Literature DB >> 14508828

Predictive modeling for the presence of prostate carcinoma using clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound parameters in patients with prostate specific antigen levels < or = 10 ng/mL.

Mark Garzotto1, R Guy Hudson, Laura Peters, Yi-Ching Hsieh, Eduardo Barrera, Motomi Mori, Tomasz M Beer, Thomas Klein.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to develop a model for predicting the presence of prostate carcinoma using clinical, laboratory, and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) data.
METHODS: Data were collected on 1237 referred men with serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels < or = 10 ng/mL who underwent an initial prostate biopsy. Variables analyzed included age, race, family history, referral indication(s), prior vasectomy, digital rectal examination (DRE), PSA level, PSA density (PSAD), and TRUS findings. Twenty percent of the data were reserved randomly for study validation. Logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the relative risk, 95% confidence interval, and P values.
RESULTS: Independent predictors of a positive biopsy result included elevated PSAD, abnormal DRE, hypoechoic TRUS finding, and age 75 years or older. Based on these variables, a predictive nomogram was developed. The sensitivity and specificity of the model were 92% and 24%, respectively, in the validation study for which the predictive probability > or = 10% was used to indicate the presence of prostate carcinoma. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the model was 73%, which was significantly higher compared with the prediction based on PSA alone (AUC, 62%). If it was validated externally, then application of this model to the biopsy decision could result in a 24% reduction in unnecessary biopsy procedures, with an overall reduction of 20%.
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of clinical, laboratory, and TRUS data into a prebiopsy nomogram significantly improved the prediction of prostate carcinoma over the use of individual factors alone. Predictive nomograms may serve as an aid to patient counseling regarding prostate biopsy outcome and to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsy procedures. Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.11668

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14508828     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11668

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  23 in total

Review 1.  Nanomedicine: clinical applications of polyethylene glycol conjugated proteins and drugs.

Authors:  Suphiya Parveen; Sanjeeb K Sahoo
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 6.447

2.  The Association Between Vasectomy and Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bimal Bhindi; Christopher J D Wallis; Madhur Nayan; Ann M Farrell; Landon W Trost; Robert J Hamilton; Girish S Kulkarni; Antonio Finelli; Neil E Fleshner; Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 21.873

3.  Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer.

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

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

5.  Immunophenotypic Characterization of Benign and Malignant Prostatic Lesions.

Authors:  R Lakhtakia; R Bharadwaj; V K Kumar; P Mandal; S K Nema
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

6.  Prediction of lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis from lower rectal cancer using magnetic resonance imaging and risk factors for metastasis: Multicenter study of the Lymph Node Committee of the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum.

Authors:  Shimpei Ogawa; Jin-Ichi Hida; Hideyuki Ike; Tetsushi Kinugasa; Mitsuyoshi Ota; Eiji Shinto; Michio Itabashi; Takahiro Okamoto; Masakazu Yamamoto; Kenichi Sugihara; Toshiaki Watanabe
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  A nomogram based on age, prostate-specific antigen level, prostate volume and digital rectal examination for predicting risk of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ping Tang; Hui Chen; Matthew Uhlman; Yu-Rong Lin; Xiang-Rong Deng; Bin Wang; Wen-Jun Yang; Ke-Ji Xie
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2012-12-10       Impact factor: 3.285

8.  The nomogram conundrum: a demonstration of why a prostate cancer risk model in Turkish men underestimates prostate cancer risk in the USA.

Authors:  Onder Kara; Ahmed Elshafei; Yaw A Nyame; Bulent Akdogan; Ercan Malkoc; Tianming Gao; Mesut Altan; Burak Citamak; Emin Mammadov; Furkan Dursun; Daniel J Greene; Temucin Senkul; Ferhat Ates; Haluk Ozen; J Stephen Jones
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2016-05-28       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 9.  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

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.