Literature DB >> 10510933

Development of a nomogram that predicts the probability of a positive prostate biopsy in men with an abnormal digital rectal examination and a prostate-specific antigen between 0 and 4 ng/mL.

J A Eastham1, R May, J L Robertson, O Sartor, M W Kattan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Early detection of prostate cancer traditionally involves both digital rectal examination (DRE) and serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) determination in an informed patient population. Abnormalities in either of these studies typically lead to additional evaluations, including prostate biopsy. In this study, we analyzed the operational characteristics of serum PSA between 0 and 4 ng/mL as an initial test for prostate cancer.
METHODS: From January 1990 through May 1997, transrectal biopsies were obtained from 700 men with a serum PSA level less than 4.0 ng/mL but DRE suspicious for cancer. Patient age, race, and serum PSA level were reviewed for this study.
RESULTS: Of the 700 men studied, 445 were white (64%) and 255 were African American (36%). In multivariate analysis of prebiopsy risk factors (age, race, serum PSA), serum PSA was the only independent predictor of a positive prostate biopsy. A nomogram was created that determines the worst-case probability of a positive prostate biopsy in men with PSA between 0 and 4 ng/mL and a DRE suspicious for cancer. The predictions from the nomogram appeared accurate and discriminating, with a bias-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (i.e., comparison of the predicted probability with the actual outcome) of 0.75.
CONCLUSIONS: Although early detection of prostate cancer has traditionally used both PSA measurement and DRE, PSA testing alone could be more easily implemented and may encourage some men to seek consultation who might not otherwise have done so. By providing a nomogram which provides a worse-case scenario (assuming a positive DRE) of the probability of a positive biopsy, the patient and clinician can make an informed decision as to whether additional evaluation is warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10510933     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00213-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  30 in total

1.  Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Claus G Roehrborn
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2008

2.  Predictive models for newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  William T Lowrance; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2009

3.  A risk prediction model for smoking experimentation in Mexican American youth.

Authors:  Rajesh Talluri; Anna V Wilkinson; Margaret R Spitz; Sanjay Shete
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Chinese nomogram to predict probability of positive initial prostate biopsy: a study in Taiwan region.

Authors:  Shu-Chun Kuo; Shun-Hsing Hung; Hsien-Yi Wang; Chih-Chiang Chien; Chin-Li Lu; Hung-Jung Lin; How-Ran Guo; Jian-Fang Zou; Chian-Shiung Lin; Chien-Cheng Huang
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 3.285

Review 5.  Predicting melanoma risk: theory, practice and future challenges.

Authors:  David Whiteman
Journal:  Melanoma Manag       Date:  2014-12-04

6.  Self-reported Black race predicts significant prostate cancer independent of clinical setting and clinical and socioeconomic risk factors.

Authors:  Oluwarotimi S Nettey; Austin J Walker; Mary Kate Keeter; Ashima Singal; Aishwarya Nugooru; Iman K Martin; Maria Ruden; Pooja Gogana; Michael A Dixon; Tijani Osuma; Courtney M P Hollowell; Roohollah Sharifi; Marin Sekosan; Ximing Yang; William J Catalona; Andre Kajdacsy-Balla; Virgilia Macias; Rick A Kittles; Adam B Murphy
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 3.498

Review 7.  Critical review of prostate cancer predictive tools.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.404

8.  Image-based clinical decision support for transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: comparison of multiple logistic regression, artificial neural network, and support vector machine.

Authors:  Hak Jong Lee; Sung Il Hwang; Seok-Min Han; Seong Ho Park; Seung Hyup Kim; Jeong Yeon Cho; Chang Gyu Seong; Gheeyoung Choe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Evaluation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk calculator in a high-risk screening population.

Authors:  David J Kaplan; Stephen A Boorjian; Karen Ruth; Brian L Egleston; David Y T Chen; Rosalia Viterbo; Robert G Uzzo; Mark K Buyyounouski; Susan Raysor; Veda N Giri
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  Algorithms, nomograms and the detection of indolent prostate cancer.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-06-07       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.