Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28804579›Full record

ArticleOman medical journal2017

Validity of Prostate Health Index and Percentage of [-2] Pro-Prostate-Specific Antigen as Novel Biomarkers in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: Omani Tertiary Hospitals Experience.

Safana S Al Saidi, Nafila B Al Riyami, Mohammed S Al Marhoon, Mohammed S Al Saraf, Salim S Al Busaidi, Riad Bayoumi, Waad-Allah S Mula-Abed

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oman medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Commentary on Novitas LCD.Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Modern biomarkers in prostate cancer diagnosis.Central European journal of urology · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Safana S Al SaidiDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman.
Nafila B Al RiyamiDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, Oman.
Mohammed S Al MarhoonDepartment of Urology, Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, Oman.
Mohammed S Al SarafDepartment of Urology, Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman.
Salim S Al BusaidiDepartment of Urology, Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman.
Riad BayoumiDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, Oman.
Waad-Allah S Mula-AbedDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman.
Royal Hospital · OMSultan Qaboos University Hospital · OM

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesProstate cancer is the leading cancer in older men. The Ministry of Health Oman Cancer Incidence Registry 2013 lists cancer of the prostate as the first most common cancer in males. Therefore, early detection is important and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is widely used as an established laboratory test. However, despite its wide use, its value in screening, particularly in asymptomatic males, is controversial when considering the risks and benefits of early detection.

methodsThis prospective, observational study included 136 males (67.0±8.9 years; range 45-90) who were scheduled for a prostate biopsy in two different tertiary care teaching hospitals in Oman: the Royal Hospital and Sultan Qaboos University Hospital. Blood specimens from these patients were collected at the same setting before obtaining a prostatic biopsy. Three PSA markers (total PSA (tPSA), free PSA (fPSA), and [-2]proPSA (p2PSA)) were measured and the Prostate Health Index (phi) calculated. The histopathological report of the prostatic biopsy for each patient was obtained from the histopathology laboratory of the concerned hospital along with clinical and laboratory data through the hospital information system.

resultsPhi has the highest validity markers compared with other prostate markers, with a sensitivity of 82.1%, specificity of 80.6%, and area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.81 at a cutoff of 41.9. The other prostatic markers showed sensitivities and specificities of 78.6% and 25.9% for tPSA; 35.7% and 92.6% for %fPSA; and 64.3% and 82.4% for %p2PSA, respectively. The AUCs at the best cutoff values were 0.67 at 10.1 µg/L for tPSA; 0.70 at 11.6% for %fPSA; and 0.55 at 1.4% for %p2PSA. An association between phi values and aggressiveness of prostate malignancy was noted. Of the 28 patients with prostate cancer, 22 patients had tPSA > 4 µg/L. However, no patient had phi in the low-risk category, and five, six, and 17 patients had phi in the moderate-, high-, and very high-risk categories, respectively.

conclusionsPhi outperforms tPSA and fPSA when used alone or in combination, and appears to be more accurate than both markers in excluding prostate cancer before biopsy. Use of this biomarker helps clinicians to avoid unnecessary biopsies, particularly in patients with gray-zone tPSA level. Phi is the strongest marker that correlates proportionally with Gleason Score; therefore, it is also useful in predicting the aggressiveness of the disease. This is the first reported experience for the use of p2PSA and phi in Oman, the Middle East, and North Africa.

Indexed as

BiopsyProstate cancerProstate Health IndexProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID28804579
PMCPMC5534231
OpenAlexW2740270226

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.