Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review

Katharina Beyer, Lisa Moris, Michael Lardas, Anna Haire, Francesco Barletta, Simone Scuderi, Megan Molnar, Ronald Herrera, Abdul Rauf, Riccardo Campi, Isabella Greco, Kirill Shiranov, Saeed Dabestani, Thomas Van Den Broeck, Sujenthiran Arun, Mauro Gacci, Giorgio Gandaglia, Muhammad Imran Omar, Steven MacLennan, Monique J. RoobolBahman Farahmand, Eleni Vradi, Zsuzsanna Devecseri, Alex Asiimwe, Jihong Zong, Sara J. MacLennan, Laurence Collette, James Ndow, Alberto Briganti, Anders Bjartell, Mieke Van Hemelrijck, The PIONEER Consortium

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

1 Citation (SciVal)


Objectives As part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). Design We performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020. Eligibility criteria Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of prognostic factor studies (CHARMS-PF) criteria and discussed the identified factors with a multidisciplinary expert group. The quality of the included papers was scored for applicability and risk of bias using validated tools such as PROBAST, Quality in Prognostic Studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Results The search identified 6604 studies, from which 489 DPFs were included. Sixty-four of those were internally or externally validated. However, only three studies on diagnostic and seven studies on prognostic factors had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Conclusion Most of the DPFs identified require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before they can be recommended for use in clinical practice. The PIONEER online search tool for DPFs for PCa will enable researchers to understand the quality of the current research and help them design future studies. Ethics and dissemination There are no ethical implications.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere058267
JournalBMJ Open
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2022

Subject classification (UKÄ)

  • Urology and Nephrology


  • epidemiology
  • prostate disease
  • urological tumours


Dive into the research topics of 'Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this