ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2020
Optimal threshold of the prostate health index in predicting aggressive prostate cancer using predefined cost-benefit ratios and prevalence.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesThe aim of the study was to determine optimal threshold of the Prostate Health Index (Phi) for predicting aggressive prostate cancer (PCa), taking into account misclassification costs, prevalence, and plausible risk factors.
methodsThis prospective cohort study analyzed patients undergoing prostate biopsy and Phi testing. The primary endpoint was aggressive PCa, defined as biopsy Gleason score ≥ 7. The data about age, total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), percentage of free PSA (%fPSA), and digital rectal examination (DRE) were extracted from the patient files. We divided the patients to the low- and high-risk group. The clinical usefulness of the Phi was assessed by the decision curve analysis. The predictive performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), per-class metrics, and the potential reduction in unnecessary biopsies. The uncertain interval of Phi values was also determined.
resultsThere were 200 men included in the study, 35 (17.5%) of them having aggressive PCa. Important predictors of aggressive PCa were %fPSA, DRE, Phi, and belonging to the high-risk group. With optimal threshold of 30.7, about 32% unnecessary biopsies would be avoided. The optimal threshold of Phi was lower in the high-risk group than in the low-risk group. The AUC for detection of aggressive PCa was 0.791. Per-class metrics showed that the Phi has insufficient diagnostic accuracy. The lower and upper limits of the uncertain interval were 41.8 and 51.4, respectively.
conclusionDifferent thresholds of the Phi could be optimal, depending on prevalence, patient characteristics, and misclassification costs. Further studies with a larger patient sample are necessary to confirm our conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31875279What 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.