World Journal of Oncology, ISSN 1920-4531 print, 1920-454X online, Open Access
Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc
Journal website https://www.wjon.org

Original Article

Volume 14, Number 5, October 2023, pages 358-370


The Olfaction Ability of Medical Detection Canine to Detect Prostate Cancer From Urine Samples: Progress Captured in Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram used to identify the included literatures. PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.
Figure 2.
Figure 2. (a, b) The estimated sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) value of the MDC in detecting PCa from urine samples. MDC: medical detection canine; PCa: prostate cancer; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 3.
Figure 3. (a, b) The estimated positive likelihood ratio (LR) and negative LR of MDC in detecting PCa from urine samples. MDC: medical detection canine; PCa: prostate cancer; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 4.
Figure 4. (a, b) The estimated diagnostic odd ratio (DOR) and area under the curve (AUC) value of MDC in detecting PCa from urine samples. SROC: summary receiver operating characteristics; MDC: medical detection canine; PCa: prostate cancer; CI: confidence interval.

Tables

Table 1. Summary of the Included Studies
 
StudyDog training phasePatient and sample (testing phase)
Breed, gender, dog’s name, and age at the start of trainingTrainer and prior training statusProgram (rewarding)Training phase count, session duration, period and in-training blinding statusUrine sample type and size (for training phase; PCA/control)Sample size (% of Gleason ≥ 8 for PCa or % of female for control) and age (years)PSA level (ng/mL)
PCaControlPCaControl
F: female; MDD: medical detection dog; NR: not reported; PCa: prostate cancer; PSA: prostate-specific antigen.
Cornu et al, 2011 [20]Belgian Malinois; NRA professional trainer + two assistants (none)Clicker training (ball if accurate)5 day/week, from October 2007 to June 2010 (± 16 months); double-blindUndiluted urine of PCa and healthy individual (unblinded)33 (12.1); 64.1 ± 7.133 (-); 63.2 ± 7.111.7 ± 15.18.3 ± 4.1
Elliker et al, 2014 [21]Labrador (dog-A); 9-year-oldMultiple professional trainers + behavioral scientist (none)Clicker training (food if accurate)Two phases (familiarization and consolidation), trained for 5 months (dog-A) and 8 months (dog-B); double-blindUrine of PCa and healthy individual15 (0.0); 63.6 ± 6.445 (-); 57.7 ± 5.27.2 ± 4.6< 0.5
Border Collie (dog-B); 3-year-old
Guest et al, 2021 [22]Female Labrador (Florin); 4-year-oldThe dogs had been trained by MDD, UK and at a university hospital for ± 3 yearsUnspecified rewarding training22 training days for NR duration in each session from November 2015 to September 2018 (± 35 monthes); double-blindUndiluted urine of PCa and healthy individual7 (100.0); 65.5 (49 - 75)20; 68.5 (45 - 80)8.0 (3 - 76)4.7 (1 - 18)
Female Wire Haired Hungarian Viszla (Midas); 7-year-old21; 68.5 (45 - 80)
Taverna et al, 2015 [19]Female German Shepherd (Liu); 3-year-oldA veterinary surgeon, a professional trainer, and two assistants (none)Clicker training (NR rewarding)Four phases (each phase progress to more diluted control urine, from 50% (phase 1) to undiluted (phase 4); June 2012 to October 2012 (4 moths); double-blindUndiluted urine of PCa patients (200) and healthy individual (230)362 (16.6)540 (18.8% F)120 (33.1%) patients had PSA level > 2.5418 (77.4%) patients had PSA level < 1.0
Female German Shepherd (Zoe); 3-year-old
Urbanova et al, 2015 [18]Female German Shepherd (Agata Jankari); 7-month-oldA group of trainers (prior basic obedience and scent work training)Clicker training (treat if accurate)Two phases (familiarization and consolidation), 4 - 5/session/week for 11 months; single-blindUrine of PCa and healthy individual4525NR

 

Table 2. Risk of Bias of the Included Studies as Assessed in QUADAS-2 Tool
 
StudyRisk of biasApplicability concerns
Patient selectionIndex testReference standardFlow and timingPatient selectionIndex testReference standard
Cornu et al, 2011 [20]Low-risk of biasLow-risk of biasLow-risk of biasUnclear-risk of biasLow-risk of biasLow-risk of biasLow-risk of bias
Elliker et al, 2014 [21]Low-risk of biasLow-risk of biasUnclear-risk of biasLow-risk of biasLow-risk of biasLow-risk of biasUnclear-risk of bias
Guest et al, 2021 [22]Low-risk of biasLow-risk of biasLow-risk of biasHigh-risk of biasLow-risk of biasLow-risk of biasLow-risk of bias
Taverna et al, 2015 [19]Low-risk of biasLow-risk of biasUnclear-risk of biasLow-risk of biasLow-risk of biasLow-risk of biasHigh-risk of bias
Urbanova et al, 2015 [18]Low-risk of biasLow-risk of biasUnclear-risk of biasLow-risk of biasLow-risk of biasLow-risk of biasLow-risk of bias