ReviewEuropean urology open science2022
Molecular Biomarkers for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in European urology open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Complementary Roles of the Prostate Health Index and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Optimizing the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients With Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels Below 10 Ng/mL.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Observational
- The effects of prostate volume and PI-RADS category on optimal PSA-density thresholds for biopsy decision-making.European radiology · 2026Article
- Five things you need to know about prostate cancer diagnostic tests.Asian journal of urology · 2025Article
- Blood and urine-based biomarkers in prostate cancer: Current advances, clinical applications, and future directions.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2025Review
- METCAM/MUC18 is a Biomarker and Therapeutic Target for Prostate Cancer.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Utility of Combining Prostate Health Index and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2025Article
- The diagnostic value of prostate health index combined with soluble e-cadherin for prostate cancer.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Cell-autonomous IL6ST activation suppresses prostate cancer development via STAT3/ARF/p53-driven senescence and confers an immune-active tumor microenvironment.Molecular cancer · 2024Article
- Understanding the Barriers to Prostate Cancer Population-Based Early Detection Programs: The PRAISE-U BEST Survey.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Economic evaluation of prostate cancer risk assessment methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis using population data.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Reliability and Efficiency of the CAPRI-3 Metastatic Prostate Cancer Registry Driven by Artificial Intelligence.Cancers · 2023Article
- Analysis of Clinical Trials and Review of Recent Advances in Therapy Decisions for Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common type of cancer in men. Individualized risk stratification is crucial to adjust decision-making. A variety of molecular biomarkers have been developed in order to identify patients at risk of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined by the most common PCa risk stratification systems. Objective: The present study aims to examine the effectiveness (diagnostic accuracy) of blood or urine-based PCa biomarkers to identify patients at high risk of csPCa. Evidence acquisition: A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Medline and EMBASE were searched from inception to March 2021. Randomized or nonrandomized clinical trials, and cohort and case-control studies were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve were obtained. Evidence synthesis: Sixty-five studies ( Conclusions: The PHI test has a high diagnostic accuracy rate for csPCa detection, and its incorporation in the diagnostic process could reduce unnecessary biopsies. However, there is a lack of evidence on patient-important outcomes and thus more research is needed. Patient summary: It has been possible to verify that the application of biomarkers could help detect prostate cancer (PCa) patients with a higher risk of poorer evolution. The Prostate Health Index shows an ability to identify 95-100 for every 100 patients suffering from clinically significant PCa who take the test, preventing unnecessary biopsies in 14-33% of men without PCa or insignificant 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.