SynthesisBMC cancer2026
Prostate health index enhances prostate cancer management in Chinese populations: evidence from the nation's large cohort and transnational multicohort harmonization.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent advances in discriminating prostate cancer from benign prostatic diseases in the pre-biopsy population.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in the early diagnosis of prostate cancer: from multimodal imaging to liquid biopsy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe escalating global burden of prostate cancer (PCa) demands accurate diagnostics to optimize management. Conventional prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing exhibits low specificity and overdiagnosis, compromising its reliability. While the Prostate Health Index (PHI) may enhance precision, large-scale Asian clinical evidence and systematic evaluations of PHI’s standalone/combined diagnostic efficacy remain limited, hindering its broader clinical adoption.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on hospitalized patients initially diagnosed with PCa or BPH at Wuhan Tongji Hospital over the past three years. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves assessed PHI’s diagnostic performance across clinical scenarios. Binary diagnostic tests simulating real-world clinical settings were performed to assess the practical utility of PSA, PHI, and PI-RADS scores. Furthermore, a multiparameter pre-biopsy diagnostic model integrating PHI with complementary methods was developed. Finally, a systematic review and meta-analysis of PHI-related studies were conducted to comprehensively assess its diagnostic accuracy and robustness.
resultsThe study included 2,091 patients, forming the largest Asian cohort for PHI-based diagnosis. ROC analysis revealed that PHI significantly outperformed PSA in diagnosing both PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) (P < 0.001), with enhanced diagnostic superiority in the PSA gray zone (4–10 ng/mL). At a cutoff value of 30, PHI achieved 90% sensitivity for csPCa while maintaining superior performance to PSA in binary diagnostic testing. A risk prediction model integrating PHI with PI-RADS scores was constructed through regression analysis, effectively reducing unnecessary biopsy referrals. Meta-analysis further confirmed the robust diagnostic performance of PHI and its combined use with PI-RADS scores, with better performance observed in Asian populations compared to Western countries.
conclusionThis large-scale cohort study and updated meta-analysis validate PHI’s clinical utility for PCa diagnosis in Asian populations. The integration of PHI with PI-RADS scores demonstrates significant clinical benefit, positioning PHI as a precise, reliable tool to advance PCa care in Asia.
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.