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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |