Literature DB >> 19007374

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.

David J Hernandez1, Misop Han, Elizabeth B Humphreys, Leslie A Mangold, Samir S Taneja, Stacy J Childs, Georg Bartsch, Alan W Partin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To develop a logistic regression-based model to predict prostate cancer biopsy at, and compare its performance to the risk calculator developed by the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT), which was based on age, race, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, a digital rectal examination (DRE), family history, and history of a previous negative biopsy, and to PSA level alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the data of 1280 men who had a biopsy while enrolled in a prospective, multicentre clinical trial. Of these, 1108 had all relevant clinical and pathological data available, and no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer. Using the PCPT risk calculator, we calculated the risks of prostate cancer and of high-grade disease (Gleason score > or =7) for each man. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the risk calculator, PSA level and the novel regression-based model were compared.
RESULTS: Prostate cancer was detected in 394 (35.6%) men, and 155 (14.0%) had Gleason > or =7 disease. For cancer prediction, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the risk calculator was 66.7%, statistically greater than the AUC for PSA level of 61.9% (P < 0.001). For predicting high-grade disease, the AUCs were 74.1% and 70.7% for the risk calculator and PSA level, respectively (P = 0.024). The AUCs increased to 71.2% (P < 0.001) and 78.7% (P = 0.001) for detection and high-grade disease, respectively, with our novel regression-based models.
CONCLUSIONS: ROC analyses show that the PCPT risk calculator modestly improves the performance of PSA level alone in predicting an individual's risk of prostate cancer or high-grade disease on biopsy. This predictive tool might be enhanced by including percentage free PSA and the number of biopsy cores.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19007374      PMCID: PMC3340925          DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08127.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  28 in total

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

Authors:  Felix K-H Chun; 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
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-09-11       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  PSA velocity for the diagnosis of early prostate cancer. A new concept.

Authors:  H B Carter; J D Pearson
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 2.241

3.  Novel artificial neural network for early detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Bob Djavan; Mesut Remzi; Alexandre Zlotta; Christian Seitz; Peter Snow; Michael Marberger
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-02-15       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 4.  Comparisons of nomograms and urologists' predictions in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Phillip L Ross; Claudia Gerigk; Mithat Gonen; Ofer Yossepowitch; Ilias Cagiannos; Pramod C Sogani; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Semin Urol Oncol       Date:  2002-05

5.  Predictors of prostate cancer after initial negative systematic 12 core biopsy.

Authors:  Herb Singh; Eduardo I Canto; Shahrokh F Shariat; Dov Kadmon; Brian J Miles; Thomas M Wheeler; Kevin M Slawin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Multicenter evaluation of an artificial neural network to increase the prostate cancer detection rate and reduce unnecessary biopsies.

Authors:  Carsten Stephan; Henning Cammann; Axel Semjonow; Eleftherios P Diamandis; Leon F A Wymenga; Michael Lein; Pranav Sinha; Stefan A Loening; Klaus Jung
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 8.327

7.  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.

Authors:  Mark Garzotto; R Guy Hudson; Laura Peters; Yi-Ching Hsieh; Eduardo Barrera; Motomi Mori; Tomasz M Beer; Thomas Klein
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  A nomogram for predicting a positive repeat prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy session.

Authors:  Ernesto Lopez-Corona; Makoto Ohori; Peter T Scardino; Victor E Reuter; Mithat Gonen; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ian M Thompson; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Gary J Miller; Leslie G Ford; Michael M Lieber; R Duane Cespedes; James N Atkins; Scott M Lippman; Susie M Carlin; Anne Ryan; Connie M Szczepanek; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-06-24       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Complexed prostate specific antigen improves specificity for prostate cancer detection: results of a prospective multicenter clinical trial.

Authors:  Alan W Partin; Michael K Brawer; Georg Bartsch; Wolfgang Horninger; Samir S Taneja; Herbert Lepor; Richard Babaian; Stacy J Childs; Thomas Stamey; Herbert A Fritsche; Lori Sokoll; Daniel W Chan; Robert P Thiel; Carol D Cheli
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  16 in total

1.  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 2.  Risk-based prostate cancer screening: who and how?

Authors:  Allison S Glass; K Clint Cary; Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  [Value of biomarkers in urology].

Authors:  P J Goebell; B Keck; S Wach; B Wullich
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  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

Review 5.  Risk-based prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Xiaoye Zhu; Peter C Albertsen; Gerald L Andriole; Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  A comparison of Bayesian and frequentist approaches to incorporating external information for the prediction of prostate cancer risk.

Authors:  Paul J Newcombe; Brian H Reck; Jielin Sun; Greg T Platek; Claudio Verzilli; A Karim Kader; Seong-Tae Kim; Fang-Chi Hsu; Zheng Zhang; S Lilly Zheng; Vincent E Mooser; Lynn D Condreay; Colin F Spraggs; John C Whittaker; Roger S Rittmaster; Jianfeng Xu
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.135

7.  The prostate cancer risk calculator from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial underestimates the risk of high grade cancer in contemporary referral patients.

Authors:  Tin C Ngo; Brit B Turnbull; Philip W Lavori; Joseph C Presti
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-12-17       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  The risk of biopsy-detectable prostate cancer using the prostate cancer prevention Trial Risk Calculator in a community setting.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Liang; Donna P Ankerst; Ziding Feng; Rong Fu; Janet L Stanford; Ian M Thompson
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 3.498

9.  Improving patient prostate cancer risk assessment: Moving from static, globally-applied to dynamic, practice-specific risk calculators.

Authors:  Andreas N Strobl; Andrew J Vickers; Ben Van Calster; Ewout Steyerberg; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson; Donna P Ankerst
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2015-05-16       Impact factor: 6.317

10.  Incorporation of detailed family history from the Swedish Family Cancer Database into the PCPT risk calculator.

Authors:  Sonja Grill; Mahdi Fallah; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson; Stephen Freedland; Kari Hemminki; Donna P Ankerst
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-09-19       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.