Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators: A Performance Comparison in a Contemporary Screened Cohort

被引:74
作者
Cavadas, Vitor [1 ]
Osorio, Luis [1 ]
Sabell, Francisco [1 ]
Teves, Frederico [1 ]
Branco, Frederico [1 ]
Silva-Ramos, Miguel [1 ]
机构
[1] Hosp Geral Santo Antonio, Serv Urol, Ctr Hosp Porto, Dept Urol, P-4099001 Oporto, Portugal
关键词
Diagnosis; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Risk calculators; DECISION CURVE ANALYSIS; BIOPSY; ANTIGEN; MODELS;
D O I
10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.023
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Several models can predict the risk of prostate cancer (PCa) on biopsy. Objective: To evaluate the performance of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators in detecting PCa in a contemporary screened cohort. Design, setting, and participants: We analyzed prebiopsy characteristics of 525 consecutive screened patients submitted to biopsy, as required by the risk calculators, in one European center between 2006 and 2007. Measurements: Comparisons were done using tests of accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC-ROC]), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Biopsy predictors were identified by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Results and limitations: PCa was detected in 35.2% of the subjects. Among predictors included in the calculators, the logarithmic transformations of prostate volume and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination, previous biopsy status, and age were significantly associated with PCa; transrectal ultrasound abnormalities and family history were not. AUC-ROC for the ERSPC calculator was significantly higher than the PCPT calculator and PSA alone (80.1%, 74.4%, and 64.3%, respectively). Calibration plots showed better performance for the ERSPC calculator; nevertheless, ERSPC may underestimate risk, while PCPT tends to overestimate predictions. Decision curve analysis displayed higher net benefit for the ERSPC calculator; 9% and 23% unnecessary biopsies can be avoided if a threshold probability of 20% and 30%, respectively, is adopted. In contrast, the PCPT model displayed very limited benefit. Our findings apply to a screened European cohort submitted to extended biopsy schemes; consequently, caution should be exerted when considering different populations. Conclusions: The ERSPC risk calculator, by incorporating several risks factors, can aid in the estimation of individual PCa risk and in the decision to perform biopsy. The ERSPC calculator outperformed the PCPT model, which is of very limited value, in a contemporary cohort of screened patients. (C) 2010 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:551 / 558
页数:8
相关论文
共 13 条
  • [1] Validation in a Multiple Urology Practice Cohort of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Calculator for Predicting Prostate Cancer Detection
    Eyre, Stephen J.
    Ankerst, Donna P.
    Wei, John T.
    Nair, Prakash V.
    Regan, Meredith M.
    Bueti, Gerrardina
    Tang, Jeffrey
    Rubin, Mark A.
    Kearney, Michael
    Thompson, Ian M.
    Sanda, Martin G.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 182 (06) : 2653 - 2658
  • [2] Predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy: comparison of a novel logistic regression-based model, the prostate cancer risk calculator, and prostate-specific antigen level alone
    Hernandez, David J.
    Han, Misop
    Humphreys, Elizabeth B.
    Mangold, Leslie A.
    Taneja, Samir S.
    Childs, Stacy J.
    Bartsch, Georg
    Partin, Alan W.
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2009, 103 (05) : 609 - 614
  • [3] Performance of Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator in a Contemporary Cohort Screened for Prostate Cancer and Diagnosed by Extended Prostate Biopsy
    Nguyen, Carvell T.
    Yu, Changhong
    Moussa, Ayman
    Kattan, Michael W.
    Jones, J. Stephen
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 183 (02) : 529 - 533
  • [4] External validation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator in a screened population
    Parekh, Dipen J.
    Ankerst, Donna Pauler
    Higgins, Betsy A.
    Hernandez, Javier
    Canby-Hagino, Edith.
    Brand, Timothy
    Troyer, Dean A.
    Leach, Robin J.
    Thompson, Ian M.
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2006, 68 (06) : 1152 - 1155
  • [5] ROOBOL MJ, 2009, EUR UROL S, V8, P192
  • [6] A Risk-Based Strategy Improves Prostate-Specific Antigen-Driven Detection of Prostate Cancer
    Roobol, Monique J.
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    Kranse, Ries
    Wolters, Tineke
    van den Bergh, Roderick C. N.
    Bangma, Chris H.
    Schroeder, Fritz H.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2010, 57 (01) : 79 - 85
  • [7] The comparability of models for predicting the risk of a positive prostate biopsy with prostate-specific antigen alone:: A systematic review
    Schroder, Fritz
    Kattan, Michael W.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2008, 54 (02) : 274 - 290
  • [8] Decision curve analysis: A discussion
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    Vickers, Andrew J.
    [J]. MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2008, 28 (01) : 146 - 149
  • [9] *SWOP PROST CANC R, BACKGR INF
  • [10] Assessing prostate cancer risk: Results from the prostate cancer prevention trial
    Thompson, IM
    Ankerst, DP
    Chi, C
    Goodman, PJ
    Tangen, CM
    Lucia, MS
    Feng, ZD
    Parnes, HL
    Coltman, CA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2006, 98 (08) : 529 - 534