Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32775459›Full record

Trial reportBioMed research international2020

Prostate Health Index and Prostate Health Index Density as Diagnostic Tools for Improved Prostate Cancer Detection.

Marija Barisiene, Arnas Bakavicius, Diana Stanciute, Jolita Jurkeviciene, Arunas Zelvys, Albertas Ulys, Dalius Vitkus, Feliksas Jankevicius

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Prostate health index (PHI) as an accurate prostate cancer predictor.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marija BarisieneInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius 03101, Lithuania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0745-5708
Arnas BakaviciusInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius 03101, Lithuania.
Diana StanciuteLaboratory of Molecular Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Vilnius 08660, Lithuania.
Jolita JurkevicieneCentre of Laboratory Medicine, Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos, Vilnius 08661, Lithuania.
Arunas ZelvysInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius 03101, Lithuania.
Albertas UlysInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius 03101, Lithuania.
Dalius VitkusInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius 03101, Lithuania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0912-4125
Feliksas JankeviciusInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius 03101, Lithuania.
Vilnius University · LTKlaipėda University · LT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the diagnostic potential of [-2] proPSA (p2PSA), %p2PSA, Prostate Health Index (phi), and phi density (PHID) as independent biomarkers and in composition of multivariable models in predicting high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and overall and clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa).

methods210 males scheduled for prostate biopsy with total PSA (tPSA) range 2-10 ng/mL and normal digital rectal examination were enrolled in the prospective study. Blood samples to measure tPSA, free PSA (fPSA), and p2PSA were collected immediately before 12-core prostate biopsy. Clinically significant PCa definition was based on Epstein's criteria or ISUP grade ≥ 2 at biopsy.

resultsPCa has been diagnosed in 112 (53.3%) patients. Epstein significant and ISUP grade ≥ 2 PCa have been identified in 81 (72.3%) and 40 (35.7%) patients, respectively. Isolated HGPIN at biopsy have been identified in 24 (11.4%) patients. Higher p2PSA and its derivative mean values were associated with PCa. At 90% sensitivity, PHID with cut-off value of 0.54 have demonstrated the highest sensitivity of 35.7% for overall PCa detection, so PHID and phi with cut-off values of 33.2 and 0.63 have demonstrated the specificity of 34.7% and 34.1% for ISUP grade ≥ 2 PCa detection at biopsy, respectively. In univariate ROC analysis, PHID with AUC of 0.77 and 0.80 was the most accurate predictor of overall and Epstein significant PCa, respectively, so phi with AUC of 0.77 was the most accurate predictor of ISUP grade ≥ 2 PCa at biopsy. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, phi improved diagnostic accuracy of multivariable models by 5% in predicting ISUP grade ≥ 2 PCa.

conclusionsPHID and phi have shown the greatest specificity at 90% sensitivity in predicting overall and clinically significant PCa and would lead to significantly avoid unnecessary biopsies. PHID is the most accurate predictor of overall and Epstein significant PCa, so phi is the most accurate predictor of ISUP grade ≥ 2 PCa. phi significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy of multivariable models in predicting ISUP grade ≥ 2 PCa.

Indexed as

AgedBiopsyHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesProstateProstatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32775459
PMCPMC7396080
OpenAlexW3044292204

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.