4.6 Review

Use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoforms for the detection of prostate cancer in men with a PSA level of 2-10 ng/ml: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 3, Pages 386-399

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.04.015

Keywords

prostate specific antigen; PSA; free PSA; complex PSA; early detection; prostate cancer; reflex tests; sensitivity; specificity; diagnostic accuracy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Measurement of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection of prostate cancer has poor specificity in men with PSA levels between 2 and 10 ng/ml. It has been suggested that measurement of the ratio of free to total PSA (f/tPSA) or complexed PSA (cPSA) might offer an improvement. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of these tests among men with PSA levels between 2 and 10 ng/ml. Methods: Data on sensitivity and specificity were extracted from 66 eligible studies. Likelihood ratios and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were estimated and possible sources of heterogeneity between studies examined. Results: Use of the f/tPSA or the cPSA test improved diagnostic performance among men with a total PSA (tPSA) of 2-4 or 4-10 ng/ml compared to tPSA alone. The diagnostic performance of the f/tPSA test was significantly higher in the tPSA range of 4-10 ng/ml compared to a tPSA range of 2-4 ng/ml (p < 0.01); at a sensitivity of 95%, the specificity was 18% in the 4-10 ng/ml tPSA range and 6% in the 2-4 ng/ml tPSA range. Among studies that measured both isoforms, the diagnostic performance of the f/tPSA test and the cPSA was equivalent in both PSA ranges. Conclusions: The use of the f/tPSA or cPSA test among men with PSA levels between 2 and 10 ng/ml can reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies whilst maintaining a high cancer detection rate. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available