Risk-prediction models in postmenopausal patients with symptoms of suspected ovarian cancer in the UK (ROCkeTS): a multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple risk-prediction models are used in clinical practice to triage patients as being at low risk or high risk of ovarian cancer. In the ROCkeTS study, we aimed to identify the best diagnostic test for ovarian cancer in symptomatic patients, through head-to-head comparisons of risk-prediction models, in a real-world setting. Here, we report the results for the postmenopausal cohort. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited newly presenting female patients aged 16-90 years with non-specific symptoms and raised CA125 or abnormal ultrasound results (or both) who had been referred via rapid access, elective clinics, or emergency presentations from 23 hospitals in the UK. Patients with normal CA125 and simple ovarian cysts of smaller than 5 cm in diameter, active non-ovarian malignancy, or previous ovarian malignancy, or those who were pregnant or declined a transvaginal scan, were ineligible. In this analysis, only postmenopausal participants were included. Participants completed a symptom questionnaire, gave a blood sample, and had transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasounds performed by International Ovarian Tumour Analysis consortium (IOTA)-certified sonographers. Index tests were Risk of Malignancy 1 (RMI1) at a threshold of 200, Risk of Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) at multiple thresholds, IOTA Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (ADNEX) at thresholds of 3% and 10%, IOTA SRRisk model at thresholds of 3% and 10%, IOTA Simple Rules (malignant vs benign, or inconclusive), and CA125 at 35 IU/mL. In a post-hoc analysis, the Ovarian Adnexal and Reporting Data System (ORADS) at 10% was derived from IOTA ultrasound variables using established methods since ORADS was described after completion of recruitment. Index tests were conducted by study staff masked to the results of the reference standard. The comparator was RMI1 at the 250 threshold (the current UK National Health Service standard of care). The reference standard was surgical or biopsy tissue histology or cytology within 3 months, or a self-reported diagnosis of ovarian cancer at 12 month follow-up. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy at predicting primary invasive ovarian cancer versus benign or normal histology, assessed by analysing the sensitivity, specificity, C-index, area under receiver operating characteristic curve, positive and negative predictive values, and calibration plots in participants with conclusive reference standard results and available index test data. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry (ISRCTN17160843). FINDINGS: Between July 13, 2015, and Nov 30, 2018, 1242 postmenopausal patients were recruited, of whom 215 (17%) had primary ovarian cancer. 166 participants had missing, inconclusive, or other reference standard results; therefore, data from a maximum of 1076 participants were used to assess the index tests for the primary outcome. Compared with RMI1 at 250 (sensitivity 82·9% [95% CI 76·7 to 88·0], specificity 87·4% [84·9 to 89·6]), IOTA ADNEX at 10% was more sensitive (difference of -13·9% [-20·2 to -7·6], p<0·0001) but less specific (difference of 28·5% [24·7 to 32·3], p<0·0001). ROMA at 29·9 had similar sensitivity (difference of -3·6% [-9·1 to 1·9], p=0·24) but lower specificity (difference of 5·2% [2·5 to 8·0], p=0·0001). RMI1 at 200 had similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1% [-4·7 to 0·5], p=0·13) but lower specificity (difference of 3·0% [1·7 to 4·3], p<0·0001). IOTA SRRisk model at 10% had similar sensitivity (difference of -4·3% [-11·0 to -2·3], p=0·23) but lower specificity (difference of 16·2% [12·6 to 19·8], p<0·0001). IOTA Simple Rules had similar sensitivity (difference of -1·6% [-9·3 to 6·2], p=0·82) and specificity (difference of -2·2% [-5·1 to 0·6], p=0·14). CA125 at 35 IU/mL had similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1% [-6·6 to 2·3], p=0·42) but higher specificity (difference of 6·7% [4·3 to 9·1], p<0·0001). In a post-hoc analysis, when compared with RMI1 at 250, ORADS achieved similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1%, 95% CI -8·6 to 4·3, p=0·60) and lower specificity (difference of 10·2%, 95% CI 6·8 to 13·6, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: In view of its higher sensitivity than RMI1 at 250, despite some loss in specificity, we recommend that IOTA ADNEX at 10% should be considered as the new standard-of-care diagnostic in ovarian cancer for postmenopausal patients. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Heath Research.

VISION: An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Randomised Trials Comparing Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy with Standard Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The PRECISION and PRECISE trials compared magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy (MRI ± TB) with the standard transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). PRECISION demonstrated superiority of MRI ± TB over TRUS guided biopsy, while PRECISE demonstrated noninferiority. The VISION study is a planned individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) comparing MRI ± TB with TRUS guided biopsy for csPCa diagnosis. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central of Registered Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on the November 12, 2023 for randomised controlled trials of biopsy-naïve patients with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing MRI or standard TRUS. Studies were included if its participants with suspicious MRI underwent targeted biopsy alone and those with nonsuspicious lesion avoided biopsy. The primary outcome is the proportion of men diagnosed with csPCa (Gleason ≥3 + 4). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Two studies, PRECISION and PRECISE (953 patients), were included in the IPDMA. In the MRI ± TB arm, 32.2% of patients avoided biopsy due to nonsuspicious MRI. MRI ± TB detected 8.7 percentage points (36.3% vs 27.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8-14.6, p = 0.004) more csPCa than TRUS biopsy and 12.3 percentage points (9.6% vs 21.9%; 95% CI 7.8-16.9, p < 0.001) less clinically insignificant prostate cancer (cisPCa; Gleason 3 + 3). The overall risk of bias for the included studies were found to be low after assessment using the QUADAS-2, QUADAS-C, and ROB 2.0 tools. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The MRI ± TB pathway is superior to TRUS biopsy in detecting csPCa and avoiding the diagnosis of cisPCa. MRI should be included in the standard of care pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis.

Symptom-triggered testing detects early stage and low volume resectable advanced stage ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Symptom-triggered testing for ovarian cancer was introduced to the UK whereby symptomatic women undergo an ultrasound scan and serum CA125, and are referred to hospital within 2 weeks if these are abnormal. The potential value of symptom-triggered testing in the detection of early-stage disease or low tumor burden remains unclear in women with high grade serous ovarian cancer. In this descriptive study, we report on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, disease distribution, and complete cytoreduction rates in women presenting via the fast-track pathway and who were diagnosed with high grade serous ovarian cancer. METHODS: We analyzed the dataset from Refining Ovarian Cancer Test accuracy Scores (ROCkeTS), a single-arm prospective diagnostic test accuracy study recruiting from 24 hospitals in the UK. The aim of ROCkeTS is to validate risk prediction models in symptomatic women. We undertook an opportunistic analysis for women recruited between June 2015 to July 2022 and who were diagnosed with high grade serous ovarian cancer via the fast-track pathway. Women presenting with symptoms suspicious for ovarian cancer receive a CA125 blood test and an ultrasound scan if the CA125 level is abnormal. If either of these is abnormal, women are referred to secondary care within 2 weeks. Histology details were available on all women who underwent surgery or biopsy within 3 months of recruitment. Women who did not undergo surgery or biopsy at 3 months were followed up for 12 months as per the national guidelines in the UK. In this descriptive study, we report on patient demographics (age and menopausal status), WHO performance status, FIGO stage at diagnosis, disease distribution (low/pelvic confined, moderate/extending to mid-abdomen, high/extending to upper abdomen) and complete cytoreduction rates in women who underwent surgery. RESULTS: Of 1741 participants recruited via the fast-track pathway, 119 (6.8%) were diagnosed with high grade serous ovarian cancer. The median age was 63 years (range 32-89). Of these, 112 (94.1%) patients had a performance status of 0 and 1, 30 (25.2%) were diagnosed with stages I/II, and the disease distribution was low-to-moderate in 77 (64.7%). Complete and optimal cytoreduction were achieved in 73 (61.3%) and 18 (15.1%). The extent of disease was low in 43 of 119 (36.1%), moderate in 34 of 119 (28.6%), high in 32 of 119 (26.9%), and not available in 10 of 119 (8.4%). Nearly two thirds, that is 78 of 119 (65.5%) women with high grade serous ovarian cancer, underwent primary debulking surgery, 36 of 119 (30.3%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery, and 5 of 119 (4.2%) women did not undergo surgery. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that one in four women identified with high grade serous ovarian cancer through the fast-track pathway following symptom-triggered testing was diagnosed with early-stage disease. Symptom-triggered testing may help identify women with a low disease burden, potentially contributing to high complete cytoreduction rates.

Study protocol: optical coherence tomography angiography for the detection of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a comprehensive multicentre diagnostic accuracy study in the UK-the ATHENA study.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), the leading cause of visual impairment in the developed world, relies on the interpretation of various imaging tests of the retina. These include invasive angiographic methods, such as Fundus Fluorescein Angiography (FFA) and, on occasion, Indocyanine-Green Angiography (ICGA). Newer, non-invasive imaging modalities, predominately Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) and Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography (OCTA), have drastically transformed the diagnostic approach to nAMD. The aim of this study is to undertake a comprehensive diagnostic accuracy assessment of the various imaging modalities used in clinical practice for the diagnosis of nAMD (OCT, OCTA, FFA and, when a variant of nAMD called Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy is suspected, ICGA) both alone and in various combinations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a non-inferiority, prospective, randomised diagnostic accuracy study of 1067 participants. Participants are patients with clinical features consistent with nAMD who present to a National Health Service secondary care ophthalmology unit in the UK. Patients will undergo OCT as per standard practice and those with suspicious features of nAMD on OCT will be approached for participation in the study. Patients who agree to take part will also undergo both OCTA and FFA (and ICGA if indicated). Interpretation of the imaging tests will be undertaken by clinicians at recruitment sites. A randomised design was selected to avoid bias from consecutive review of all imaging tests by the same clinician. The primary outcome of the study will be the difference in sensitivity and specificity between OCT+OCTA and OCT+FFA (±ICGA) for nAMD detection as interpreted by clinicians at recruitment sites. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the South Central-Oxford B Research Ethics Committee with reference number 21/SC/0412.Dissemination of study results will involve peer-review publications, presentations at major national and international scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18313457.

Estimated neonatal survival of very preterm births across the care pathway: a UK cohort 2016-2020.

OBJECTIVE: Currently used estimates of survival are nearly 10 years old and relate to only those babies admitted for neonatal care. Due to ongoing improvements in neonatal care, here we update estimates of survival for singleton and multiple births at 22+0 to 31+6 weeks gestational age across the perinatal care pathway by gestational age and birth weight. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of routinely collected data. SETTING: A national cohort from the UK and British Crown Dependencies. PATIENTS: Babies born at 22+0 to 31+6 weeks gestational age from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival to 28 days. RESULTS: Estimates of neonatal survival are provided for babies: (1) alive at the onset of care during the birthing process (n=43 763); (2) babies where survival-focused care was initiated (n=42 004); and (3) babies admitted for neonatal care (n=41 158). We have produced easy-to-use survival charts for singleton and multiple births. Generally, survival increased with increasing gestational age at birth and with increasing birth weight. For all births with a birthweight over 1000 g, survival was 90% or higher at all three stages of care. CONCLUSIONS: Survival estimates are a vital tool to support and supplement clinical judgement within perinatal care. These up-to-date, national estimates of survival to 28 days are provided based on three stages of the perinatal care pathway to support ongoing clinical care. These novel results are a key resource for policy and practice including counselling parents and informing care provision.

Comparing biparametric to multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men (PRIME): a prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority within-patient, diagnostic yield trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate MRI is a well-established tool for the diagnostic work-up for men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). Current recommendations advocate the use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), which is composed of three sequences: T2-weighted sequence (T2W), diffusion-weighted sequence (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequence (DCE). Prior studies suggest that a biparametric MRI (bpMRI) approach, omitting the DCE sequences, may not compromise clinically significant cancer detection, though there are limitations to these studies, and it is not known how this may affect treatment eligibility. A bpMRI approach will reduce scanning time, may be more cost-effective and, at a population level, will allow more men to gain access to an MRI than an mpMRI approach. METHODS: Prostate Imaging Using MRI±Contrast Enhancement (PRIME) is a prospective, international, multicentre, within-patient diagnostic yield trial assessing whether bpMRI is non-inferior to mpMRI in the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa. Patients will undergo the full mpMRI scan. Radiologists will be blinded to the DCE and will initially report the MRI using only the bpMRI (T2W and DWI) sequences. They will then be unblinded to the DCE sequence and will then re-report the MRI using the mpMRI sequences (T2W, DWI and DCE). Men with suspicious lesions on either bpMRI or mpMRI will undergo prostate biopsy. The main inclusion criteria are men with suspected PCa, with a serum PSA of ≤20 ng/mL and without prior prostate biopsy. The primary outcome is the proportion of men with clinically significant PCa detected (Gleason score ≥3+4 or Gleason grade group ≥2). A sample size of at least 500 patients is required. Key secondary outcomes include the proportion of clinically insignificant PCa detected and treatment decision. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee West Midlands, Nottingham (21/WM/0091). Results of this trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. Participants and relevant patient support groups will be informed about the results of the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04571840.

Prognostic factors for the development and progression of proliferative diabetic retinopathy in people with diabetic retinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is characterised by neurovascular degeneration as a result of chronic hyperglycaemia. Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is the most serious complication of DR and can lead to total (central and peripheral) visual loss. PDR is characterised by the presence of abnormal new blood vessels, so-called "new vessels," at the optic disc (NVD) or elsewhere in the retina (NVE). PDR can progress to high-risk characteristics (HRC) PDR (HRC-PDR), which is defined by the presence of NVD more than one-fourth to one-third disc area in size plus vitreous haemorrhage or pre-retinal haemorrhage, or vitreous haemorrhage or pre-retinal haemorrhage obscuring more than one disc area. In severe cases, fibrovascular membranes grow over the retinal surface and tractional retinal detachment with sight loss can occur, despite treatment. Although most, if not all, individuals with diabetes will develop DR if they live long enough, only some progress to the sight-threatening PDR stage.  OBJECTIVES: To determine risk factors for the development of PDR and HRC-PDR in people with diabetes and DR. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase. The date of the search was 27 May 2022. Additionally, the search was supplemented by screening reference lists of eligible articles. There were no restrictions to language or year of publication.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective or retrospective cohort studies and case-control longitudinal studies evaluating prognostic factors for the development and progression of PDR, in people who have not had previous treatment for DR. The target population consisted of adults (≥18 years of age) of any gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographical location, with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) or PDR with less than HRC-PDR, diagnosed as per standard clinical practice. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full-text articles, to determine eligibility; discrepancies were resolved through discussion. We considered prognostic factors measured at baseline and any other time points during the study and in any clinical setting. Outcomes were evaluated at three and eight years (± two years) or lifelong.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies using a data extraction form that we developed and piloted prior to the data collection stage. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion. We used the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool to assess risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses in clinically relevant groups using a random-effects approach. We reported hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and risk ratios (RR) separately for each available prognostic factor and outcome, stratified by different time points. Where possible, we meta-analysed adjusted prognostic factors. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence with an adapted version of the GRADE framework.   MAIN RESULTS: We screened 6391 records. From these, we identified 59 studies (87 articles) as eligible for inclusion. Thirty-five were prospective cohort studies, 22 were retrospective studies, 18 of which were cohort and six were based on data from electronic registers, and two were retrospective case-control studies. Twenty-three studies evaluated participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D), 19 with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and 17 included mixed populations (T1D and T2D). Studies on T1D included between 39 and 3250 participants at baseline, followed up for one to 45 years. Studies on T2D included between 100 and 71,817 participants at baseline, followed up for one to 20 years. The studies on mixed populations of T1D and T2D ranged from 76 to 32,553 participants at baseline, followed up for four to 25 years.  We found evidence indicating that higher glycated haemoglobin (haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)) levels (adjusted OR ranged from 1.11 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.32) to 2.10 (95% CI 1.64 to 2.69) and more advanced stages of retinopathy (adjusted OR ranged from 1.38 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.48) to 12.40 (95% CI 5.31 to 28.98) are independent risk factors for the development of PDR in people with T1D and T2D. We rated the evidence for these factors as of moderate certainty because of moderate to high risk of bias in the studies.  There was also some evidence suggesting several markers for renal disease (for example, nephropathy (adjusted OR ranged from 1.58 (95% CI not reported) to 2.68 (2.09 to 3.42), and creatinine (adjusted meta-analysis HR 1.61 (95% CI 0.77 to 3.36)), and, in people with T1D, age at diagnosis of diabetes (< 12 years of age) (standardised regression estimate 1.62, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.48), increased triglyceride levels (adjusted RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.95), and larger retinal venular diameters (RR 4.28, 95% CI 1.50 to 12.19) may increase the risk of progression to PDR. The certainty of evidence for these factors, however, was low to very low, due to risk of bias in the included studies, inconsistency (lack of studies preventing the grading of consistency or variable outcomes), and imprecision (wide CIs). There was no substantial and consistent evidence to support duration of diabetes, systolic or diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, low- (LDL) and high- (HDL) density lipoproteins, gender, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), socioeconomic status, or tobacco and alcohol consumption as being associated with incidence of PDR. There was insufficient evidence to evaluate prognostic factors associated with progression of PDR to HRC-PDR.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Increased HbA1c is likely to be associated with progression to PDR; therefore, maintaining adequate glucose control throughout life, irrespective of stage of DR severity, may help to prevent progression to PDR and risk of its sight-threatening complications. Renal impairment in people with T1D or T2D, as well as younger age at diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM), increased triglyceride levels, and increased retinal venular diameters in people with T1D may also be associated with increased risk of progression to PDR. Given that more advanced DR severity is associated with higher risk of progression to PDR, the earlier the disease is identified, and the above systemic risk factors are controlled, the greater the chance of reducing the risk of PDR and saving sight.

ANTECEDENTES: La retinopatía diabética (RD) se caracteriza por la degeneración neurovascular como consecuencia de la hiperglucemia crónica. La retinopatía diabética proliferativa (RDP) es la complicación más grave de la RD y puede provocar una pérdida total (central y periférica) de la visión. La RDP se caracteriza por la presencia de vasos sanguíneos de neoformación anormales, neovascularización, en la papila óptica (NVP) o en cualquier otra parte de la retina (NVE). La RDP puede evolucionar a una RDP con características de alto riesgo (RDP­CAR), que se define por la presencia de NVP de más de un cuarto a un tercio del área discal más hemorragia vítrea o prerretiniana, o hemorragia vítrea o prerretiniana que oscurece más de un área papilar. En los casos graves, crecen membranas fibrovasculares sobre la superficie retiniana y se puede producir un desprendimiento de retina por tracción con pérdida de la visión, a pesar del tratamiento. Aunque la mayoría de las personas con diabetes, si no todas, desarrollarán RD si viven lo suficiente, solo algunas llegan a la fase de RDP, que pone en peligro la vista. OBJETIVOS: Determinar los factores de riesgo de aparición de la RDP y RDP­CAR en personas con diabetes y RD. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se hicieron búsquedas en el Registro Cochrane central de ensayos controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL; que contiene el Registro de ensayos del Grupo Cochrane de Salud ocular y de la visión [Cochrane Eyes and Vision]; 2022, número 5), Ovid MEDLINE y Ovid Embase. La fecha de búsqueda fue el 27 de mayo de 2022. Además, la búsqueda se complementó con el cribado de las listas de referencias de los artículos elegibles. No hubo restricciones en cuanto al idioma ni al año de publicación. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron estudios de cohortes prospectivos o retrospectivos y estudios longitudinales de casos y controles que evaluaran los factores pronósticos para la aparición y la progresión de la RDP, en personas que no habían recibido tratamiento previo para la RD. La población de interés estaba formada por adultos (≥18 años de edad) de cualquier sexo, orientación sexual, etnia, nivel socioeconómico y ubicación geográfica, con retinopatía diabética no proliferativa (RDNP) o RDP sin llegar a RDP­CAR, diagnosticada según la práctica clínica habitual. Dos autores de la revisión examinaron de forma independiente los títulos y resúmenes, así como los artículos completos, para determinar la elegibilidad; las discrepancias se resolvieron mediante debate. Se tuvieron en cuenta los factores pronósticos medidos al inicio del estudio y en cualquier otro punto temporal durante el estudio y en cualquier contexto clínico. Los desenlaces se evaluaron a los tres y ocho años (± dos años) o de por vida. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión extrajeron de forma independiente los datos de los estudios incluidos mediante un formulario de extracción de datos que se desarrolló y evaluó antes de la etapa de obtención de datos. Las discrepancias se resolvieron mediante debate. Para evaluar el riesgo de sesgo se utilizó la herramienta Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS). Se realizaron metanálisis en grupos clínicamente relevantes utilizando un enfoque de efectos aleatorios. Se proporcionaron los cociente de riesgos instantáneos (CRI), los odds ratios (OR) y las razones de riesgos (RR) por separado para cada factor pronóstico y desenlace disponibles, estratificados por diferentes puntos temporales. Cuando fue posible, se realizó un metanálisis de los factores pronósticos ajustados. La certeza de la evidencia se evaluó con una versión adaptada del método GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se han examinado 6391 registros. A partir de estos se identificaron 59 estudios (87 artículos) elegibles para inclusión. Treinta y cinco fueron estudios de cohortes prospectivos, 22 fueron estudios retrospectivos, 18 de los cuales fueron de cohortes y 6 se basaron en datos de registros electrónicos, y 2 fueron estudios retrospectivos de casos y controles. Veintitrés estudios evaluaron a participantes con diabetes tipo 1 (DT1), 19 con diabetes tipo 2 (DT2) y 17 incluyeron poblaciones mixtas (DT1 y DT2). Los estudios sobre la DT1 incluyeron entre 39 y 3250 participantes al inicio del estudio, con un seguimiento de 1 a 45 años. Los estudios sobre la DT2 incluyeron entre 100 y 71 817 participantes al inicio del estudio, con un seguimiento de 1 a 20 años. Los estudios sobre poblaciones mixtas de DT1 y DT2 variaron entre 76 y 32 553 participantes al inicio del estudio, con un seguimiento de 4 a 25 años. Se encontró evidencia que indicó que los niveles más altos de hemoglobina glucosilada (hemoglobina A1c [HbA1c]) (OR ajustado que varió de 1,11 [intervalo de confianza (IC) del 95%: 0,93 a 1,32] a 2,10 [IC del 95%: 1,64 a 2,69]) y los estadios más avanzados de retinopatía (OR ajustado que varió entre 1,38 [IC del 95%: 1,29 a 1,48] y 12,40 [IC del 95%: 5,31 a 28,98]) son factores de riesgo independientes para el desarrollo de RDP en personas con DT1 y DT2. La evidencia para estos factores se consideró de certeza moderada debido al riesgo moderado a alto de sesgo en los estudios. También hubo alguna evidencia que indicó varios marcadores de enfermedad renal (por ejemplo, nefropatía [OR ajustado que varió entre 1,58 (IC del 95% no proporcionado) y 2,68 (2,09 a 3,42)] y creatinina [metanálisis ajustado CRI 1,61 (IC del 95%: 0,77 a 3.36)]), y, en las personas con DT1, la edad en el momento del diagnóstico de la diabetes (< 12 años) (estimación de la regresión estandarizada 1,62; IC del 95%: 1,06 a 2,48), el aumento de los niveles de triglicéridos (RR ajustado 1,55; IC del 95%: 1,06 a 1,95) y los diámetros venulares retinianos mayores (RR 4,28; IC del 95%: 1,50 a 12,19) podrían aumentar el riesgo de progresión a RDP. Sin embargo, la certeza de la evidencia para estos factores fue de baja a muy baja, debido al riesgo de sesgo en los estudios incluidos, la inconsistencia (falta de estudios que impide la calificación de consistencia o desenlaces variables) y la imprecisión (IC amplios). No hubo evidencia importante ni consistente que apoyara que la duración de la diabetes, la presión arterial sistólica o diastólica, el colesterol total, las lipoproteínas de baja (LDL) y alta (HDL) densidad, el sexo, el origen étnico, el índice de masa corporal (IMC), el nivel socioeconómico o el consumo de tabaco y alcohol estuvieran asociados con la incidencia de RDP. No hubo evidencia suficiente para evaluar los factores pronósticos asociados con la progresión de la RDP a RDP­CAR. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Es probable que el aumento de la HbA1c se asocie con la progresión a la RDP; por lo tanto, mantener un control adecuado de la glucosa durante toda la vida, independientemente del estadio de gravedad de la RD, podría ayudar a prevenir la progresión a la RDP y el riesgo de sus complicaciones que ponen en peligro la vista. La insuficiencia renal en personas con DT1 o DT2, así como una menor edad en el momento del diagnóstico de la diabetes mellitus (DM), el aumento de los niveles de triglicéridos y el aumento de los diámetros venulares retinianos en personas con DT1 también se podrían asociar con un mayor riesgo de progresión a RDP. Dado que la gravedad más avanzada de la RD se asocia con un mayor riesgo de progresión a RDP, cuanto antes se identifique la enfermedad y se controlen los factores de riesgo sistémicos mencionados, mayores serán las posibilidades de reducir el riesgo de RDP y conservar la vista.

A protocol for the VISION study: An indiVidual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing MRI-targeted biopsy to standard transrectal ultraSound guided bIopsy in the detection of prOstate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy for prostate cancer is prone to random and systemic error and has been shown to have a negative predictive value of 70%. PRECISION and PRECISE are among the first randomised studies to evaluate the new MRI-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) pathway with a non-paired design to detect clinically significant prostate cancer and avoid unnecessary treatment. The trials' results individually demonstrated non-inferiority of MRI-TB compared to TRUS biopsy. An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was planned from the outset of the two trials in parallel and this IPD meta-analysis aims to further elucidate the utility of MRI-TB as the optimal diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021249263). A search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Registered Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed up until 4th February 2021. Only randomised controlled trials (PRECISE, PRECISION and other eligible trials) comparing the MRI-targeted biopsy pathway and traditional TRUS biopsy pathway will be included. The primary outcome of the review is the proportion of men diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer in each arm (Gleason ≥ 3+4 = 7). IPD and study-level data and characteristics will be sought from eligible studies. Analyses will be done primarily using an intention-to-treat approach, and a one-step IPD meta-analysis will be performed using generalised linear mixed models. A non-inferiority margin of 5 percentage points will be used. Heterogeneity will be quantified using the variance parameters from the mixed model. If there is sufficient data, we will investigate heterogeneity by exploring the effect of the different conducts of MRIs, learning curves of MRI reporting and MRI targeted biopsies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021249263).

Diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis methods: A scoping review and empirical assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To (a) identify methodological and application papers reporting a model developed specifically for diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis (DTA-NMA) or a hierarchical meta-regression method for comparing at least three index tests; (b) review and summarize the characteristics of the methods and the application papers; and (c) compare DTA-NMA and hierarchical meta-regression methods empirically. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a scoping review and searched major databases until March 3rd, 2021. We assessed the characteristics of the identified methods, conducted a descriptive analysis of characteristics of the application articles, and applied the DTA-NMA and meta-regression methods to the available data. RESULTS: We included 49 articles (plus one companion report), of which nine were methodological (describing 11 DTA-NMA methods) and 40 were application papers (data available for 32 DTA-NMAs). Our results showed a steep increase in recent years in DTA-NMA publications. DTA-NMA models may lead to different results. Although sensitivity estimates were comparable between meta-regression and DTA-NMA models, specificity estimates were higher in meta-regression. CONCLUSION: The choice of a DTA-NMA model will depend on the available data, including the use of different thresholds for test positivity, different study designs, and software familiarity. Selection between the methods may impact on the NMA results, especially for specificity.

Polypharmacy and Smoking as Potentially Modifiable Risk Factors Associated with Symptom Severity in Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Primary Care: Findings from the PriMUS Study.

Polypharmacy and smoking are associated with higher symptom severity in men with lower urinary tract symptoms presenting to primary care. These are potentially modifiable risk factors that can be targeted when managing these patients.

Rapid diagnostic tests for Plasmodium vivax malaria in endemic countries.

BACKGROUND: Plasmodium vivax (P vivax) is a focus of malaria elimination. It is important because P vivax and Plasmodium falciparum infection are co-endemic in some areas. There are asymptomatic carriers of P vivax, and the treatment for P vivax and Plasmodium ovale malaria differs from that used in other types of malaria. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) will help distinguish P vivax from other malaria species to help treatment and elimination. There are RDTs available that detect P vivax parasitaemia through the detection of P vivax-specific lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) antigens. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs for detecting P vivax malaria infection in people living in malaria-endemic areas who present to ambulatory healthcare facilities with symptoms suggestive of malaria; and to identify which types and brands of commercial tests best detect P vivax malaria. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases up to 30 July 2019: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S), both in the Web of Science. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies comparing RDTs with a reference standard (microscopy or polymerase chain reaction (PCR)) in blood samples from patients attending ambulatory health facilities with symptoms suggestive of malaria in P vivax-endemic areas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each included study, two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-piloted data extraction form. The methodological quality of the studies were assessed using a tailored Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. We grouped studies according to commercial brand of the RDT and performed meta-analysis when appropriate. The results given by the index tests were based on the antibody affinity (referred to as the strength of the bond between an antibody and an antigen) and avidity (referred to as the strength of the overall bond between a multivalent antibody and multiple antigens). All analyses were stratified by the type of reference standard. The bivariate model was used to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), this model was simplified when studies were few. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies that assessed the accuracy of six different RDT brands (CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test, Falcivax Device Rapid test, Immuno-Rapid Malaria Pf/Pv test, SD Bioline Malaria Ag Pf/Pv test, OnSite Pf/Pv test and Test Malaria Pf/Pv rapid test) for detecting P vivax malaria. One study directly compared the accuracy of two RDT brands. Of the 10 studies, six used microscopy, one used PCR, two used both microscopy and PCR separately and one used microscopy corrected by PCR as the reference standard. Four of the studies were conducted in Ethiopia, two in India, and one each in Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia and Sudan. The studies often did not report how patients were selected. In the patient selection domain, we judged the risk of bias as unclear for nine studies. We judged all studies to be of unclear applicability concern. In the index test domain, we judged most studies to be at low risk of bias, but we judged nine studies to be of unclear applicability concern. There was poor reporting on lot testing, how the RDTs were stored, and background parasitaemia density (a key variable determining diagnostic accuracy of RDTs). Only half of the included studies were judged to be at low risk of bias in the reference standard domain, Studies often did not report whether the results of the reference standard could classify the target condition or whether investigators knew the results of the RDT when interpreting the results of the reference standard. All 10 studies were judged to be at low risk of bias in the flow and timing domain. Only two brands were evaluated by more than one study. Four studies evaluated the CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test against microscopy and two studies evaluated the Falcivax Device Rapid test against microscopy. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 99% (95% CI 94% to 100%; 251 patients, moderate-certainty evidence) and 99% (95% CI 99% to 100%; 2147 patients, moderate-certainty evidence) for CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test. For a prevalence of 20%, about 206 people will have a positive CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test result and the remaining 794 people will have a negative result. Of the 206 people with positive results, eight will be incorrect (false positives), and of the 794 people with a negative result, two would be incorrect (false negative). For the Falcivax Device Rapid test, the pooled sensitivity was 77% (95% CI: 53% to 91%, 89 patients, low-certainty evidence) and the pooled specificity was 99% (95% CI: 98% to 100%, 621 patients, moderate-certainty evidence), respectively. For a prevalence of 20%, about 162 people will have a positive Falcivax Device Rapid test result and the remaining 838 people will have a negative result. Of the 162 people with positive results, eight will be incorrect (false positives), and of the 838 people with a negative result, 46 would be incorrect (false negative). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test was found to be highly sensitive and specific in comparison to microscopy for detecting P vivax in ambulatory healthcare in endemic settings, with moderate-certainty evidence. The number of studies included in this review was limited to 10 studies and we were able to estimate the accuracy of 2 out of 6 RDT brands included, the CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test and the Falcivax Device Rapid test. Thus, the differences in sensitivity and specificity between all the RDT brands could not be assessed. More high-quality studies in endemic field settings are needed to assess and compare the accuracy of RDTs designed to detect P vivax.

PRImary care Management of lower Urinary tract Symptoms in men: protocol for development and validation of a diagnostic and clinical decision support tool (the PriMUS study).

INTRODUCTION: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) is a bothersome condition affecting older men which can lead to poor quality of life. General practitioners (GPs) currently have no easily available assessment tools to help effectively diagnose causes of LUTS and aid discussion of treatment with patients. Men are frequently referred to urology specialists who often recommend treatments that could have been initiated in primary care. GP access to simple, accurate tests and clinician decision tools are needed to facilitate accurate and effective patient management of LUTS in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PRImary care Management of lower Urinary tract Symptoms (PriMUS) is a prospective diagnostic accuracy study based in primary care. The study will determine which of a number of index tests used in combination best predict three urodynamic observations in men who present to their GP with LUTS. These are detrusor overactivity, bladder outlet obstruction and/or detrusor underactivity. Two cohorts of participants, one for development of the prototype diagnostic tool and other for validation, will undergo a series of simple index tests and the invasive reference standard (invasive urodynamics). We will develop and validate three diagnostic prediction models based on each condition and then combine them with management recommendations to form a clinical decision support tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 6. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences, and results will be of interest to professional and patient stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10327305.

Predicting recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: a systematic review of prognostic models.

AIMS: We assessed the performance of modelsf (risk scores) for predicting recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients who have undergone catheter ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Systematic searches of bibliographic databases were conducted (November 2018). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development, validation, or impact assessment of a model for predicting AF recurrence after ablation. Model performance (discrimination and calibration) measures were extracted. The Prediction Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to clinical and methodological differences between studies, but c-statistics were presented in forest plots. Thirty-three studies developing or validating 13 models were included; eight studies compared two or more models. Common model variables were left atrial parameters, type of AF, and age. Model discriminatory ability was highly variable and no model had consistently poor or good performance. Most studies did not assess model calibration. The main risk of bias concern was the lack of internal validation which may have resulted in overly optimistic and/or biased model performance estimates. No model impact studies were identified. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review suggests that clinical risk prediction of AF after ablation has potential, but there remains a need for robust evaluation of risk factors and development of risk scores.