SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2022
Accuracy of SelectMDx compared to mpMRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The diagnostic accuracy of radiolabeled PSMA-ligand PET for tumour staging in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients compared to histopathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Pooled it
- 2022 Update on Prostate Cancer Epidemiology and Risk Factors-A Systematic Review.European urology · 2023Pooled it
- Recent advances in discriminating prostate cancer from benign prostatic diseases in the pre-biopsy population.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2026Review
- Patients with high-risk features on active surveillance for prostate cancer.Prostate international · 2026Review
- Urinary Biomarkers in Urological Oncology: From Biological Origin to Clinical Decision-Making-A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Evaluation of Biological Techniques.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Prostate Cancer Biomarkers with a Focus on Galectin-3: Emerging Clinical and Therapeutic Implications.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Identification of prostate cancer by urinary DLX1/HOXC6 expression in Chinese population with prostate-specific antigen levels of 4-10 ng/mL.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Role of Genomic Scores in the Management of Prostate Cancer Patients: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Liquid Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Current Status and Emerging Prospects.The world journal of men's health · 2025Review
- Advances in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging combined with biomarkers for the diagnosis of high-grade prostate cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Review
- Economic evaluation of prostate cancer risk assessment methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis using population data.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Prostate MRI and PSMA-PET in the Primary Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Prostate Cancer-Associated miRNAs in Saliva: First Steps to an Easily Accessible and Reliable Screening Tool.Biomolecules · 2022Article
- Machine Learning-Based Models Enhance the Prediction of Prostate Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 11 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe SelectMDx test is a promising biomarker that is developed based on detecting urinary messenger RNA in combination with clinical prostate cancer (PCa) risk factors. We aimed to compare SelectMDx and mpMRI as a diagnostic test in detecting PCa and high grade(HG)-PCa in men suspected to have PCa.
methodsAccording to PRISMA, a systematic search was performed using major web databases for studies published before September 30, 2021. Studies that compared sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of SelectMDx and/or mpMRI were included. The bivariate random model that plotted sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and likelihood ratio (LR) for PCa and HG-PCa detection was applied to compare SelectMDx, mpMRI, and combination strategies (both positive and one or both positive).
resultsSeven studies comprising 1328 patients who had undergone SelectMDx and mpMRI to detect PCa were included. Regarding PCa detection, SelectMDx had a pooled sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 69.8%, PPV of 64.7%, NPV of 85%, and LRs of +2.68 to -0.27, while mpMRI had a pooled sensitivity of 80.8%, specificity of 73.4%, PPV of 72.4%, NPV of 83.5%, and LRs of +3.03 to -0.26. The one or both positive strategy had the highest sensitivity (96.3%), NPV (95.7%), and the lowest -LR (0.06). While the both positive strategy had the highest specificity (80.9%), the PPV (76.5%) and +LR (3.68). In the scenario of PI-RADS 3 lesions not being biopsied in case of a negative SelectMDx (n = 44), unnecessary biopsies would be reduced by 42% (44/105) while the risk of missing HG-PCa would be 9% (4/44).
conclusionThe performance of SelectMDx is comparable to that of mpMRI with regards to PCa and HG-PCa detection. In addition, this biomarker could help refine the clinical decision-making regarding the necessity of a biopsy in patients suspected to has been PCa.
Indexed as
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.