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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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