NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.
Structured Abstract
Objectives:
We performed a comparative effectiveness review that examined the use of the prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) gene in improving initial or repeat biopsy decisions in patients identified at risk for prostate cancer, or in improving decisionmaking about treatment choices (e.g., active surveillance vs. aggressive therapy) in patients with prostate cancer positive biopsies. Comparators included total prostate specific antigen (PSA) elevations, free PSA, PSA density, PSA velocity, externally validated nomograms, complexed PSA, and multivariate models.
Data sources:
We searched PubMed® and Embase® from January 1, 1990, to August 8 and August 15, 2011, respectively, and updated through May 15, 2012. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews with no date restriction and updated. A grey literature search included databases with regulatory information, clinical trial registries, abstracts/conference papers, grants and federally funded research, and manufacturer information.
Review methods:
Inclusion criteria required PCA3 and at least one comparator to be measured in the same cohort in one of the three clinical settings: at-risk men considering initial biopsy; at-risk men considering repeat biopsy; and men with prostate cancer making treatment decisions based on risk categorization. Data were extracted by one reviewer and audited by a second. Analyses were matched by comparing within study differences between PCA3 and a comparator. Modeling was used to smooth consensus ROC curves and to address issues relating to verification bias. Diagnostic accuracy studies were assessed for quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. Strengths of evidence were judged high, moderate, low, or insufficient according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria and the AHRQ “Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews.”
Results:
After exclusion of six studies with strong likelihood of containing duplicate data, 24 studies provided data that could be used to address diagnostic accuracy (Key Questions [KQ] 1 and 2); 13 studies addressed decisionmaking based on risk stratification criteria (KQ 3). All studies were of poor quality. Comparison of PCA3 to total PSA (tPSA) had the most available studies (22) but was subject to spectrum, verification, and sampling biases; the latter two were addressed in the analyses. We observed that: (1) PCA3 is more discriminatory for detecting cancers (i.e., at any sensitivity, the specificity is higher, or at any specificity, the sensitivity is higher) than tPSA elevations; (2) this finding appears to apply to both initial and repeat biopsies; and (3) PCA3 and tPSA are relatively independent predictors. However, strength of evidence was low. For all other diagnostic accuracy comparisons, and all intermediate and long-term health outcomes, the strength of evidence was insufficient. For treatment decisionmaking in men with positive biopsy, in all comparisons for intermediate and long-term health outcomes, the strength of evidence was found to be insufficient.
Conclusions:
For diagnostic accuracy, there was a low strength of evidence that PCA3 had better diagnostic accuracy for positive biopsy results than tPSA elevations, but insufficient evidence that this led to improved intermediate or long-term health outcomes. For all other settings, comparators, and outcomes, there was insufficient evidence.
Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Key Informants
- Technical Expert Panel
- Peer Reviewers
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Methods
- Results
- Discussion
- KQ 1 and KQ 2: Findings and Strength of Evidence
- Potential To Combine Studies Addressing KQs 1 and 2
- KQ 3: Findings and Strength of Evidence
- Findings in Relationship to What Is Already Known
- Applicability
- Implications for Clinical and Policy Decisionmaking
- Limitations of the Comparative Effectiveness Review Process
- Limitations of the Evidence Base
- Research Gaps
- References
- Abbreviations and Acronyms
- Appendix A Search Strategies for PCA3 Testing for the Diagnosis and Management of Prostate Cancer
- Appendix B Data Elements
- Appendix C Search Strategy for Grey Literature
- Appendix D Articles Excluded at Full-Text Level
- Appendix E Quality Assessment Criteria and Category Definitions for Nonrandomized Comparative Intervention Studies,
- Appendix F Quality Assessment of Studies Addressing KQ 1/KQ 2 and KQ 3
- Appendix G DistillerSR Abstract and Title Screening Form
- Appendix H DistillerSR Full-Text Article Screening Form
- Appendix I DistillerSR Data Extraction Forms
- Appendix J Detailed Description of PCA3 and Total PSA Interpretive Analysis
- Appendix K Summary of the Remaining Combined Analyses for KQ 1 and KQ 2
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2007-10058-I Prepared by: Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center, Evidence-based Practice Center, Chicago, IL
Suggested citation:
Bradley LA, Palomaki G, Gutman S, Samson DJ, Aronson N. PCA3 Testing for the Diagnosis and Management of Prostate Cancer. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 98. (Prepared by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10058-I). AHRQ Publication No. 13-EHC030-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; April 2013. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
This report is based on research conducted by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2007-10058-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.
None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.
- 1
540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www
.ahrq.gov
- Review Comparative effectiveness review: prostate cancer antigen 3 testing for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.[J Urol. 2013]Review Comparative effectiveness review: prostate cancer antigen 3 testing for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, Gutman S, Samson D, Aronson N. J Urol. 2013 Aug; 190(2):389-98. Epub 2013 Mar 29.
- A comparative performance analysis of total prostate-specific antigen, percentage free prostate-specific antigen, prostate-specific antigen velocity and urinary prostate cancer gene 3 in the first, second and third repeat prostate biopsy.[BJU Int. 2012]A comparative performance analysis of total prostate-specific antigen, percentage free prostate-specific antigen, prostate-specific antigen velocity and urinary prostate cancer gene 3 in the first, second and third repeat prostate biopsy.Auprich M, Augustin H, Budäus L, Kluth L, Mannweiler S, Shariat SF, Fisch M, Graefen M, Pummer K, Chun FK. BJU Int. 2012 Jun; 109(11):1627-35. Epub 2011 Sep 21.
- Review Screening for High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2014]Review Screening for High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForcePiper MA, Evans CV, Burda BU, Margolis KL, O’Connor E, Smith N, Webber E, Perdue LA, Bigler KD, Whitlock EP. 2014 Dec
- Review Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force[ 2016]Review Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Service Task ForceMelnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, Miglioretti DL, Weyrich MS, Thompson JH, Shah K. 2016 Jan
- Head-to-head comparison of prostate health index and urinary PCA3 for predicting cancer at initial or repeat biopsy.[J Urol. 2013]Head-to-head comparison of prostate health index and urinary PCA3 for predicting cancer at initial or repeat biopsy.Scattoni V, Lazzeri M, Lughezzani G, De Luca S, Passera R, Bollito E, Randone D, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Larcher A, et al. J Urol. 2013 Aug; 190(2):496-501. Epub 2013 Mar 1.
- PCA3 Testing for the Diagnosis and Management of Prostate CancerPCA3 Testing for the Diagnosis and Management of Prostate Cancer
- Reducing the Risk of Breast Cancer With Medicine - Comparative Effectiveness Rev...Reducing the Risk of Breast Cancer With Medicine - Comparative Effectiveness Review Summary Guides for Consumers
- Medications To Reduce the Risk of Primary Breast Cancer in Women - Comparative E...Medications To Reduce the Risk of Primary Breast Cancer in Women - Comparative Effectiveness Review Summary Guides for Clinicians
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...