ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2017
Can a supervised algorithmic assessment of men for prostate cancer improve the quality of care? A retrospective evaluation of a prostate assessment pathway in Saskatchewan.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2017. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Saskatoon Prostate Assessment Pathway (SPAP) was developed in 2013 in part to decrease the wait times between physician referral and biopsy for patients with suspected prostate cancer. Using an algorithm carefully designed to optimize appropriate prostate biopsy rates, physicians can directly refer patients for biopsy through the SPAP without seeing a urologist. All other patients are referred to the Saskatoon Urology Associates (SUA). The present study evaluates the performance of the algorithm.
methods971 patients seen at the SUA and 302 patients seen through the SPAP were identified. Information on age, biopsy status and outcome, risk stratification, and time between referral and biopsy was collected. Biopsy wait time data was analyzed using gamma distribution. Association between referral method and biopsy rate, and between referral method and risk stratification, was analyzed using Z-test.
resultsThe expected wait time from referral to biopsy for patients seen through SUA was 2.63 times longer than those seen through SPAP (34 vs. 91 days). The biopsy rate of patients seen in the SPAP was significantly higher than those by SUA (88% vs. 69%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.26; p<0.00001). There was no significant difference in positive biopsy rates for patients seen through the SPAP vs. SUA (81% vs. 74%, 95% CI -0.011,0.14; p=0.095), for detection of low-risk cancer, (12% vs. 10%, 95% CI -0.034,0.080; p=0.44), or for clinically relevant cancer, i.e., intermediate- and high-risk cancer, for SPAP vs. SUA (56.54% vs. 56.68%, 95% CI -0.091,0.089; p=0.49).
conclusionsThe algorithm used in the SPAP is effective in decreasing wait time to prostate biopsy and has the same cancer/pre-cancer detection rate, but at the cost of a higher biopsy rate. Both referral mechanisms result in few low-risk cancer detection biopsies, finding primarily cases of high- or intermediate-risk cancer.
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.