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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | Prostate Cancer |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1742789 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832554951821230080 |
|---|---|
| author | Mohammad Saatchi Fatemeh Khatami Rahil Mashhadi Akram Mirzaei Leila Zareian Zeinab Ahadi Seyed Mohammad Kazem Aghamir |
| author_facet | Mohammad Saatchi Fatemeh Khatami Rahil Mashhadi Akram Mirzaei Leila Zareian Zeinab Ahadi Seyed Mohammad Kazem Aghamir |
| author_sort | Mohammad Saatchi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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 | Article |
| id | doaj-art-0a2274e9032a4571a0b70e721411c805 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-312X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Prostate Cancer |
| spelling | doaj-art-0a2274e9032a4571a0b70e721411c8052025-02-03T05:50:00ZengWileyProstate Cancer2090-312X2022-01-01202210.1155/2022/1742789Diagnostic Accuracy of Predictive Models in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisMohammad Saatchi0Fatemeh Khatami1Rahil Mashhadi2Akram Mirzaei3Leila Zareian4Zeinab Ahadi5Seyed Mohammad Kazem Aghamir6Urology Research CenterUrology Research CenterUrology Research CenterUrology Research CenterUrology Research CenterUrology Research CenterUrology Research CenterAim. 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1742789 |
| spellingShingle | Mohammad Saatchi Fatemeh Khatami Rahil Mashhadi Akram Mirzaei Leila Zareian Zeinab Ahadi Seyed Mohammad Kazem Aghamir Diagnostic Accuracy of Predictive Models in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Prostate Cancer |
| 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 |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1742789 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mohammadsaatchi diagnosticaccuracyofpredictivemodelsinprostatecancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT fatemehkhatami diagnosticaccuracyofpredictivemodelsinprostatecancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT rahilmashhadi diagnosticaccuracyofpredictivemodelsinprostatecancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT akrammirzaei diagnosticaccuracyofpredictivemodelsinprostatecancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT leilazareian diagnosticaccuracyofpredictivemodelsinprostatecancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zeinabahadi diagnosticaccuracyofpredictivemodelsinprostatecancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT seyedmohammadkazemaghamir diagnosticaccuracyofpredictivemodelsinprostatecancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |