Literature DB >> 22527674

Evaluating the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial High Grade Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in 10 international biopsy cohorts: results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group.

Donna P Ankerst1, 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.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the applicability of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial High Grade (Gleason grade ≥ 7) Risk Calculator (PCPTHG) in ten international cohorts, representing a range of populations.
METHODS: A total of 25,512 biopsies from 10 cohorts (6 European, 1 UK and 3 US) were included; 4 implemented 6-core biopsies, and the remaining had 10 or higher schemes; 8 were screening cohorts, and 2 were clinical. PCPTHG risks were calculated using prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, age, African origin and history of prior biopsy and evaluated in terms of calibration plots, areas underneath the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and net benefit curves.
RESULTS: The median AUC of the PCPTHG for high-grade disease detection in the 10- and higher-core cohorts was 73.5% (range, 63.9-76.7%) compared with a median of 78.1% (range, 72.0-87.6%) among the four 6-core cohorts. Only the 10-core Cleveland Clinic cohort showed clear evidence of under-prediction by the PCPTHG, and this was restricted to risk ranges less than 15%. The PCPTHG demonstrated higher clinical net benefit in higher-core compared with 6-core biopsy cohorts, and among the former, there were no notable differences observed between clinical and screening cohorts, nor between European and US cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: The PCPTHG requires minimal patient information and can be applied across a range of populations. PCPTHG risk thresholds ranging from 5 to 20%, depending on patient risk averseness, are recommended for clinical prostate biopsy decision-making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22527674      PMCID: PMC3702682          DOI: 10.1007/s00345-012-0869-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  14 in total

1.  Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.

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

Review 2.  Everything you always wanted to know about evaluating prediction models (but were too afraid to ask).

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification.

Authors:  Stef van Buuren
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.021

4.  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

5.  Prospective multi-institutional study evaluating the performance of prostate cancer risk calculators.

Authors:  Robert K Nam; Michael W Kattan; Joseph L Chin; John Trachtenberg; Rajiv Singal; Ricardo Rendon; Laurence H Klotz; Linda Sugar; Christopher Sherman; Jonathan Izawa; David Bell; Aleksandra Stanimirovic; Vasundara Venkateswaran; Eleftherios P Diamandis; Changhong Yu; D Andrew Loblaw; Steven A Narod
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-06-20       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Transperineal extended biopsy improves the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate: a comparative study of 6 and 12 biopsy cores.

Authors:  Atsushi Takenaka; Ryouei Hara; Yoji Hyodo; Takeshi Ishimura; Yutaka Sakai; Hitoshi Fujioka; Tomohiro Fujii; Yoshimasa Jo; Masato Fujisawa
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.369

7.  Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  An extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Saadettin Yilmaz Eskicorapci; Dilek Ertoy Baydar; Cem Akbal; Mustafa Sofikerim; Mert Günay; Sinan Ekici; Haluk Ozen
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate gland: value of 12 versus 6 cores.

Authors:  M J O'Connell; C S Smith; P E Fitzpatrick; C O Keane; J M Fitzpatrick; M Behan; H F Fenlon; J G Murray
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb

10.  Evaluating the PCPT risk calculator in ten international biopsy cohorts: results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group.

Authors:  Donna P Ankerst; Andreas Boeck; Stephen J Freedland; Ian M Thompson; Angel M Cronin; Monique J Roobol; Jonas Hugosson; J Stephen Jones; 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
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-12-31       Impact factor: 4.226

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Risk stratification of prostate cancer: integrating multiparametric MRI, nomograms and biomarkers.

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

2.  Assessment of men's risk thresholds to proceed with prostate biopsy for the early detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kevin Koo; Elias S Hyams
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 2.370

3.  The prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator 2.0 performs equally for standard biopsy and MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy.

Authors:  M Maruf; M Fascelli; A K George; M M Siddiqui; M Kongnyuy; J M DiBianco; A Muthigi; S Valayil; A Sidana; T P Frye; A Kilchevsky; P L Choyke; B Turkbey; B J Wood; P A Pinto
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 5.554

4.  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

5.  Engaging African American Men as Citizen Scientists to Validate a Prostate Cancer Biomarker: Work-in-Progress.

Authors:  Karriem S Watson; Vida Henderson; Marcus Murray; Adam B Murphy; Josef Ben Levi; Tiffany McDowell; Alfreda Holloway-Beth; Pooja Gogana; Michael A Dixon; LeAndre Moore; Ivanhoe Hall; Alexander Kimbrough; Yamilé Molina; Robert A Winn
Journal:  Prog Community Health Partnersh       Date:  2019

6.  The impact of prostate volume, number of biopsy cores and American Urological Association symptom score on the sensitivity of cancer detection using the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator.

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

7.  External Evaluation of a Novel Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ProstateCheck) Based on Data from the Swiss Arm of the ERSPC.

Authors:  Cédric Poyet; Marian S Wettstein; Dara J Lundon; Bimal Bhindi; Girish S Kulkarni; Karim Saba; Tullio Sulser; A J Vickers; Thomas Hermanns
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-05-14       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  A Contemporary Prostate Biopsy Risk Calculator Based on Multiple Heterogeneous Cohorts.

Authors:  Donna P Ankerst; Johanna Straubinger; Katharina Selig; Lourdes Guerrios; Amanda De Hoedt; Javier Hernandez; Michael A Liss; Robin J Leach; Stephen J Freedland; Michael W Kattan; Robert Nam; Alexander Haese; Francesco Montorsi; Stephen A Boorjian; Matthew R Cooperberg; Cedric Poyet; Emily Vertosick; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Predicting Prostate Biopsy Results Using a Panel of Plasma and Urine Biomarkers Combined in a Scoring System.

Authors:  Maher Albitar; Wanlong Ma; Lars Lund; Ferras Albitar; Kevin Diep; Herbert A Fritsche; Neal Shore
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 4.207

10.  Multi-cohort modeling strategies for scalable globally accessible prostate cancer risk tools.

Authors:  Johanna Tolksdorf; Michael W Kattan; Stephen A Boorjian; Stephen J Freedland; Karim Saba; Cedric Poyet; Lourdes Guerrios; Amanda De Hoedt; Michael A Liss; Robin J Leach; Javier Hernandez; Emily Vertosick; Andrew J Vickers; Donna P Ankerst
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.