Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Diagnostic accuracy of Raman spectroscopy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Park, Jae Joon; Kim, Do Kyung; Lee, Soomin; Choi, Yoonseo; Kim, Yon Hee; Lee, Joon-Ho; Kim, Ki Hyun; Kim, Jae Heon.
Affiliation
  • Park JJ; Department of Urology, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
  • Kim DK; Department of Urology, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
  • Lee S; Department of Urology, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
  • Choi Y; Department of Urology, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
  • Kim YH; Department of Early Childhood Education, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
  • Lee JH; Department of Pathology, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
  • Kim KH; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospial, Bucheon, Korea.
  • Kim JH; Korea Photonics Technology Institute, Gwangju, Korea.
Transl Androl Urol ; 10(2): 574-583, 2021 Feb.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33718060
BACKGROUND: Although various studies have been conducted to demonstrate the possibility of Raman spectroscopy (RS) as a diagnostic tool for prostate cancer (PC), it is difficult to use it in the real clinical area because of imitations in various research processes. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy in diagnostic use of RS for PC. METHODS: A literature search was done using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases in March 2019 to analyze the accuracy of RS for diagnosis of PC. The accuracy of RS for diagnosis of PC was evaluated by means of pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC). RESULTS: Five studies were included for qualitative analysis by screening the remaining articles according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria by means of a systematic review. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of RS were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.87-0.91) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.89-0.93), respectively. The overall PLR and NLR were 9.12 (95% CI: 4.15-20.08) and 0.14 (95% CI: 0.07-0.29), respectively. The DOR of RS demonstrated high accuracy (73.32; 95% CI: 18.43-291.73). The area under the curves (AUCs) of SROC curves was 0.93. CONCLUSIONS: RS is an optical diagnostic method with high potential for diagnosis and grading of PC and has advantages of real-time and convenient use. In order to consider real-time use of RS in an actual clinical setting, more studies for standardization and generalization of RS performance and analytical method must be conducted.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Language: En Journal: Transl Androl Urol Year: 2021 Document type: Article Country of publication:

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Language: En Journal: Transl Androl Urol Year: 2021 Document type: Article Country of publication: