Yuanyuan Liang1, Jamie C Messer, Christopher Louden, Miguel A Jimenez-Rios, Ian M Thompson, Hector R Camarena-Reynoso. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA), San Antonio, TX 78229, USA; Department of Urology, UTHSCSA, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA; School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, USA; Cancer Therapy and Research Center, UTHSCSA, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA. Electronic address: liangy@uthscsa.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate factors affecting the risk of prostate cancer (CaP) and high-grade disease (HGCaP, Gleason score ≥ 7) in a Mexican referral population, with comparison to the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (PCPTRC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: From a retrospective study of 826 patients who underwent prostate biopsy between January 2005 and December 2009 at the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico, logistic regression was used to assess the effects of age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal exam (DRE), first-degree family history of CaP, and history of a prior prostate biopsy on CaP and HGCaP, separately. Internal discrimination, goodness-of-fit, and clinical utility of the resulting models were assessed with comparison to the PCPTRC. RESULTS: Rates of both CaP (73.2%) and HGCaP (33.3%) were high among referral patients in this Mexican urology clinic. The PCPTRC generally underestimated the risk of CaP but overestimated the risk of HGCaP. Four factors influencing CaP on biopsy were logPSA, DRE, family history and a prior biopsy history (all P < 0.001). The internal AUC of the logistic model was 0.823 compared with 0.785 of the PCPTRC for CaP (P < 0.001). The same 4 factors were significantly associated with HGCaP as well and the AUC was 0.779 compared with 0.766 of the PCPTRC for HGCaP (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of screening programs or regular urologic checkups in Mexico imply that men typically first reach specialized clinics with a high cancer risk. This renders diagnostic tools developed on comparatively healthy populations, such as the PCPTRC, of lesser utility. Continued efforts are needed to develop and externally validate new clinical diagnostic tools specific to high-risk referral populations incorporating new biomarkers and more clinical characteristics.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate factors affecting the risk of prostate cancer (CaP) and high-grade disease (HGCaP, Gleason score ≥ 7) in a Mexican referral population, with comparison to the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (PCPTRC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: From a retrospective study of 826 patients who underwent prostate biopsy between January 2005 and December 2009 at the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico, logistic regression was used to assess the effects of age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal exam (DRE), first-degree family history of CaP, and history of a prior prostate biopsy on CaP and HGCaP, separately. Internal discrimination, goodness-of-fit, and clinical utility of the resulting models were assessed with comparison to the PCPTRC. RESULTS: Rates of both CaP (73.2%) and HGCaP (33.3%) were high among referral patients in this Mexican urology clinic. The PCPTRC generally underestimated the risk of CaP but overestimated the risk of HGCaP. Four factors influencing CaP on biopsy were logPSA, DRE, family history and a prior biopsy history (all P < 0.001). The internal AUC of the logistic model was 0.823 compared with 0.785 of the PCPTRC for CaP (P < 0.001). The same 4 factors were significantly associated with HGCaP as well and the AUC was 0.779 compared with 0.766 of the PCPTRC for HGCaP (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of screening programs or regular urologic checkups in Mexico imply that men typically first reach specialized clinics with a high cancer risk. This renders diagnostic tools developed on comparatively healthy populations, such as the PCPTRC, of lesser utility. Continued efforts are needed to develop and externally validate new clinical diagnostic tools specific to high-risk referral populations incorporating new biomarkers and more clinical characteristics.
Authors: S Noell Stone; Richard M Hoffman; Kristine Tollestrup; Christine A Stidley; Jason L Witter; Frank D Gilliland Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2003 Impact factor: 1.847
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: Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Donna Pauler Ankerst; Jack Groskopf; John R Day; Amy Blase; Harry Rittenhouse; Brad H Pollock; Cathy Tangen; Dipen Parekh; Robin J Leach; Ian Thompson Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Lauro S Gomez-Guerra; Margarita L Martinez-Fierro; Valeria Alcantara-Aragon; Rocio Ortiz-Lopez; Rebeca T Martinez-Villarreal; Idelma B Morales-Rodriguez; Raquel Garza-Guajardo; Marco A Ponce-Camacho; Augusto Rojas-Martinez Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 4.430
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: Efrén Murillo-Zamora; Oliver Mendoza-Cano; Mónica Ríos-Silva; Ramón Alberto Sánchez-Piña; Martha Alicia Higareda-Almaraz; Enrique Higareda-Almaraz; Agustin Lugo-Radillo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 3.390