Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29158509›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2018

Clinical utility of the Prostate Health Index (phi) for biopsy decision management in a large group urology practice setting.

Jay White, B Vittal Shenoy, Ronald F Tutrone, Lawrence I Karsh, Daniel R Saltzstein, William J Harmon, Dennis L Broyles, Tamra E Roddy, Lori R Lofaro, Carly J Paoli and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Prostate health index (PHI) as an accurate prostate cancer predictor.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Commentary on Novitas LCD.Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jay WhiteCarolina Urology Partners, Huntersville, NC, USA. jay.white@carolinaurology.com.
B Vittal ShenoyCarolina Urology Partners, Huntersville, NC, USA.
Ronald F TutroneChesapeake Urology Associates, Towson, MD, USA.
Lawrence I KarshThe Urology Center of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA.
Daniel R SaltzsteinUrology San Antonio, P.A., San Antonio, TX, USA.
William J HarmonUrology San Antonio, P.A., San Antonio, TX, USA.
Dennis L BroylesBeckman Coulter, Carlsbad, CA, USA.
Tamra E RoddyBeckman Coulter, Carlsbad, CA, USA.
Lori R LofaroBeckman Coulter, Carlsbad, CA, USA.
Carly J PaoliBeckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA.
Dwight DenhamBeckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA.
Mark A ReynoldsBeckman Coulter, Carlsbad, CA, USA.
Beckman Coulter Foundation · USCarolina Urology Partners · USUrology San Antonio · USChesapeake Urology Associates · USThe Urology Center of Colorado · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeciding when to biopsy a man with non-suspicious DRE findings and tPSA in the 4-10 ng/ml range can be challenging, because two-thirds of such biopsies are typically found to be benign. The Prostate Health Index (phi) exhibits significantly improved diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer detection when compared to tPSA and %fPSA, however only one published study to date has investigated its impact on biopsy decisions in clinical practice.

methodsAn IRB approved observational study was conducted at four large urology group practices using a physician reported two-part questionnaire. Physician recommendations were recorded before and after receiving the phi test result. A historical control group was queried from each site's electronic medical records for eligible men who were seen by the same participating urologists prior to the implementation of the phi test in their practice. 506 men receiving a phi test were prospectively enrolled and 683 men were identified for the historical control group (without phi). Biopsy and pathological findings were also recorded for both groups.

resultsMen receiving a phi test showed a significant reduction in biopsy procedures performed when compared to the historical control group (36.4% vs. 60.3%, respectively, P < 0.0001). Based on questionnaire responses, the phi score impacted the physician's patient management plan in 73% of cases, including biopsy deferrals when the phi score was low, and decisions to perform biopsies when the phi score indicated an intermediate or high probability of prostate cancer (phi ≥36).

conclusionsphi testing significantly impacted the physician's biopsy decision for men with tPSA in the 4-10 ng/ml range and non-suspicious DRE findings. Appropriate utilization of phi resulted in a significant reduction in biopsy procedures performed compared to historical patients seen by the same participating urologists who would have met enrollment eligibility but did not receive a phi test.

Indexed as

BiopsyAgedDecision MakingHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProstateProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsSurveys and QuestionnairesUrologyProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID29158509
PMCPMC5895603
OpenAlexW2769413457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.