Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective study investigates a new model for diagnosing prostate cancer using SAT-PCA3 and clinical data, improving accuracy.
PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of Simultaneous Amplification and Testing PCA3 (SAT-PCA3, a urine-based prostate cancer-specific biomarker) combined with conventional clinical information in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed 137 patients with complete clinical data. Patients with a biopsy Gleason score ≥ 6 were classified as having PCa. Clinical indicators showing significant differences between PCa and non-PCa groups were identified via univariate analysis. A multivariate model was constructed using pathological diagnosis as the outcome and age, digital rectal exam (DRE) result, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), SAT-PCA3 result, and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score as predictors. The DeLong test was performed to compare differences in the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) between the univariate model and the multivariate model. RESULTS: ) values is 0.626 in the multivariate model. The AUCs of the age [0.711(95%CI: 0.625-0.796)], DRE [0.626(95%CI: 0.545-0.708)], PSA [0.684(95%CI: 0.593-0.774)], SAT-PCA3 [0.786(95%CI: 0.706-0.866)], PIRADS [0.795(95%CI: 0.722-0.866)] were all less than the multivariate model [0.912(95%CI: 0.866-0.958)], and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A diagnostic model combining conventional clinical information (age, DRE, PSA, PIRADS score) with the SAT-PCA3 significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer compared to any single parameter alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: