A meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx in prostate cancer

PLoS One. 2024 Feb 8;19(2):e0285745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285745. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

To overview the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and to review sources of methodologic variability. Four electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies investigating the diagnostic value of SelectMDx compared with the gold standard. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Included studies were assessed according to the Standards for Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. The review identified 14 relevant publications with 2579 patients. All reports constituted phase 1 biomarker studies. Pooled analysis of findings found an area under the receiver operating characteristic analysis curve of 70% [95% CI, 66%-74%], a sensitivity of 81% [95% CI, 69%-89%], and a specificity of 52% [95% CI, 41%-63%]. The positive likelihood ratio was 1.68, and the negative predictive value is 0.37. Factors that may influence variability in test results included the breath collection method, the patient's physiologic condition, the test environment, and the method of analysis. Considerable heterogeneity was observed among the studies owing to the difference in the sample size. SelectMDx appears to have moderate to good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating patients with clinically significant prostate cancer from people at high risk of developing prostate cancer. Higher-quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for clinically significant cancer are still needed.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis

MeSH terms

  • Biomarkers
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Prostatic Neoplasms* / diagnosis
  • ROC Curve
  • Sensitivity and Specificity

Substances

  • Biomarkers

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the Health Commission of Zhejiang Province (No. 2019KY348 and 2021KY606), the People’s Republic of China. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.