Self-Normalized Detection of ANXA3 from Untreated Urine of Prostate Cancer Patients without Digital Rectal Examination

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (17) ◽  
pp. 1700449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minhong Jeun ◽  
Sungwook Park ◽  
Yongdeok Kim ◽  
Jaewon Choi ◽  
Sang Hoon Song ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelson C. Okpua ◽  
Simon I. Okekpa ◽  
Stanley Njaka ◽  
Augusta N. Emeh

Abstract Background Being diagnosed with cancer, irrespective of type initiates a serious psychological concern. The increasing rate of detection of indolent prostate cancers is a source of worry to public health. Digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen tests are the commonly used prostate cancer screening tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracies of these tests may provide clearer pictures of their characteristics and values in prostate cancer diagnosis. This review compared the sensitivities and specificities of digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen test in detection of clinically important prostate cancers using studies from wider population. Main body We conducted literature search in PubMed, Medline, Science Direct, Wiley Online, CINAHL, Scopus, AJOL and Google Scholar, using key words and Boolean operators. Studies comparing the sensitivity and specificity of digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen tests in men 40 years and above, using biopsy as reference standard were retrieved. Data were extracted and analysed using Review manager (RevMan 5.3) statistical software. The overall quality of the studies was good, and heterogeneity was observed across the studies. The result comparatively shows that prostate-specific antigen test has higher sensitivity (P < 0.00001, RR 0.74, CI 0.67–0.83) and specificity (P < 0.00001, RR 1.81, CI 1.54–2.12) in the detection of prostate cancers than digital rectal examination. Conclusion Prostate-specific antigen test has higher sensitivity and specificity in detecting prostate cancers from men of multiple ethnic origins. However, combination of prostate-specific antigen test and standardized digital rectal examination procedure, along with patients history, may improve the accuracy and minimize over-diagnoses of indolent prostate cancers.


Author(s):  
Simon Lindner ◽  
Steffen Eitelbuss ◽  
Svetlana Hetjens ◽  
Joshua Gawlitza ◽  
Julia Hardt ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose No clear consensus exists on how to routinely assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of contrast enema, endoscopic procedures, and digital rectal examination in rectal cancer patients in this setting. Methods A systematic literature search was performed. Studies assessing at least one index test for which a 2 × 2 table was calculable were included. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated and used for test comparison. Paired data were used where parameters could not be calculated. Methodological quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. Results Two prospective and 11 retrospective studies comprising 1903 patients were eligible for inclusion. Paired data analysis showed equal or better results for sensitivity and specificity of both endoscopic procedures and digital rectal examination compared to contrast enema. Subgroup analysis of contrast enema according to methodological quality revealed that studies with higher methodological quality reported poorer sensitivity for equal specificity and vice versa. No case was described where a contrast enema revealed an anastomotic leak that was overseen in digital rectal examination or endoscopic procedures. Conclusions Endoscopy and digital rectal examination appear to be the best diagnostic tests to assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. Accuracy measures of contrast enema are overestimated by studies with lower methodological quality. Synopsis of existing evidence and risk–benefit considerations justifies omission of contrast enema in favor of endoscopic and clinical assessment. Trial registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019107771


2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 430-437
Author(s):  
GUSTAVO DAVID LUDWIG ◽  
HENRIQUE PERES ROCHA ◽  
LÚCIO JOSÉ BOTELHO ◽  
MAIARA BRUSCO FREITAS

ABSTRACT Objective: to develop a predictive model to estimate the probability of prostate cancer prior to biopsy. Methods: from September 2009 to January 2014, 445 men underwent prostate biopsy in a radiology service. We excluded from the study patients with diseases that could compromise the data analysis, who had undergone prostatic resection or used 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors. Thus, we selected 412 patients. Variables included in the model were age, prostate specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination, prostate volume and abnormal sonographic findings. We constructed Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and calculated the areas under the curve, as well as the model's Positive Predictive Value (PPV) . Results: of the 412 men, 155 (37.62%) had prostate cancer (PC). The mean age was 63.8 years and the median PSA was 7.22ng/ml. In addition, 21.6% and 20.6% of patients had abnormalities on digital rectal examination and image suggestive of cancer by ultrasound, respectively. The median prostate volume and PSA density were 45.15cm3 and 0.15ng/ml/cm3, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that only five studied risk factors are predictors of PC in the study (p<0.05). The PSA density was excluded from the model (p=0.314). The area under the ROC curve for PC prediction was 0.86. The PPV was 48.08% for 95%sensitivity and 52.37% for 90% sensitivity. Conclusion: the results indicate that clinical, laboratory and ultrasound data, besides easily obtained, can better stratify the risk of patients undergoing prostate biopsy.


Urology ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 65 (6) ◽  
pp. 1137-1140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harris M. Nagler ◽  
Eric W. Gerber ◽  
Peter Homel ◽  
Joseph R. Wagner ◽  
Jennifer Norton ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 613-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hasan Yilmaz ◽  
Murat Ustuner ◽  
Seyfettin Ciftci ◽  
Ufuk Yavuz ◽  
Tayyar Alp Ozkan ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 185 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas Nogueira ◽  
Eliney Ferreira Faria ◽  
Leonardo Oliveira Reis ◽  
Rodolfo Borges dos Reis ◽  
Roberto Dias Machado ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document