ArticleBJUI compass2021
Performance of prostate health index and PSA density in a diverse biopsy-naïve cohort with mpMRI for detecting significant prostate cancer.
Article in BJUI compass, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Evaluation of blood and urine based biomarkers for detection of clinically-significant prostate cancer.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Review
- Advances in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging combined with biomarkers for the diagnosis of high-grade prostate cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Review
- Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Targeted by Magnetic Resonance Imaging Cognitive Fusion.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Performance of prostate health index and PSA density in a diverse biopsy-naïve cohort with mpMRI for detecting significant prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare Prostate Health Index (PHI) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density as secondary tests after multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in improving the detection accuracy of Gleason grade group (GG) 2-5 prostate cancer (PCa) and in decreasing unnecessary biopsies in a multiethnic biopsy-naïve population. Methods: From February 2017 to February 2020, we recruited consecutive biopsy-naïve men in participating urology clinics for elevated PSA levels. They all had a PHI score, mpMRI, and prostate biopsy. Experienced genitourinary radiologists read all mpMRI studies based on PIRADS version 2.0. Logistic regression models were used to generate receiver operating characteristic curves. Models were tested for effect modification between Race (Black vs White) and both PHI and PSA density, and Race and PIRADS to determine if race impacted their prediction accuracy. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of PHI and PSA density thresholds were calculated by PIRADS scores. The primary outcome was GG2-5 PCa, that is, Gleason score ≥3 + 4. Results: The study included 143 men, of which 65 (45.5%) were self-reported Black. Median age was 62.0 years and 55 men (38.4%) had GG2-5 PCa. Overall, 18.1% had PIRADS 1-2, 32.9% had PIRADS 3, and 49.0% had PIRADS 4-5. For the binary logistic regressions, the interactions between PIRADS and Race ( Conclusions: PHI and PSA density can be used after mpMRI to improve the detection of GG2-5 PCa in a biopsy-naïve cohort. PHI may be superior to PSA density in PIRADS 3 lesions by avoiding 55% of unnecessary biopsies. Using both PHI and PSA density in series may further increase specificity and lead to fewer unnecessary biopsies, but further larger studies are warranted to determine the optimal threshold of each biomarker.
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.