Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35474911›Full record

ArticleBJUI compass2020

Development and validation of a novel multivariate risk score to guide biopsy decision for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Helmut Klocker, Bruno Golding, Stephan Weber, Eberhard Steiner, Pierre Tennstedt, Thomas Keller, Ralph Schiess, Silke Gillessen, Wolfgang Horninger, Thomas Steuber

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJUI compass, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Helmut KlockerDepartment of Urology Medical University Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7732-9443
Bruno GoldingProteoMediX AG Schlieren Switzerland.
Stephan WeberACOMED Statistics Leipzig Germany.
Eberhard SteinerDepartment of Urology Medical University Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria.
Pierre TennstedtMartini Clinic Prostate Cancer Center University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf Hamburg Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9237-3442
Thomas KellerACOMED Statistics Leipzig Germany.
Ralph SchiessProteoMediX AG Schlieren Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4955-1295
Silke GillessenMedical Oncology Department Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland Bellinzona Switzerland.
Wolfgang HorningerDepartment of Urology Medical University Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria.
Thomas SteuberMartini Clinic Prostate Cancer Center University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf Hamburg Germany.
Innsbruck Medical University · ATUniversität Hamburg · DEInstitute of Oncology Research · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Selecting patients suspected of having prostate cancer (PCa) for a prostate biopsy remains a challenge. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based testing is hampered by its low specificity that often leads to negative biopsy results or detection of clinically insignificant cancers, especially in the 2-10 ng/mL range. The objective was to evaluate a novel diagnostic test called Proclarix incorporating thrombospondin-1 and cathepsin D alongside total and free PSA as well as age for predicting clinically significant PCa. Patients and methods: The test was developed following a retrospective study design using biobanked samples of 955 men from two reference centres. A multivariate approach was used for model development followed by validation to discriminate significant (grade group ≥2) from insignificant or no cancer at biopsy. The test specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) at a fixed sensitivity of 90% were compared to percent free PSA (%fPSA) alone. The number of avoidable prostate biopsies deemed to be representative of clinical utility was also assessed. Results: In the targeted patient population, the test displayed increased diagnostic accuracy compared to %fPSA alone. Application of the established model on 955 patients at a fixed sensitivity of 90% for significant disease resulted in a specificity of 43%, NPV of 95% and a PPV of 25%. This is in comparison to a specificity of 17%, NPV of 89% and PPV of 19% for %fPSA alone and had the potential to reduce the total number of biopsies needed to identify clinically significant cancer. Further, the test score correlated with significance of cancer assessed on prostate biopsy. Conclusions: The Proclarix test can be used as an aid in the decision-making process if to biopsy men in this challenging patient population. The use of the test could reduce the number of biopsies performed avoiding invasive procedures, anxiety, discomfort, pain and complications.

Indexed as

biopsycancer significancecathepsin DCTSDfree PSAgrade groupProclarixprostate cancerTHBS1thrombospondin‐1total PSA

Identifiers

PMID35474911
PMCPMC8988838
OpenAlexW3011419898

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.