Cargando…
Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review
OBJECTIVE: To identify risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) that can be used in the primary care and community health settings. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Embase databases combined from inception and up to the end of January 2019. ELIGIBILITY: Studies were inclu...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7371149/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32690501 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034661 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVE: To identify risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) that can be used in the primary care and community health settings. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Embase databases combined from inception and up to the end of January 2019. ELIGIBILITY: Studies were included based on satisfying all the following criteria: (i) presenting an evaluation of PCa risk at initial biopsy in patients with no history of PCa, (ii) studies not incorporating an invasive clinical assessment or expensive biomarker/genetic tests, (iii) inclusion of at least two variables with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) being one of them, and (iv) studies reporting a measure of predictive performance. The quality of the studies and risk of bias was assessed by using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Relevant information extracted for each model included: the year of publication, source of data, type of model, number of patients, country, age, PSA range, mean/median PSA, other variables included in the model, number of biopsy cores to assess outcomes, study endpoint(s), cancer detection, model validation and model performance. RESULTS: An initial search yielded 109 potential studies, of which five met the set criteria. Four studies were cohort-based and one was a case-control study. PCa detection rate was between 20.6% and 55.8%. Area under the curve (AUC) was reported in four studies and ranged from 0.65 to 0.75. All models showed significant improvement in predicting PCa compared with being based on PSA alone. The difference in AUC between extended models and PSA alone was between 0.06 and 0.21. CONCLUSION: Only a few PCa risk prediction models have the potential to be readily used in the primary healthcare or community health setting. Further studies are needed to investigate other potential variables that could be integrated into models to improve their clinical utility for PCa testing in a community setting. |
---|