PSA), and the Prostate Health Index (PHI) have greatly improved discrimination between men with and without prostate cancer (PCa) in prostate biopsies. However, little is known about their performance in cases where a digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) are negative. A prospective cohort of 261 consecutive patients in China with negative DRE and TRUS were recruited and underwent prostate biopsies. A serum sample had collected before the biopsy was used to measure various PSA derivatives, including total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA), free PSA, and p2PSA. For each patient, the free-to-total PSA ratio (%fPSA), PSA density (PSAD), p2PSA-to-free PSA ratio (%p2PSA), and PHI were calculated. Discriminative performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the biopsy rate at 91% sensitivity. The AUC scores within the entire cohort with respect to age, tPSA, %fPSA, PSAD, p2PSA, %p2PSA, and PHI were 0.598, 0.751, 0.646, 0.789, 0.814, 0.808, and 0.853, respectively. PHI was the best predictor of prostate biopsy results, especially in patients with a tPSA of 10.1-20 ng ml-1 . Compared with other markers, at a sensitivity of 91%, PHI was the most useful for determining which men did not need to undergo biopsy, thereby avoiding unnecessary procedures. The use of PHI could improve the accuracy of PCa detection by predicting prostate biopsy outcomes among men with a negative DRE and TRUS in China.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyDigital Rectal ExaminationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProstateProstatic NeoplasmsUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID26975483
PMCPMC4955192
OpenAlexW2415362248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.