ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
New Diagnostic Model for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naïve Men With PIRADS 3.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore a new model of clinical decision-making to predict the occurrence of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Patients and Methods: The demographic and clinical characteristics of 152 patients were recorded. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density (PSAD), adjusted PSAD of peripheral zone (aPSADPZ), and peripheral zone volume ratio (PZ ratio) were calculated and subjected to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The calibration and discrimination abilities of new nomograms were verified with calibration curve and area under the ROC curve (AUC). The clinical benefits of these models were evaluated by decision curve analysis and clinical impact curves. Results: The AUCs of PSA, PSAD, aPSADPZ, and PZ ratio were 0.521, 0.645, 0.745, and 0.717 for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis, while the corresponding values were 0.590, 0.678, 0.780, and 0.731 for csPCa diagnosis, respectively. All nomograms displayed higher net benefit and better overall calibration than the scenarios for predicting the occurrence of csPCa. The new model significantly improved the diagnostic accuracy of csPCa (0.865 vs. 0.741, Conclusions: This study demonstrates that aPSADPZ has a higher predictive accuracy for csPCa diagnosis than the conventional indicators. Including aPSADPZ, PZ ratio, and age can improve csPCa diagnosis and avoid unnecessary biopsies.
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.