Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35347252›Full record

ReviewProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2022

Inherited risk assessment and its clinical utility for predicting prostate cancer from diagnostic prostate biopsies.

Jianfeng Xu, W Kyle Resurreccion, Zhuqing Shi, Jun Wei, Chi-Hsiung Wang, S Lilly Zheng, Peter J Hulick, Ashley E Ross, Christian P Pavlovich, Brian T Helfand and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jianfeng XuProgram for Personalized Cancer Care, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA. jxu8088@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1343-8752
W Kyle ResurreccionProgram for Personalized Cancer Care, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA.
Zhuqing ShiProgram for Personalized Cancer Care, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6321-950X
Jun WeiProgram for Personalized Cancer Care, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA.
Chi-Hsiung WangProgram for Personalized Cancer Care, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA.
S Lilly ZhengProgram for Personalized Cancer Care, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA.
Peter J HulickDepartment of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8397-4078
Ashley E RossDepartment of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Christian P PavlovichThe Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Brian T HelfandProgram for Personalized Cancer Care, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA.
William B IsaacsThe Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
NorthShore University HealthSystem · USJohns Hopkins University · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany studies on prostate cancer (PCa) germline variants have been published in the last 15 years. This review critically assesses their clinical validity and explores their utility in prediction of PCa detection rates from prostate biopsy.

methodsAn integrative review was performed to (1) critically synthesize findings on PCa germline studies from published papers since 2016, including risk-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), polygenic risk score methods such as genetic risk score (GRS), and rare pathogenic mutations (RPMs); (2) exemplify the findings in a large population-based cohort from the UK Biobank (UKB); (3) identify gaps for implementing inherited risk assessment in clinic based on experience from a healthcare system; (4) evaluate available GRS data on their clinical utility in predicting PCa detection rates from prostate biopsies; and (5) describe a prospective germline-based biopsy trial to address existing gaps.

resultsSNP-based GRS and RPMs in four genes (HOXB13, BRCA2, ATM, and CHEK2) were significantly and consistently associated with PCa risk in large well-designed studies. In the UKB, positive family history, RPMs in the four implicated genes, and a high GRS (>1.5) identified 8.12%, 1.61%, and 17.38% of men to be at elevated PCa risk, respectively, with hazard ratios of 1.84, 2.74, and 2.39, respectively. Additionally, the performance of GRS for predicting PCa detection rate on prostate biopsy was consistently supported in several retrospective analyses of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-biopsy cohorts. Prospective studies evaluating the performance of all three inherited measures in predicting PCa detection rate from contemporary multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)-based biopsy are lacking. A multicenter germline-based biopsy trial to address these gaps is warranted.

conclusionsThe complementary performance of three inherited risk measures in PCa risk stratification is consistently supported. Their clinical utility in predicting PCa detection rate, if confirmed in prospective clinical trials, may improve current decision-making for prostate biopsy.

Indexed as

ProstateProstatic NeoplasmsHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMulticenter Studies as TopicProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID35347252
OpenAlexW4220740285

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.