Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37614642›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical urology2023

Re-evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of PSA as a referral test to detect clinically significant prostate cancer in contemporary MRI-based image-guided biopsy pathways.

Artitaya Lophatananon, Alexander Light, Nicholas Burns-Cox, Angus Maccormick, Joseph John, Vanessa Otti, John McGrath, Pete Archer, Jonathan Anning, Stuart McCracken and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [Current status of prostate cancer screening research].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Artitaya LophatananonDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care Centre, University of Manchester, UK.
Alexander LightDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, UK.
Nicholas Burns-CoxDepartment of Urology, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Angus MaccormickDepartment of Urology, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Joseph JohnDepartment of Urology, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust and University of Exeter, UK.
Vanessa OttiDepartment of Urology, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust and University of Exeter, UK.
John McGrathDepartment of Urology, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust and University of Exeter, UK.
Pete ArcherDepartment of Urology, Southend Hospital, UK.
Jonathan AnningDepartment of Urology, North Bristol NHS Trust, UK.
Stuart McCrackenDepartment of Urology, South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Trust, UK.
Toby PageDepartment of Urology, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Trust, UK.
Ken MuirDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care Centre, University of Manchester, UK.
Vincent J GnanapragasamDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4722-4207
University of Exeter · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBSomerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBNorth Bristol NHS Trust · GBSouthend Hospital · GBSouth Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Modern image-guided biopsy pathways at diagnostic centres have greatly refined the investigations of men referred with suspected prostate cancer. However, the referral criteria from primary care are still based on historical prostate-specific antigen (PSA) cut-offs and age-referenced thresholds. Here, we tested whether better contemporary pathways and biopsy methods had improved the predictive utility value of PSA referral thresholds. Methods: PSA referral thresholds, age-referenced ranges and PSA density (PSAd) were assessed for positive predictive value (PPV) in detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa - histological ⩾ Grade Group 2). Data were analysed from men referred to three diagnostics centres who used multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-guided prostate biopsies for disease characterisation. Findings were validated in a separate multicentre cohort. Results: Data from 2767 men were included in this study. The median age, PSA and PSAd were 66.4 years, 7.3 ng/mL and 0.1 ng/mL Conclusion: The introduction of MRI-based image-guided biopsy pathways does not appear to have altered PSA diagnostic test characteristics to positively detect csPCa. We find no added value to PSA age-referenced ranges, while PSAd offers better PPV and the potential for a single clinically useful threshold (⩾0.10) for all age groups. Level of evidence: IV.

Indexed as

diagnosisMRIpredictive valueProstate cancerPSAPSA density

Identifiers

PMID37614642
PMCPMC7614972
OpenAlexW3216794373

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.