본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Cancer Disease-Specific Phenotypes Identified Using Real-World Databases: A Systematic Review.

Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 2025 Vol.34(10) p. e70236

Vyas A, Kamat S, Thomas S, Gambino C, Brown BR, Raval AD

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

[BACKGROUND] Research using real-world databases (RWD) often requires the development of computable phenotypes based on clinical reasoning-based algorithms or prediction models with validation through

🔬 핵심 임상 통계 (초록에서 자동 추출 — 원문 검증 권장)
  • Sensitivity 60%
  • Specificity 90%
  • 연구 설계 systematic review

이 논문을 인용하기

BibTeX ↓ RIS ↓
APA Vyas A, Kamat S, et al. (2025). Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Cancer Disease-Specific Phenotypes Identified Using Real-World Databases: A Systematic Review.. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 34(10), e70236. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70236
MLA Vyas A, et al.. "Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Cancer Disease-Specific Phenotypes Identified Using Real-World Databases: A Systematic Review.." Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, vol. 34, no. 10, 2025, pp. e70236.
PMID 41093316
DOI 10.1002/pds.70236

Abstract

[BACKGROUND] Research using real-world databases (RWD) often requires the development of computable phenotypes based on clinical reasoning-based algorithms or prediction models with validation through a reference standard such as chart review. While there are studies reporting different phenotypes for key prostate cancer (PC) disease or outcomes, these have not been summarized systematically.

[OBJECTIVES] To conduct a systematic review (SR) to summarize validation statistics on PC-specific phenotypes, including metastasis, biochemical recurrence (BCR), castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC), progression-free survival, and performance status.

[METHODS] We conducted a SR in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies guidelines. We systematically searched PubMed/Medline and EMBASE for studies reporting algorithms and prediction models for PC phenotypes based on structured RWD published between 2012 and 2024. A summary of algorithms and prediction models, along with their respective estimates of diagnostic accuracy compared to reference standards and/or measures of uncertainty, was provided. An area under the curve (AUC) > 0.7 was considered an acceptable phenotype.

[RESULTS] Out of 7427 retrieved citations, 29 unique retrospective studies (31 citations) were included. Both claims-based codes and prediction model-based classification for any metastasis and bone metastases had an acceptable performance with high AUC (0.88 and > 0.7, respectively) and high specificity (above 90%) with a few having moderate sensitivity (60% to 100%). The prediction model-based BCR classification had acceptable performance (AUC > 0.7); however, claims-based BCR had moderate performance statistics with sensitivity in the range of 3%-19% and specificity in the range of 83%-98%. One claims-based algorithm for metastatic CRPC had high sensitivity (77%) and specificity (100%). Studies for mHSPC were based on clinical reasoning without assessing their diagnostic accuracy. Claims-based algorithms for performance status had at least 75% sensitivity and relatively high specificity.

[CONCLUSIONS] Our SR highlights the acceptable accuracy of computable phenotypes for PC, including (bone) metastasis, BCR, and performance status within RWD. Further validation studies are needed for RWD-based phenotypes to account for changes in therapeutic options in PC.

MeSH Terms

Humans; Male; Phenotype; Databases, Factual; Prostatic Neoplasms; Algorithms; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Progression-Free Survival

같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (1)