ArticleCase reports in oncology
The Diagnostic Trap: When PSA Results Mislead - A Case Report.
Article in Case reports in oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Immunoassays used in clinical practice can occasionally yield falsely elevated or suppressed results due to assay interference. We present a patient case of metastatic prostate cancer where plasma prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentrations were falsely low. This was discovered incidentally, when a different laboratory, using another PSA assay, reported significantly higher values. Case Presentation: A 77-year-old man, diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma in 2011, developed bone metastases in 2015 and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in 2016. Between 2016 and 2017, PSA measurements at a different hospital using the Roche Cobas e602 assay, showed significantly higher plasma PSA concentrations compared to those measured at the initial hospital, using the Abbott Architect assay. Due to this discrepancy, which was inconsistent with the patient's clinical status, the clinician contacted the laboratory. Subsequent investigation revealed an assay interference leading to falsely low PSA results with the Abbott Architect Assay. Conclusion: This case underscores the importance of close collaboration between clinicians and laboratories, as well as the need to consider analytical interference when clinical findings do not match laboratory results. Laboratories must continue working with assay manufacturers to minimize interference risks, and clinicians should remain vigilant for potential diagnostic pitfalls and consult the laboratory when inconsistencies arise.
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.