Cargando…

Diagnostic Accuracy of Predictive Models in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIM: Accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) has a fundamental role in clinical and patient care. Recent advances in diagnostic testing and marker lead to standardized interpretation and increased prescription by clinicians to improve the detection of clinically significant PCa and select patien...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Saatchi, Mohammad, Khatami, Fatemeh, Mashhadi, Rahil, Mirzaei, Akram, Zareian, Leila, Ahadi, Zeinab, Aghamir, Seyed Mohammad Kazem
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9200600/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35719243
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1742789
_version_ 1784728098894249984
author Saatchi, Mohammad
Khatami, Fatemeh
Mashhadi, Rahil
Mirzaei, Akram
Zareian, Leila
Ahadi, Zeinab
Aghamir, Seyed Mohammad Kazem
author_facet Saatchi, Mohammad
Khatami, Fatemeh
Mashhadi, Rahil
Mirzaei, Akram
Zareian, Leila
Ahadi, Zeinab
Aghamir, Seyed Mohammad Kazem
author_sort Saatchi, Mohammad
collection PubMed
description AIM: Accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) has a fundamental role in clinical and patient care. Recent advances in diagnostic testing and marker lead to standardized interpretation and increased prescription by clinicians to improve the detection of clinically significant PCa and select patients who strictly require targeted biopsies. METHODS: In this study, we present a systematic review of the overall diagnostic accuracy of each testing panel regarding the panel details. In this meta-analysis, using a structured search, Web of Science and PubMed databases were searched up to 23 September 2019 with no restrictions and filters. The study's outcome was the AUC and 95% confidence interval of prediction models. This index was reported as an overall and based on the WHO region and models with/without MRI. RESULTS: The thirteen final articles included 25,691 people. The overall AUC and 95% CI in thirteen studies were 0.78 and 95% CI: 0.73–0.82. The weighted average AUC in the countries of the Americas region was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70–0.75), and in European countries, it was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72–0.88). In four studies with MRI, the average weighted AUC was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86–0.90), while in other articles where MRI was not a parameter in the diagnostic model, the mean AUC was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70–0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The present study's findings showed that MRI significantly improved the detection accuracy of prostate cancer and had the highest discrimination to distinguish candidates for biopsy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9200600
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92006002022-06-16 Diagnostic Accuracy of Predictive Models in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Saatchi, Mohammad Khatami, Fatemeh Mashhadi, Rahil Mirzaei, Akram Zareian, Leila Ahadi, Zeinab Aghamir, Seyed Mohammad Kazem Prostate Cancer Review Article AIM: Accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) has a fundamental role in clinical and patient care. Recent advances in diagnostic testing and marker lead to standardized interpretation and increased prescription by clinicians to improve the detection of clinically significant PCa and select patients who strictly require targeted biopsies. METHODS: In this study, we present a systematic review of the overall diagnostic accuracy of each testing panel regarding the panel details. In this meta-analysis, using a structured search, Web of Science and PubMed databases were searched up to 23 September 2019 with no restrictions and filters. The study's outcome was the AUC and 95% confidence interval of prediction models. This index was reported as an overall and based on the WHO region and models with/without MRI. RESULTS: The thirteen final articles included 25,691 people. The overall AUC and 95% CI in thirteen studies were 0.78 and 95% CI: 0.73–0.82. The weighted average AUC in the countries of the Americas region was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70–0.75), and in European countries, it was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72–0.88). In four studies with MRI, the average weighted AUC was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86–0.90), while in other articles where MRI was not a parameter in the diagnostic model, the mean AUC was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70–0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The present study's findings showed that MRI significantly improved the detection accuracy of prostate cancer and had the highest discrimination to distinguish candidates for biopsy. Hindawi 2022-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9200600/ /pubmed/35719243 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1742789 Text en Copyright © 2022 Mohammad Saatchi et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Saatchi, Mohammad
Khatami, Fatemeh
Mashhadi, Rahil
Mirzaei, Akram
Zareian, Leila
Ahadi, Zeinab
Aghamir, Seyed Mohammad Kazem
Diagnostic Accuracy of Predictive Models in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Diagnostic Accuracy of Predictive Models in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Diagnostic Accuracy of Predictive Models in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Diagnostic Accuracy of Predictive Models in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic Accuracy of Predictive Models in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Diagnostic Accuracy of Predictive Models in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort diagnostic accuracy of predictive models in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9200600/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35719243
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1742789
work_keys_str_mv AT saatchimohammad diagnosticaccuracyofpredictivemodelsinprostatecancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT khatamifatemeh diagnosticaccuracyofpredictivemodelsinprostatecancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mashhadirahil diagnosticaccuracyofpredictivemodelsinprostatecancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mirzaeiakram diagnosticaccuracyofpredictivemodelsinprostatecancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zareianleila diagnosticaccuracyofpredictivemodelsinprostatecancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ahadizeinab diagnosticaccuracyofpredictivemodelsinprostatecancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT aghamirseyedmohammadkazem diagnosticaccuracyofpredictivemodelsinprostatecancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis