Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

A meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx in prostate cancer

  • Hanting Wu,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Public Health, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China

    ⨯
  • Yanling Wu,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    ⨯
  • Peijie He,

    Roles Data curation, Supervision, Validation, Visualization

    Affiliation School of Public Health, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China

    ⨯
  • Juan Liang,

    Roles Data curation, Investigation, Resources, Software

    Affiliation School of Public Health, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China

    ⨯
  • Xiujuan Xu,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China

    ⨯
  • Conghua Ji

    Roles Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    jchi2005@126.com

    Affiliations School of Public Health, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China

    ⨯

Abstract

To overview the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and to review sources of methodologic variability. Four electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies investigating the diagnostic value of SelectMDx compared with the gold standard. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Included studies were assessed according to the Standards for Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. The review identified 14 relevant publications with 2579 patients. All reports constituted phase 1 biomarker studies. Pooled analysis of findings found an area under the receiver operating characteristic analysis curve of 70% [95% CI, 66%-74%], a sensitivity of 81% [95% CI, 69%-89%], and a specificity of 52% [95% CI, 41%-63%]. The positive likelihood ratio was 1.68, and the negative predictive value is 0.37. Factors that may influence variability in test results included the breath collection method, the patient’s physiologic condition, the test environment, and the method of analysis. Considerable heterogeneity was observed among the studies owing to the difference in the sample size. SelectMDx appears to have moderate to good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating patients with clinically significant prostate cancer from people at high risk of developing prostate cancer. Higher-quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for clinically significant cancer are still needed.

Citation: Wu H, Wu Y, He P, Liang J, Xu X, Ji C (2024) A meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx in prostate cancer. PLoS ONE 19(2): e0285745. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285745

Editor: Sebastien Kenmoe, University of Buea, CAMEROON

Received: November 19, 2022; Accepted: May 2, 2023; Published: February 8, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Wu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This work was supported by the Health Commission of Zhejiang Province (No. 2019KY348 and 2021KY606), the People’s Republic of China. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a global health problem for men [1]. In 112 countries, PCa is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the men population in 2020 [2]. It is estimated that globally 1,414,259 new cases of PCa lead to 375,304 deaths in 2020 [2]. Even in Asian countries, which were considered to have a lower incidence than Western countries, the incidence of PCa has risen rapidly [3].

Currently, the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is clinically widespread for PCa screening and PCa is often diagnosed following the elevation of PSA [4]. In the United States, mortality due to PCa has substantially decreased since the advent and widespread of the PSA test [5]. However, as an early detection biomarker, PSA was not cancer-specific [6]. Age, prostatitis, benign prostate conditions, and medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), statins, and thiazide diuretics also have impacts on the PSA value [6–8]. Data from one randomized study from Europe showed that when cutoffs were defined between 2.5 and 4.0 μg/L, the false-positive rate of PSA test results was approximately 80% [9]. Compliance with the following prostate biopsy was also not so high in patients with positive PSA test results. PSA screening is controversial and there is growing attention to the potential problems of overdiagnosis and treatments caused by PSA screening for prostate cancer [10]. Even in 2008, after PSA was introduced and continued to be common practice for several years, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine screening [11–13]. As the gold standard for PCa diagnosis, prostate biopsies may cause physical distress, pain, and a 4% risk of a serious infection or bleeding, whereas only approximately 25% to 40% of patients who underwent biopsy will be diagnosed with prostate cancer [14–16]. Therefore, there is a need for a non-invasive tool with higher diagnostic accuracy for PCa.

SelectMDx is a novel urine-based risk score, which combines urinary biomarkers homeobox C6 (HOXC6) and distal-less homeobox 1 (DLX1) with traditional clinical factors such as age, PSA, digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate volume, and family history of PCa to assess the probability of risk of suffering clinical significant PCa (Gleason score ≥ 7 or Grade group ≥ 2) [17–19]. This risk score could reach a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 53% in the validation cohort [20]. The SelectMDx may have the potential to become a promising diagnostic tool for clinically significant PCa.

Several trials have investigated the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for clinically significant PCa, but there are large differences in sensitivity and specificity values among individual studies [20, 21]. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively assess the diagnostic value of SelectMDx for clinically significant PCa and evaluate the quality of existing evidence.

Method

Protocol and registration

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting (2020-version) [22]. The protocol for this meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022338323).

Search strategy and selection criteria

We searched electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify studies reporting data for SelectMDx for the detection of PCa until April 16, 2023. “SelectMDx”, “2-Gene mRNA urine test”, “urinary molecular biomarker-based risk score”, “HOXC6”, “DLX1”, “prostate cancer”, “prostate neoplasms”, and “prostatic cancer” were used as keywords. The detailed search strategies are provided in the S1 File. References of articles identified were also searched manually. There was no restriction on the publication date and language.

All studies evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of SelectMDx, which used prostate biopsy (the gold standard diagnosis for PCa) as a reference, were considered eligible. Studies with incomplete information for data analysis were also not included.

Study screening

All potential references were imported into Endnote X9 (Clarivate Analytics) and duplicates were removed using the software. Two independent reviewers screened each citation and abstract to identify eligible studies. Full texts of these studies were also reviewed if necessary. Possible disagreements between reviewers were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer.

Data extraction and quality assessment

The following basic information was extracted from included studies: author, year, study design, the definition of high-grade PCa, cut-off value, and patient characteristics. Two researchers independently extracted the information from the included full–text papers and the discrepancy was resolved by consensus with a third researcher. Sample size and the number of true positives (TP), true negatives (TN), false positives (FP), and false negatives (FN) were also obtained for data analysis. If different cut-off values were reported in the same study, data with higher sensitivity was extracted and analyzed in this meta-analysis.

The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2 (QUADAS-2) tool [23], which focuses on the bias and applicability of study results, was used in the quality assessment of included studies. The QUADAS-2 consists of a Quality assessment conducted independently by two reviewers and a third reviewer was consulted to resolve any possible disagreements.

Data analysis

For each study, TP, TN, FP, and FN were collected and entered into a standard two-by-two table to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (PLR), and negative likelihood ratios (NLR) [24, 25]. A summary ROCs curve and the respective area under the curve were also generated. The I2 statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity between studies. Statistically significant heterogeneity was defined as P<0.05 or I2 greater than 50% [26, 27].

When significant heterogeneity was detected, a meta-regression analysis was performed to explore the source of heterogeneity by subgrouping the following possible causes of heterogeneity: 1) median PSA level (>4 ng/ml or ≤4 ng/ml), while the American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends considering biopsy for men with PSA >4 ng/ml [28]; 2) cut-off value, whether a definite cut-off value was provided; 3) subjects, whether only patients previously diagnosed with low-risk PCa or patients suspected with PCa were included; 4) sample size (≤50 or >50).

Statistical analysis was performed using Stata (Version 16.0, Stata Corporation) with metan and midas modules.

Results

Study selection

The literature search identified 440 articles. 136 duplicates were removed using Endnote X9.1(EndNote, Clarivate Analytics). After screening the titles and abstracts, 283 articles were excluded for the following reasons: 235 articles that were not in the field of interest, 35 conference abstracts, 9 reviews, and 4 editorial comments. 21 full texts were reviewed and 7 articles were excluded because of incomplete data for analysis. Finally, 14 studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for clinically significant PCa [29–42], with a total of 2579 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. The study selection process is described in Fig 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Flow chat.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285745.g001

Characteristics of included studies

Table 1 summarizes the key characteristics of included studies and participants. All studies were conducted between 2019 and 2022, and 40% of the studies were in 2021. Two studies included only patients with low-risk PCa. Other studies all recruited patients suspected of PCa for various reasons. The number of included patients who underwent SelectMDx and prostate biopsy ranged from 12 to 916. Twelve studies were prospective studies and two were retrospective. One of the studies was a multicenter trial in which men from the Netherlands, France, and Germany were enrolled. Four of the studies were conducted in the US and three were from Italy. The remaining studies were from Spain (2/14), the Netherlands (1/14), Germany (1/14), the UK (1/14), and France (1/14).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285745.t001

In 85.71% (12/14) of included studies, the median age of participants ranged from 61.5–67. A total of 11 studies reported the median PSA level of participants. Except for one study, the median PSA level was 2.96 ng/mL. For the other ten investigations, the overall median PSA range was 5.1–7.4 ng/mL. The prevalence of PCa in each study ranged from 29.03% to 100%. Cut-off values of SelectMDx were reported in 64.29% of included studies and a cut-off value of -2.8 (This value is equivalent to the probability of 13% that following prostate biopsy would identify high-grade PCa) was used in four studies.

Quality assessment

Assessment of the methodological quality of the 14 included studies with the QUADAS-2 tool indicated that most were of moderate to high quality, with concerns arising mainly about patient selection, flow and timing, and index text (Table 2) [43]. For the patient selection domain, a high or unclear risk of bias was seen in 42.86% (6/14) of QUADAS-2 assessments, mostly related to including only patients with previous PCa diagnoses confirmed by transrectal biopsy. For the index test domain of applicability, 35.71% (5/14) of assessments were considered an unclear risk of bias because it was unknown whether the cut-off values for classifying SelectMDx test results as positive or negative were pre-specified. Given only studies in which prostate biopsy was used as a reference were included, in the reference standard domain, we judged the risk of bias as low in all of the assessments.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Quality assessment of included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285745.t002

Diagnose performance

Pooled sensitivity and specificity.

Figs 2 and 3 show the pooled evidence of included studies. The sensitivity of SelectMDx for the detection of clinically significant PCa ranged from 37% to 100%, whereas the specificity ranged from 12% to 100%. The bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of the 14 studies showed a pooled sensitivity of 81% [95% CI, 69%-89%] and a pooled specificity of 52% [95% CI, 41%-63%] for SelectMDx (Fig 2). Forest plots demonstrated a high degree of heterogeneity for both sensitivity and specificity estimates, with I2 indexes of 89.76% and 85.90%, respectively (Fig 2). The positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of SelectMDx were 1.68 [95% CI, 1.38–2.05] and 0.37 [95% CI: 0.24–0.57], respectively. The overall diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 4.51 [95% CI: 2.64–7.72]. Pooled receiver operating characteristic analysis of all included studies in a pooled area under the curve (AUC) was 70% [95% CI, 66%-74%] (Fig 3).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of SelectMDx.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285745.g002

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. SROC with prediction & confidence contours.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285745.g003

Clinical utilization.

Fagan plot analysis was used to visualize the diagnostic performance of SelectMDx (Fig 4). In included studies, patients with a PSA level of ≥3.0 ng/ml or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) were enrolled. Pretest probability in this meta-analysis was defined as the probability that the patient had clinically significant PCa before testing. In patients with elevated total PSA levels (≥ 3 ng/ml), the prevalence of clinically significant PCa varies with PSA levels [44, 45]. It is assumed that the pretest probability of diagnosing clinically significant PCa is 16%. The analysis of the Fagan plot testified that SelectMDx could provide certain informative utility for diagnosing clinically significant PCa with a probability increased to 24% of correct diagnosis following a “positive” measurement and lowering the probability of disease to 7% following a “negative” measurement. When the pre-test probability for diagnosing clinically significant PCa was set to 25%, a positive SelectMDx value yielded a 36% probability of correct diagnosis, and a negative value yielded an 11% probability of the wrong diagnosis. When the pre-test probability for diagnosing clinically significant PCa was set to 45%, a positive SelectMDx value showed a 58% probability of correct diagnosis, and a negative value showed a 23% probability of the wrong diagnosis.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. Fagan plot of SelectMDx.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285745.g004

Sensitivity analysis and heterogeneity sources.

The random-effects model was used for sensitivity analysis after the included studies were eliminated one by one. The results are shown in Table 3. The results suggested that no significant changes in the overall value of the combined effects for SelectMDx and the stability were good.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Sensitivity analysis of included 14 studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285745.t003

Median PSA level (>4 ng/ml or ≤4 ng/ml), definite cut-off value, subject (low-risk PCa or patients suspected with PCa), and sample size (≤50 or >50) were included as covariates in a meta-regression analysis (Fig 5). Results showed that median PSA level was not associated with diagnostic accuracy. A definite cut-off was associated with the heterogeneity of sensitivity (P = 0.02). In patients suspected of PCa, the sensitivity of SelectMDx was significantly higher (P = 0.04). The sample sizes of included studies (≤50 or >50) were responsible for the heterogeneity of both sensitivity and specificity (P = 0.02 and P = 0.02, respectively).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 5. Univariable meta-regression & subgroup analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285745.g005

A separate pooled analysis for the studies with sample size >50 resulted in a sensitivity of 88% [95% CI, 82%-92%; I2 = 66.87%], a specificity of 44% [95% CI, 35%-54%; I2 = 85.95%] (Fig 6) and an AUC of 79% [95% CI, 75%-82%].

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 6. Separate pooled analysis for sample size>50.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285745.g006

Publication bias

A Deeks funnel plot was constructed to test for publication bias, with statistical significance (P = 0.03) being assessed using Deeks’s asymmetry test (Fig 7).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 7. Deek’s funnel plot asymmetry test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285745.g007

Discussion

Given the high incidence of prostate cancer, there is still a large burden of disease both in diagnosis and management [46]. Since the introduction of PSA monitoring in the early 1990s as a screening tool, more and more patients are diagnosed at an early stage [47]. However, not all patients could benefit from PSA screening. Previous research suggested that approximately three-quarters of a million men, who were unlikely to reap a meaningful benefit, received PSA screening [48]. Research shows that men with high-grade PCa have a relatively high probability of dying from PCa within 10 years, while men with low-grade disease have minimal risk [49]. Currently, the challenge is the timely diagnosis and accurate identification of clinically significant PCa.

SelectMDx is a non-invasive diagnostic tool specifically developed for the identification of high-grade PCa (Gleason score≥7). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically summarized the existing evidence on the diagnostic value of SelectMDx for clinically significant prostate cancer. This meta-analysis showed that SelectMDx has higher sensitivity but lower specificity, with an AUC of 0.73. The overall results indicated that SelectMDx had a certain value in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. The twelve included studies were highly heterogeneous and differences in patients and sample size had a statistically significant effect on the diagnostic test accuracy. Stratified results suggested specificity was higher in individuals with low-risk PCa, but the conclusion is limited by the small sample size and the number of studies. As an emerging diagnostic test developed in 2017, some of the research on SelectMDx is still at an exploratory stage, which was characterized by a small sample size and insufficient information on methodology to evaluate the risk of bias [35, 36, 38, 40]. There was considerable heterogeneity of results between studies. Sample size, cut-off value, and selection of participants all affected the heterogeneity. To minimize heterogeneity, future research could report more detailed methodological information on SelectMDx, try to choose globally recognized institution to performed testing or expand the sample size.

A separate pooled analysis also indicated that, in studies with larger sample sizes, SelectMDx has a higher diagnostic value. Future large-scale studies are needed to confirm our results. In future clinical practice, SelectMDx can be used as a tool for the detection of high-grade PCa to avoid unnecessary prostate biopsy and overdiagnosis of indolent prostate cancer. On the other hand, as a diagnostic tool with a high diagnostic value specifically for high-grade PCa, the application of SelectMDx may also help to improve compliance to prostate biopsy for biopsy-negative men in later follow-ups.

There are also many other tests based on serum and urine biomarkers to improve the detection of clinically significant PCa, including the 4-Kallikrein score (4Kscore), Prostate Health Index (PHI), ExoDx Prostate Intelliscore (EPI), and MyProstateScore (MPS) [17, 50–53]. In addition to these biomarkers tests, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate may also be identified as a useful adjunct for the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa [54]. These diagnostic tools have been validated in various populations and showed some diagnostic value beyond baseline clinical data [55, 56]. However, these tools are not recommended as first-line screening tests by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which may be because of the small sample sizes and variation of results in current studies [57].

In the course of the research, we observed that a small number of studies have explored the diagnostic accuracy differences between different biomarkers. A study conducted by Wysock et al. proposed that when combined with magnetic resonance imaging 4Kscore was superior to the SelectMDx for detecting csPCa. Fiorella et al. investigated the performance of SelectMDx and PCA3 in the context of low or very low-risk PCa [40]. The results showed that SelectMDx predicted 5 years of pathological progression free survival with a moderate discrimination ability outperforming PCA3 and the combination of both tests did not improve outcomes [58].

In contemporary years, mpMRI is becoming an integral component in the clinical diagnosis of PCa and has been introduced to the standard of care for the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway [56, 59]. It’s notable that, in our review, we identified several studies in which the combined diagnostic performance of SelectMDx and mpMRI was examined [31, 36, 60]. When the conditional strategy was used, which combined positive results of the SelectMDx test and mpMRI, the biopsy avoidance rate could reach 60%, compared with the mpMRI alone (49%) [31]. In addition, the overdiagnosis of low-grade could also be reduced by 58% with the conditional strategy [31]. However, due to a lack of sufficient data, we were unable to conduct further pooled analysis. In the detection of PCa patients with Gleason score ≥3 + 3, a combination of high-risk SelectMDx and PI-RADS scores of 4/5 could help avoid 87% of biopsies [60]. Future studies may therefore be able to adapt and further develop the combination of novel diagnostic tools to further improve the diagnostic accuracy of high-grade PCa.

Limitations

This study also has some limitations. Significant heterogeneity was observed among included studies, which made it difficult to interpret the results of this meta-analysis. Secondly, the potential differences in the technical parameter and levels of different institutions may also have an impact on the reliability of results. Furthermore, the funnel plots showed a significant asymmetrical funnel distribution, which indicated the presence of publication bias. Finally, there may be some potential selection bias as only patients who underwent prostate biopsy were included in this study.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this meta-analysis has shown that the SelectMDx is sensitive and has a certain diagnostic value for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer. This diagnostic tool promises to be further applied in the clinical setting to improve the efficacy of identifying high-grade PCa and bring large health benefits.

References

  1. 1. Haas GP, Delongchamps N, Brawley OW, Wang CY, de la Roza G. The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies. Can J Urol. 2008;15(1):3866–71. Epub 2008/02/29. pmid:18304396 PMC2706483: MCPMCID|.
  2. 2. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49. Epub 2021/02/05. pmid:33538338 MCPMCID|.
  3. 3. Zhu Y, Mo M, Wei Y, Wu J, Pan J, Freedland SJ, et al. Epidemiology and genomics of prostate cancer in Asian men. Nat Rev Urol. 2021;18(5):282–301. Epub 2021/03/12. pmid:33692499 MCPMCID|.
  4. 4. Cooperberg MR, Moul JW, Carroll PR. The changing face of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(32):8146–51. Epub 2005/11/10. pmid:16278465 MCPMCID|.
  5. 5. Loeb S, Vonesh EF, Metter EJ, Carter HB, Gann PH, Catalona WJ. What is the true number needed to screen and treat to save a life with prostate-specific antigen testing? J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(4):464–7. Epub 2010/12/30. pmid:21189374 PMC3058289 are found at the end of this article.: MCPMCID|.
  6. 6. Wu CL, Jordan KW, Ratai EM, Sheng J, Adkins CB, Defeo EM, et al. Metabolomic imaging for human prostate cancer detection. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2(16):16ra8. Epub 2010/04/08. pmid:20371475 PMC2857699: MCPMCID|.
  7. 7. Chang SL, Harshman LC, Presti JC Jr., Impact of common medications on serum total prostate-specific antigen levels: analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(25):3951–7. Epub 2010/08/04. pmid:20679596 PMC2940393 are found at the end of this article.: MCPMCID|.
  8. 8. Kloss-Brandstätter A, Schäfer G, Erhart G, Hüttenhofer A, Coassin S, Seifarth C, et al. Somatic mutations throughout the entire mitochondrial genome are associated with elevated PSA levels in prostate cancer patients. Am J Hum Genet. 2010;87(6):802–12. Epub 2010/12/07. pmid:21129724 PMC2997360: MCPMCID|.
  9. 9. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–8. Epub 2009/03/20. pmid:19297566 MCPMCID|.
  10. 10. Ciatto S, Zappa M, Bonardi R, Gervasi G. Prostate cancer screening: the problem of overdiagnosis and lessons to be learned from breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36(11):1347–50. Epub 2000/07/19. pmid:10899646 MCPMCID|.
  11. 11. Force USPST. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(3):185–91. Epub 2008/08/06. pmid:18678845 MCPMCID|.
  12. 12. Basch E, Oliver TK, Vickers A, Thompson I, Kantoff P, Parnes H, et al. Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen testing: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(24):3020–5. Epub 2012/07/18. pmid:22802323 PMC3776923 are found at the end of this article.: MCPMCID|.
  13. 13. Walter LC, Fung KZ, Kirby KA, Shi Y, Espaldon R, O’Brien S, et al. Five-year downstream outcomes following prostate-specific antigen screening in older men. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(10):866–73. Epub 2013/04/17. pmid:23588999 PMC3712749: MCPMCID|.
  14. 14. Awsare NS, Green JS, Aldwinckle B, Hanbury DC, Boustead GB, McNicholas TA. The measurement of psychological distress in men being investigated for the presence of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2008;11(4):384–9. Epub 2008/04/23. pmid:18427569 MCPMCID|.
  15. 15. Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, Liu Y, Law C, Klotz LH, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2010;183(3):963–8. Epub 2010/01/22. pmid:20089283 MCPMCID|.
  16. 16. Dale W, Bilir P, Han M, Meltzer D. The role of anxiety in prostate carcinoma: a structured review of the literature. Cancer. 2005;104(3):467–78. Epub 2005/06/17. pmid:15959911 PMC3010360: MCPMCID|.
  17. 17. Eyrich NW, Morgan TM, Tosoian JJ. Biomarkers for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: contemporary clinical data and future directions. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10(7):3091–103. Epub 2021/08/26. pmid:34430413 PMC8350244: MCPMCID|.
  18. 18. Connell SP, Mills R, Pandha H, Morgan R, Cooper CS, Clark J, et al. Integration of Urinary EN2 Protein & Cell-Free RNA Data in the Development of a Multivariable Risk Model for the Detection of Prostate Cancer Prior to Biopsy. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(9). Epub 2021/05/01. pmid:33925381 PMC8123800: MCPMCID|.
  19. 19. Chang EK, Gadzinski AJ, Nyame YA. Blood and urine biomarkers in prostate cancer: Are we ready for reflex testing in men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen? Asian J Urol. 2021;8(4):343–53. Epub 2021/11/13. pmid:34765442 PMC8566358: MCPMCID|.
  20. 20. Van Neste L, Hendriks RJ, Dijkstra S, Trooskens G, Cornel EB, Jannink SA, et al. Detection of High-grade Prostate Cancer Using a Urinary Molecular Biomarker-Based Risk Score. European Urology. 2016;70(5):740–8. PMID: 610048661 MCPMCID|. pmid:27108162
  21. 21. Hendriks RJ, van der Leest MMG, Dijkstra S, Barentsz JO, Van Criekinge W, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. A urinary biomarker-based risk score correlates with multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection. Prostate. 2017;77(14):1401–7. Epub 2017/08/31. pmid:28853167 MCPMCID|.
  22. 22. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj. 2021;372:n71. Epub 2021/03/31. pmid:33782057 PMC8005924 MCPMCID|.
  23. 23. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36. Epub 2011/10/19. pmid:22007046 MCPMCID|.
  24. 24. Pu K, Wang Y, Bai S, Wei H, Zhou Y, Fan J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) as a non-invasive test for steatosis in suspected non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2019;19(1):51. Epub 2019/04/10. pmid:30961539 PMC6454693: MCPMCID|.
  25. 25. Zheng J, Cai J, Li H, Zeng K, He L, Fu H, et al. Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio and Platelet to Lymphocyte Ratio as Prognostic Predictors for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients with Various Treatments: a Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2017;44(3):967–81. Epub 2017/11/28. pmid:29179180 MCPMCID|.
  26. 26. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj. 2003;327(7414):557–60. Epub 2003/09/06. pmid:12958120 PMC192859: MCPMCID|.
  27. 27. Hanna GB, Boshier PR, Markar SR, Romano A. Accuracy and Methodologic Challenges of Volatile Organic Compound-Based Exhaled Breath Tests for Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(1):e182815. Epub 2018/08/22. pmid:30128487 PMC6439770: MCPMCID|.
  28. 28. Wolf AM, Wender RC, Etzioni RB, Thompson IM, D’Amico AV, Volk RJ, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(2):70–98. Epub 2010/03/05. pmid:20200110 MCPMCID|.
  29. 29. Busetto GM, Del Giudice F, Maggi M, De Marco F, Porreca A, Sperduti I, et al. Prospective assessment of two-gene urinary test with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate for men undergoing primary prostate biopsy. World J Urol. 2021;39(6):1869–77. Epub 2020/07/19. pmid:32681273 PMC8217060: MCPMCID|.
  30. 30. Haese A, Trooskens G, Steyaert S, Hessels D, Brawer M, Vlaeminck-Guillem V, et al. Multicenter Optimization and Validation of a 2-Gene mRNA Urine Test for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer before Initial Prostate Biopsy. J Urol. 2019;202(2):256–63. Epub 2019/04/27. pmid:31026217 MCPMCID|.
  31. 31. Hendriks RJ, van der Leest MMG, Israel B, Hannink G, YantiSetiasti A, Cornel EB, et al. Clinical use of the SelectMDx urinary-biomarker test with or without mpMRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: a prospective, multicenter study in biopsy-naive men. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. 2021;24(4):1110–9. PMID: WOS:000646499700001 MCPMCID|. pmid:33941866
  32. 32. Lendinez-Cano G, Ojeda-Claro AV, Gomez-Gomez E, Morales Jimenez P, Flores Martin J, Dominguez JF, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy in the detection of high-grade prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who underwent the Select MDx test. Prostate. 2021;81(12):857–65. PMID: WOS:000667741900001 MCPMCID|. pmid:34184761
  33. 33. Maggi M, Del Giudice F, Falagario UG, Cocci A, Russo GI, Di Mauro M, et al. SelectMDx and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate for Men Undergoing Primary Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective Assessment in a Multi-Institutional Study. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(9). Epub 2021/05/01. pmid:33922626 PMC8122883: MCPMCID|.
  34. 34. Morote J, Díaz F, Celma A, Planas J, Trilla E. Behavior of SelectMDx and Prostate-specific Antigen Density in the Challenging Scenario of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Category 3 Lesions. Eur Urol. 2022;81(1):124–5. Epub 2021/10/05. pmid:34602313 MCPMCID|.
  35. 35. Pepe P, Dibenedetto G, Pepe L, Pennisi M. Multiparametric MRI Versus SelectMDx Accuracy in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant PCa in Men Enrolled in Active Surveillance. In Vivo. 2020;34(1):393–6. Epub 2019/12/29. pmid:31882504 PMC6984119: MCPMCID|.
  36. 36. Rahnama’i MS, Bach C, Schulze-Hagen M, Kuhl CK, Vögeli TA. Can the predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer be improved by a liquid biopsy with SelectMDx? Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2021;4(6):e1396. Epub 2021/05/02. pmid:33931984 PMC8714534: MCPMCID|.
  37. 37. Roumiguié M, Ploussard G, Nogueira L, Bruguière E, Meyrignac O, Lesourd M, et al. Independent Evaluation of the Respective Predictive Values for High-Grade Prostate Cancer of Clinical Information and RNA Biomarkers after Upfront MRI and Image-Guided Biopsies. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(2). Epub 2020/01/30. pmid:31991591 PMC7072157: MCPMCID|.
  38. 38. Sessine MS, Das S, Park B, Salami SS, Kaffenberger SD, Kasputis A, et al. Initial Findings from a High Genetic Risk Prostate Cancer Clinic. Urology. 2021;156:96–103. Epub 2021/07/20. pmid:34280438 MCPMCID|.
  39. 39. Shore N, Hafron J, Langford T, Stein M, Dehart J, Brawer M, et al. Urinary molecular biomarker test impacts prostate biopsy decision making in clinical practice. Urology Practice. 2019;6(4):256–60. PMID: 628754785 MCPMCID|. pmid:37317474
  40. 40. Wysock JS, Becher E, Persily J, Loeb S, Lepor H. Concordance and Performance of 4Kscore and SelectMDx for Informing Decision to Perform Prostate Biopsy and Detection of Prostate Cancer. Urology. 2020;141:119–24. Epub 2020/04/16. pmid:32294481 MCPMCID|.
  41. 41. Cussenot O, Renard-Penna R, Montagne S, Ondet V, Pilon A, Guechot J, et al. Clinical performance of magnetic resonance imaging and biomarkers for prostate cancer diagnosis in men at high genetic risk. Bju International. 2023. PMID: WOS:000928430600001 MCPMCID|. pmid:36648168
  42. 42. Stanton W, Crawford ED, Arangua P, Romero J, La Rosa FG, van Bokhoven A, et al. SELECTMDX URINE TEST DIAGNOSE MEN WITH HIGH-GRADE PROSTATE CANCER. Journal of Urology. 2022;207(5):E763-E. PMID: WOS:000836935506191 MCPMCID|.
  43. 43. van der Hoorn A, van Laar PJ, Holtman GA, Westerlaan HE. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with head and neck tumors, a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. 2017;12(5):e0177986. MCPMCID|. pmid:28542474
  44. 44. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or = 4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(22):2239–46. Epub 2004/05/28. pmid:15163773 MCPMCID|.
  45. 45. Nordström T, Akre O, Aly M, Grönberg H, Eklund M. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21(1):57–63. Epub 2017/12/21. pmid:29259293 MCPMCID|.
  46. 46. Li G, Henry SA, Liu H, Kang TS, Nao SC, Zhao Y, et al. A robust photoluminescence screening assay identifies uracil-DNA glycosylase inhibitors against prostate cancer. Chem Sci. 2020;11(7):1750–60. Epub 2020/01/10. pmid:34123270 PMC8148385: MCPMCID|.
  47. 47. Patel H, Mick R, Finlay J, Zhu TC, Rickter E, Cengel KA, et al. Motexafin lutetium-photodynamic therapy of prostate cancer: short- and long-term effects on prostate-specific antigen. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(15):4869–76. Epub 2008/08/05. pmid:18676760 PMC2680073: MCPMCID|.
  48. 48. Drazer MW, Huo D, Schonberg MA, Razmaria A, Eggener SE. Population-based patterns and predictors of prostate-specific antigen screening among older men in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(13):1736–43. Epub 2011/03/30. pmid:21444863 PMC4821471: MCPMCID|.
  49. 49. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-Year Outcomes Following Conservative Management of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. JAMA. 2005;293(17):2095–101. MCPMCID|. pmid:15870412
  50. 50. Fossati N, Lazzeri M, Haese A, McNicholas T, de la Taille A, Buffi NM, et al. Clinical performance of serum isoform [–2]proPSA (p2PSA), and its derivatives %p2PSA and the Prostate Health Index, in men aged <60 years: results from a multicentric European study. BJU Int. 2015;115(6):913–20. Epub 2014/03/05. pmid:24589357 MCPMCID|.
  51. 51. Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD, Asroff SW, Bailen JL, Cochran JS, et al. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):464–70. Epub 2014/12/03. pmid:25454615 MCPMCID|.
  52. 52. Donovan MJ, Noerholm M, Bentink S, Belzer S, Skog J, O’Neill V, et al. A molecular signature of PCA3 and ERG exosomal RNA from non-DRE urine is predictive of initial prostate biopsy result. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015;18(4):370–5. Epub 2015/09/09. pmid:26345389 MCPMCID|.
  53. 53. Tomlins SA, Day JR, Lonigro RJ, Hovelson DH, Siddiqui J, Kunju LP, et al. Urine TMPRSS2:ERG Plus PCA3 for Individualized Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment. Eur Urol. 2016;70(1):45–53. Epub 2015/05/20. pmid:25985884 PMC4644724: MCPMCID|.
  54. 54. Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, Sisk AE, Delfin M, Natarajan S, et al. Comparison of Targeted vs Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men Who Are Biopsy Naive: The Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) Study. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(9):811–8. Epub 2019/06/13. pmid:31188412 PMC6563598 MCPMCID|.
  55. 55. Duffy MJ. Biomarkers for prostate cancer: prostate-specific antigen and beyond. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020;58(3):326–39. Epub 2019/11/13. pmid:31714881 MCPMCID|.
  56. 56. Stabile A, Giganti F, Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS, Villeirs G, Gill IS, et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions. Nature Reviews Urology. 2020;17(1):41–61. MCPMCID|. pmid:31316185
  57. 57. Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, Bahnson RR, Castle EP, Catalona WJ, et al. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14(5):509–19. Epub 2016/05/11. pmid:27160230 MCPMCID|.
  58. 58. Fiorella D, Marenco JL, Mascarós JM, Borque-Fernando Á, Esteban LM, Calatrava A, et al. Role of PCA3 and SelectMDx in the optimization of active surveillance in prostate cancer. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2021;45(6):439–46. Epub 2021/06/22. pmid:34148844 MCPMCID|.
  59. 59. Rührup J, Preisser F, Theißen L, Wenzel M, Roos FC, Becker A, et al. MRI-Fusion Targeted vs. Systematic Prostate Biopsy-How Does the Biopsy Technique Affect Gleason Grade Concordance and Upgrading After Radical Prostatectomy? Front Surg. 2019;6:55. Epub 2019/10/18. pmid:31620444 PMC6759634: MCPMCID|.
  60. 60. Wagaskar VG, Levy M, Ratnani P, Sullimada S, Gerenia M, Schlussel K, et al. A SelectMDx/magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram to diagnose prostate cancer. Cancer reports (Hoboken, NJ). 2023;6(1):e1668-e. PMID: MEDLINE:36168681 MCPMCID|. pmid:36168681