Literature DB >> 17010505

Development and external validation of an extended 10-core biopsy nomogram.

Felix K-H Chun1, Alberto Briganti, Markus Graefen, Francesco Montorsi, Christopher Porter, Vincenzo Scattoni, Andrea Gallina, Jochen Walz, Alexander Haese, Thomas Steuber, Andreas Erbersdobler, Thorsten Schlomm, Sascha A Ahyai, Eike Currlin, Luc Valiquette, Hans Heinzer, Patrizio Rigatti, Hartwig Huland, Pierre I Karakiewicz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To test the accuracy of a previously externally validated sextant biopsy nomogram in referred men exposed to > or =10 or more biopsy cores. Moreover, we explored the hypothesis that a more accurate predictive tool could be developed.
METHODS: Previous nomogram predictors (age, digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen, and percent free PSA) were used to assess the accuracy of our previous nomogram in a cohort consisting of 2900 men referred for prostatic evaluation. Moreover, these variables were complemented with sampling density (SD) (i.e., ratio of gland volume and the number of planned biopsy cores) within multivariable logistic regression models (LRM) predicting presence of prostate cancer (pCA) on the initial 10 or more core biopsy. The LRMs were used to develop and internally validate (200 bootstrap resamples) a new nomogram in 1162 men from Hamburg, Germany. The LRMs' external validity was tested in three separate cohorts (Hamburg, n=582; Milan, n=961; Seattle, n=195).
RESULTS: The contemporary external validation of the previously validated sextant nomogram demonstrated 70% accuracy. Internal validation of the new nomogram demonstrated 77% accuracy, and external cohorts demonstrated 73-76% accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: In the era of extended biopsy schemes, previously developed predictive models are less accurate in predicting the probability of pCA on initial biopsy. We developed a new tool that allows obtaining more accurate predictions. Moreover, before biopsy, it also allows defining the ideal ratio between gland volume and the number of planned biopsy cores that would yield the ideal biopsy rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17010505     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  30 in total

1.  Validation of revised Epstein's criteria for insignificant prostate cancer prediction in a Greek subpopulation.

Authors:  Κ Chondros; Ν Karpathakis; Ι Heretis; Ε Mavromanolakis; N Chondros; F Sofras; C Mamoulakis
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 0.471

Review 2.  Role of nomograms for prostate cancer in 2007.

Authors:  Felix K-H Chun; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-02-27       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer.

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

4.  Predictive models for newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients.

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

5.  Urine TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcript stratifies prostate cancer risk in men with elevated serum PSA.

Authors:  Scott A Tomlins; Sheila M J Aubin; Javed Siddiqui; Robert J Lonigro; Laurie Sefton-Miller; Siobhan Miick; Sarah Williamsen; Petrea Hodge; Jessica Meinke; Amy Blase; Yvonne Penabella; John R Day; Radhika Varambally; Bo Han; David Wood; Lei Wang; Martin G Sanda; Mark A Rubin; Daniel R Rhodes; Brent Hollenbeck; Kyoko Sakamoto; Jonathan L Silberstein; Yves Fradet; James B Amberson; Stephanie Meyers; Nallasivam Palanisamy; Harry Rittenhouse; John T Wei; Jack Groskopf; Arul M Chinnaiyan
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 17.956

Review 6.  [Prostate gland - what would urologists like to know from radiologists?]

Authors:  U B Liehr; D Baumunk; S Blaschke; F Fischbach; B Friebe; F König; A Lemke; P Mittelstädt; M Pech; M Porsch; J Ricke; D Schindele; S Siedentopf; J J Wendler; M Schostak
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  CT-guided transgluteal biopsy for systematic sampling of the prostate in patients without rectal access: a 13-year single-center experience.

Authors:  Michael C Olson; Thomas D Atwell; Lance A Mynderse; Bernard F King; Timothy Welch; Ajit H Goenka
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  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

9.  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

10.  Validation in a multiple urology practice cohort of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial calculator for predicting prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  Stephen J Eyre; Donna P Ankerst; John T Wei; Prakash V Nair; Meredith M Regan; Gerrardina Bueti; Jeffrey Tang; Mark A Rubin; Michael Kearney; Ian M Thompson; Martin G Sanda
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.