OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the discrimination, calibration, and net benefit performance of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPTRC) across five European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), 1 United Kingdom, 1 Austrian, and 3 US biopsy cohorts. METHODS: PCPTRC risks were calculated for 25,733 biopsies using prostate-specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination, family history, history of prior biopsy, and imputation for missing covariates. Predictions were evaluated using the areas underneath the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), discrimination slopes, chi-square tests of goodness of fit, and net benefit decision curves. RESULTS: AUCs of the PCPTRC ranged from a low of 56% in the ERSPC Goeteborg Rounds 2-6 cohort to a high of 72% in the ERSPC Goeteborg Round 1 cohort and were statistically significantly higher than that of PSA in 6 out of the 10 cohorts. The PCPTRC was well calibrated in the SABOR, Tyrol, and Durham cohorts. There was limited to no net benefit to using the PCPTRC for biopsy referral compared to biopsying all or no men in all five ERSPC cohorts and benefit within a limited range of risk thresholds in all other cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: External validation of the PCPTRC across ten cohorts revealed varying degree of success highly dependent on the cohort, most likely due to different criteria for and work-up before biopsy. Future validation studies of new calculators for prostate cancer should acknowledge the potential impact of the specific cohort studied when reporting successful versus failed validation.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the discrimination, calibration, and net benefit performance of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPTRC) across five European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), 1 United Kingdom, 1 Austrian, and 3 US biopsy cohorts. METHODS: PCPTRC risks were calculated for 25,733 biopsies using prostate-specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination, family history, history of prior biopsy, and imputation for missing covariates. Predictions were evaluated using the areas underneath the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), discrimination slopes, chi-square tests of goodness of fit, and net benefit decision curves. RESULTS: AUCs of the PCPTRC ranged from a low of 56% in the ERSPC Goeteborg Rounds 2-6 cohort to a high of 72% in the ERSPC Goeteborg Round 1 cohort and were statistically significantly higher than that of PSA in 6 out of the 10 cohorts. The PCPTRC was well calibrated in the SABOR, Tyrol, and Durham cohorts. There was limited to no net benefit to using the PCPTRC for biopsy referral compared to biopsying all or no men in all five ERSPC cohorts and benefit within a limited range of risk thresholds in all other cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: External validation of the PCPTRC across ten cohorts revealed varying degree of success highly dependent on the cohort, most likely due to different criteria for and work-up before biopsy. Future validation studies of new calculators for prostate cancer should acknowledge the potential impact of the specific cohort studied when reporting successful versus failed validation.
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Chen Chi; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Ziding Feng; Howard L Parnes; Charles A Coltman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-04-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kristel J M Janssen; A Rogier T Donders; Frank E Harrell; Yvonne Vergouwe; Qingxia Chen; Diederick E Grobbee; Karel G M Moons Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-03-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Monique J Roobol; Jonas Hugosson; J Stephen Jones; Michael W Kattan; Eric Klein; Freddie Hamdy; David Neal; Jenny Donovan; Dipen J Parekh; Donna Ankerst; George Bartsch; Helmut Klocker; Wolfgang Horninger; Amine Benchikh; Gilles Salama; Arnauld Villers; Steve J Freedland; Daniel M Moreira; Fritz H Schröder; Hans Lilja Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Dipen J Parekh; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Betsy A Higgins; Javier Hernandez; Edith Canby-Hagino; Timothy Brand; Dean A Troyer; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson Journal: Urology Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Celia Prior; Francisco Guillen-Grima; Jose E Robles; David Rosell; Jose M Fernandez-Montero; Xabier Agirre; Raúl Catena; Alfonso Calvo Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Roderick C N van den Bergh; Monique J Roobol; Tineke Wolters; Pim J van Leeuwen; Fritz H Schröder Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-08-18 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Donna P Ankerst; Martin Goros; Scott A Tomlins; Dattatraya Patil; Ziding Feng; John T Wei; Martin G Sanda; Jonathan Gelfond; Ian M Thompson; Robin J Leach; Michael A Liss Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2018-02-13
Authors: Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Mahir Maruf; Thomas P Frye; Akhil Muthigi; Michael Kongnyuy; Subin G Valayil; Peter A Pinto Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: Donna P Ankerst; Josef Hoefler; Sebastian Bock; Phyllis J Goodman; Andrew Vickers; Javier Hernandez; Lori J Sokoll; Martin G Sanda; John T Wei; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson Journal: Urology Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Catherine M Tangen; Jeannette Schenk; Cathee Till; Phyllis J Goodman; Wendy Barrington; M Scott Lucia; Ian M Thompson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2019-10-19 Impact factor: 2.984
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: D J Lundon; B D Kelly; R Foley; S Loeb; J M Fitzpatrick; R W G Watson; E Rogers; G C Durkan; K Walsh Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Donna P Ankerst; Cathee Till; Andreas Boeck; Phyllis Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; Ziding Feng; Alan W Partin; Daniel W Chan; Lori Sokoll; Jacob Kagan; John T Wei; Ian M Thompson Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 7.450