1
|
Agnello L, Vidali M, Giglio RV, Gambino CM, Ciaccio AM, Lo Sasso B, Ciaccio M. Prostate health index (PHI) as a reliable biomarker for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022; 60:1261-1277. [PMID: 35567430 DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2022-0354] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2022] [Accepted: 05/03/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Prostate cancer (PCa) represents the second most common solid cancer in men worldwide. In the last decades, the prostate health index (PHI) emerged as a reliable biomarker for detecting PCa and differentiating between non-aggressive and aggressive forms. However, before introducing it in clinical practice, more evidence is required. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for assessing the diagnostic performance of PHI for PCa and for detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa). METHODS Relevant publications were identified by a systematic literature search on PubMed and Web of Science from inception to January 11, 2022. RESULTS Sixty studies, including 14,255 individuals, met the inclusion criteria for our meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PHI for PCa detection was 0.791 (95%CI 0.739-0.834) and 0.625 (95%CI 0.560-0.686), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PHI for csPCa detection was 0.874 (95%CI 0.803-0.923) and 0.569 (95%CI 0.458-0.674), respectively. Additionally, the diagnostic odds ratio was 6.302 and 9.206, respectively, for PCa and csPCa detection, suggesting moderate to good effectiveness of PHI as a diagnostic test. CONCLUSIONS PHI has a high accuracy for detecting PCa and discriminating between aggressive and non-aggressive PCa. Thus, it could be useful as a biomarker in predicting patients harbouring more aggressive cancer and guiding biopsy decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luisa Agnello
- Department of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, Institute of Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Molecular Medicine and Clinical Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital "P. Giaccone", Palermo, Italy
| | - Matteo Vidali
- Foundation IRCCS Ca' Grande Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy
| | - Rosaria Vincenza Giglio
- Department of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, Institute of Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Molecular Medicine and Clinical Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital "P. Giaccone", Palermo, Italy.,Department of Laboratory Medicine, AOUP "P. Giaccone", Palermo, Italy
| | - Caterina Maria Gambino
- Department of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, Institute of Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Molecular Medicine and Clinical Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital "P. Giaccone", Palermo, Italy.,Department of Laboratory Medicine, AOUP "P. Giaccone", Palermo, Italy
| | | | - Bruna Lo Sasso
- Department of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, Institute of Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Molecular Medicine and Clinical Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital "P. Giaccone", Palermo, Italy.,Department of Laboratory Medicine, AOUP "P. Giaccone", Palermo, Italy
| | - Marcello Ciaccio
- Department of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, Institute of Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Molecular Medicine and Clinical Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital "P. Giaccone", Palermo, Italy.,Department of Laboratory Medicine, AOUP "P. Giaccone", Palermo, Italy
| |
Collapse
|