Julian Little, Brenda Wilson, Ron Carter, Kate Walker, Pasqualina Santaguida, Eva Tomiak, Joseph Beyene, Parminder Raina
{"title":"前列腺癌风险评估中的多基因面板。","authors":"Julian Little, Brenda Wilson, Ron Carter, Kate Walker, Pasqualina Santaguida, Eva Tomiak, Joseph Beyene, Parminder Raina","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this review is to identify, synthesize, and appraise the literature on the analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility of commercially available single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel tests for assessing the risk of prostate cancer.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE®, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Embase, from the beginning of each database to October 2011. Search strategies used combinations of controlled vocabulary (medical subject headings, keywords) and text words. Grey literature was identified.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Three Key Questions (KQs) encompassing broad aspects of the analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility of SNP-based panels were developed with the input of a Technical Expert Panel assembled by the Evidence-based Practice Center and approved by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Standard systematic review methodology was applied, with eligibility criteria developed separately for each KQ.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1,998 unique citations, 14 were retained for data abstraction and quality assessment following title and abstract screening and full text screening. All focused on clinical validity (KQ2), and evaluated 15 individual panels with two to 35 SNPs. All had poor discriminative ability for predicting risk of prostate cancer and/or distinguishing between aggressive and asymptomatic/latent disease. The risk of bias of the studies was determined to be moderate. None of the panels had been evaluated in routine clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The evidence on currently available SNP panels does not permit meaningful assessment of analytic validity. The limited evidence on clinical validity is insufficient to conclude that the panels assessed would perform adequately as screening or risk stratification tests. No evidence is available on the clinical utility of current panels.</p>","PeriodicalId":72991,"journal":{"name":"Evidence report/technology assessment","volume":" 209","pages":"1-166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781158/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multigene panels in prostate cancer risk assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Julian Little, Brenda Wilson, Ron Carter, Kate Walker, Pasqualina Santaguida, Eva Tomiak, Joseph Beyene, Parminder Raina\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this review is to identify, synthesize, and appraise the literature on the analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility of commercially available single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel tests for assessing the risk of prostate cancer.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE®, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Embase, from the beginning of each database to October 2011. Search strategies used combinations of controlled vocabulary (medical subject headings, keywords) and text words. Grey literature was identified.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Three Key Questions (KQs) encompassing broad aspects of the analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility of SNP-based panels were developed with the input of a Technical Expert Panel assembled by the Evidence-based Practice Center and approved by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Standard systematic review methodology was applied, with eligibility criteria developed separately for each KQ.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1,998 unique citations, 14 were retained for data abstraction and quality assessment following title and abstract screening and full text screening. All focused on clinical validity (KQ2), and evaluated 15 individual panels with two to 35 SNPs. All had poor discriminative ability for predicting risk of prostate cancer and/or distinguishing between aggressive and asymptomatic/latent disease. The risk of bias of the studies was determined to be moderate. None of the panels had been evaluated in routine clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The evidence on currently available SNP panels does not permit meaningful assessment of analytic validity. The limited evidence on clinical validity is insufficient to conclude that the panels assessed would perform adequately as screening or risk stratification tests. No evidence is available on the clinical utility of current panels.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"volume\":\" 209\",\"pages\":\"1-166\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781158/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence report/technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本综述的目的是识别、综合和评价市面上可获得的单核苷酸多态性(SNP)面板检测用于评估前列腺癌风险的分析效度、临床效度和临床应用的文献。数据来源:MEDLINE®、Cochrane CENTRAL、Cochrane系统评价数据库和Embase,从每个数据库开始到2011年10月。搜索策略使用受控词汇(医学主题标题、关键词)和文本单词的组合。灰色文献被确认。审查方法:三个关键问题(KQs)涵盖了基于snp的小组的分析效度、临床效度和临床效用的广泛方面,由循证实践中心(Evidence-based Practice Center)组建的技术专家小组提供了意见,并得到了医疗保健研究和质量机构(Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality)的批准。采用了标准的系统评价方法,每个KQ分别制定了合格标准。结果:从1998个唯一引用中,通过标题和摘要筛选和全文筛选,保留14个用于数据提取和质量评估。所有研究都集中在临床有效性(KQ2)上,并评估了15个具有2到35个snp的单独小组。所有患者在预测前列腺癌风险和/或区分侵袭性和无症状/潜伏性疾病方面的鉴别能力均较差。这些研究的偏倚风险被确定为中等。这些小组都没有在常规临床环境中进行评估。结论:目前可用的SNP面板上的证据不允许对分析有效性进行有意义的评估。关于临床有效性的有限证据不足以得出结论,评估的面板将充分发挥筛查或风险分层试验的作用。目前还没有证据表明面板的临床应用。
Multigene panels in prostate cancer risk assessment.
Objectives: The aim of this review is to identify, synthesize, and appraise the literature on the analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility of commercially available single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel tests for assessing the risk of prostate cancer.
Data sources: MEDLINE®, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Embase, from the beginning of each database to October 2011. Search strategies used combinations of controlled vocabulary (medical subject headings, keywords) and text words. Grey literature was identified.
Review methods: Three Key Questions (KQs) encompassing broad aspects of the analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility of SNP-based panels were developed with the input of a Technical Expert Panel assembled by the Evidence-based Practice Center and approved by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Standard systematic review methodology was applied, with eligibility criteria developed separately for each KQ.
Results: From 1,998 unique citations, 14 were retained for data abstraction and quality assessment following title and abstract screening and full text screening. All focused on clinical validity (KQ2), and evaluated 15 individual panels with two to 35 SNPs. All had poor discriminative ability for predicting risk of prostate cancer and/or distinguishing between aggressive and asymptomatic/latent disease. The risk of bias of the studies was determined to be moderate. None of the panels had been evaluated in routine clinical settings.
Conclusions: The evidence on currently available SNP panels does not permit meaningful assessment of analytic validity. The limited evidence on clinical validity is insufficient to conclude that the panels assessed would perform adequately as screening or risk stratification tests. No evidence is available on the clinical utility of current panels.