PURPOSE: Statistical models such as the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator have been developed to estimate the cancer risk in an individual and help determine indications for biopsy. We assessed risk calculator performance in a large contemporary cohort of patients sampled by extended biopsy schemes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The validation cohort comprised 3,482 men who underwent a total of 4,515 prostate biopsies. Calculator performance was evaluated by ROC AUC and calibration plots. A multivariate regression model was fitted to address important predictor variables in the validation data set. Prediction error was calculated as the response variable in another multivariate regression model. RESULTS: Using an average of 13 cores per biopsy prostate cancer was detected in 1,862 patients. The calculator showed an AUC of 0.57 to predict all cancers and 0.60 for high grade cancer. Multivariate analysis of the predictive ability of various clinical factors revealed that race and the number of biopsy cores did not predict overall or high grade cancer at biopsy. Prior negative biopsy, patient age and free prostate specific antigen were significantly associated with prediction error for overall and high grade cancer. Race and family history had a significant association with prediction error only for high grade disease. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge our external validation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator was done in the largest cohort of men screened for prostate cancer to date. Results suggest that the current calculator remains predictive but does not maintain initial accuracy in contemporary patients sampled by more extensive biopsy schemes. Data suggest that the predictive ability of the calculator in current clinical practice may be improved by modeling contemporary data and/or incorporating additional prognostic variables. Copyright 2010 American Urological Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: Statistical models such as the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator have been developed to estimate the cancer risk in an individual and help determine indications for biopsy. We assessed risk calculator performance in a large contemporary cohort of patients sampled by extended biopsy schemes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The validation cohort comprised 3,482 men who underwent a total of 4,515 prostate biopsies. Calculator performance was evaluated by ROC AUC and calibration plots. A multivariate regression model was fitted to address important predictor variables in the validation data set. Prediction error was calculated as the response variable in another multivariate regression model. RESULTS: Using an average of 13 cores per biopsy prostate cancer was detected in 1,862 patients. The calculator showed an AUC of 0.57 to predict all cancers and 0.60 for high grade cancer. Multivariate analysis of the predictive ability of various clinical factors revealed that race and the number of biopsy cores did not predict overall or high grade cancer at biopsy. Prior negative biopsy, patient age and free prostate specific antigen were significantly associated with prediction error for overall and high grade cancer. Race and family history had a significant association with prediction error only for high grade disease. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge our external validation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator was done in the largest cohort of men screened for prostate cancer to date. Results suggest that the current calculator remains predictive but does not maintain initial accuracy in contemporary patients sampled by more extensive biopsy schemes. Data suggest that the predictive ability of the calculator in current clinical practice may be improved by modeling contemporary data and/or incorporating additional prognostic variables. Copyright 2010 American Urological Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Yuanyuan Liang; Jamie C Messer; Christopher Louden; Miguel A Jimenez-Rios; Ian M Thompson; Hector R Camarena-Reynoso Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 3.498
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: Donna P Ankerst; Andreas Boeck; Stephen J Freedland; J Stephen Jones; Angel M Cronin; Monique J Roobol; Jonas Hugosson; Michael W Kattan; Eric A Klein; Freddie Hamdy; David Neal; Jenny Donovan; Dipen J Parekh; Helmut Klocker; Wolfgang Horninger; Amine Benchikh; Gilles Salama; Arnauld Villers; Daniel M Moreira; Fritz H Schröder; Hans Lilja; Andrew J Vickers; Ian M Thompson Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-04-22 Impact factor: 4.226