Cargando…

Assessment on clinical value of prostate health index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer

In this study, we performed a comprehensive estimation and assessment for the clinical value of prostate health index (PHI) in diagnosing prostate cancer. Using the bivariate mixed‐effect model, we calculated the following parameters and their 95% confidence internals (CIs), including sensitivity, s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Guangying, Li, Yanyan, Li, Chao, Li, Na, Li, Zhanzhan, Zhou, Qin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6718540/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31313500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2376
_version_ 1783447740282306560
author Zhang, Guangying
Li, Yanyan
Li, Chao
Li, Na
Li, Zhanzhan
Zhou, Qin
author_facet Zhang, Guangying
Li, Yanyan
Li, Chao
Li, Na
Li, Zhanzhan
Zhou, Qin
author_sort Zhang, Guangying
collection PubMed
description In this study, we performed a comprehensive estimation and assessment for the clinical value of prostate health index (PHI) in diagnosing prostate cancer. Using the bivariate mixed‐effect model, we calculated the following parameters and their 95% confidence internals (CIs), including sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio and symmetric receiver operator characteristic. Twenty eligible studies with a total number of 5543 subjects were included in the final analysis. The estimated sensitivity was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.70‐0.79) and the specificity was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.58‐0.83). The pooled area under the curve was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.74‐0.81). The combined positive likelihood ratio was 2.45 (95% CI: 2.19‐2.73) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.31‐0.43). The diagnostic odds ratio was 6.73 (95% CI: 5.38‐8.44). The posttest probability was 40% under the present positive likelihood ratio of 2.45. It seems there was no significant difference between Asian population and Caucasian population population in sensitivity and specificity. But the overlap of AUC 95% CI indicated that the diagnostic accuracy of PHI was slightly higher in the Asian population population setting than that in the Caucasian population population population (0.83 vs 0.76). Similarly, there was also overlap in AUC 95% CI, which suggested that sample size may be one of heterogeneity source. The PHI has a moderate diagnostic accuracy for detecting prostate cancer. The discrimination ability of PHI is slightly prior to free/total prostate‐specific antigen. It seems that ethnicity has an influence on the clinical value of PHI in the diagnostic of prostate cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6718540
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67185402019-09-06 Assessment on clinical value of prostate health index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer Zhang, Guangying Li, Yanyan Li, Chao Li, Na Li, Zhanzhan Zhou, Qin Cancer Med Clinical Cancer Research In this study, we performed a comprehensive estimation and assessment for the clinical value of prostate health index (PHI) in diagnosing prostate cancer. Using the bivariate mixed‐effect model, we calculated the following parameters and their 95% confidence internals (CIs), including sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio and symmetric receiver operator characteristic. Twenty eligible studies with a total number of 5543 subjects were included in the final analysis. The estimated sensitivity was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.70‐0.79) and the specificity was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.58‐0.83). The pooled area under the curve was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.74‐0.81). The combined positive likelihood ratio was 2.45 (95% CI: 2.19‐2.73) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.31‐0.43). The diagnostic odds ratio was 6.73 (95% CI: 5.38‐8.44). The posttest probability was 40% under the present positive likelihood ratio of 2.45. It seems there was no significant difference between Asian population and Caucasian population population in sensitivity and specificity. But the overlap of AUC 95% CI indicated that the diagnostic accuracy of PHI was slightly higher in the Asian population population setting than that in the Caucasian population population population (0.83 vs 0.76). Similarly, there was also overlap in AUC 95% CI, which suggested that sample size may be one of heterogeneity source. The PHI has a moderate diagnostic accuracy for detecting prostate cancer. The discrimination ability of PHI is slightly prior to free/total prostate‐specific antigen. It seems that ethnicity has an influence on the clinical value of PHI in the diagnostic of prostate cancer. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-07-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6718540/ /pubmed/31313500 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2376 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Cancer Research
Zhang, Guangying
Li, Yanyan
Li, Chao
Li, Na
Li, Zhanzhan
Zhou, Qin
Assessment on clinical value of prostate health index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer
title Assessment on clinical value of prostate health index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer
title_full Assessment on clinical value of prostate health index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer
title_fullStr Assessment on clinical value of prostate health index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer
title_full_unstemmed Assessment on clinical value of prostate health index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer
title_short Assessment on clinical value of prostate health index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer
title_sort assessment on clinical value of prostate health index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer
topic Clinical Cancer Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6718540/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31313500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2376
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangguangying assessmentonclinicalvalueofprostatehealthindexinthediagnosisofprostatecancer
AT liyanyan assessmentonclinicalvalueofprostatehealthindexinthediagnosisofprostatecancer
AT lichao assessmentonclinicalvalueofprostatehealthindexinthediagnosisofprostatecancer
AT lina assessmentonclinicalvalueofprostatehealthindexinthediagnosisofprostatecancer
AT lizhanzhan assessmentonclinicalvalueofprostatehealthindexinthediagnosisofprostatecancer
AT zhouqin assessmentonclinicalvalueofprostatehealthindexinthediagnosisofprostatecancer