BACKGROUND: The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) Risk Calculator is a widely used prediction tool for aiding decisions about biopsy for prostate cancer. This study hypothesized that recently reported differences between predictions from the model and findings from other cohorts were due to how prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was entered into the statistical model, and to the inclusion of protocol end-of-study biopsies for which there was no clinical indication. METHODS: Data was obtained from the 5088 PCPT participants and was used to construct the PCPT Risk Calculator. The relationship between PSA and the risk of a positive biopsy was modeled by using locally-weighted regression (lowess), an empirical estimate of actual risks observed which does not depend on a statistical model. Risks were estimated with and without the 3514 end-of-study biopsies. RESULTS: For PSA levels above biopsy thresholds (∼4 ng/mL), the PCPT Risk Calculator greatly overestimated actual empirical risks (eg, 44% versus 26% at 5 ng/mL). The change in risk with increasing PSA was less among for-cause biopsies compared with the end-of-study biopsies (P = .001). Risk of high-grade disease was overestimated at PSA level of ≥ 6 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS: The PCPT Risk Calculator overestimates risks for PSAs close to and above typical biopsy thresholds. Separating for-cause biopsies from end-of-study biopsies and using empirical rather than model-based risks reduces overall risk estimates and replicates prior findings that, in men who have been screened with PSA, there is no rapid increase in prostate cancer risk with higher PSA. Revision of the PCPT Risk Calculator should be considered.
BACKGROUND: The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) Risk Calculator is a widely used prediction tool for aiding decisions about biopsy for prostate cancer. This study hypothesized that recently reported differences between predictions from the model and findings from other cohorts were due to how prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was entered into the statistical model, and to the inclusion of protocol end-of-study biopsies for which there was no clinical indication. METHODS: Data was obtained from the 5088 PCPTparticipants and was used to construct the PCPT Risk Calculator. The relationship between PSA and the risk of a positive biopsy was modeled by using locally-weighted regression (lowess), an empirical estimate of actual risks observed which does not depend on a statistical model. Risks were estimated with and without the 3514 end-of-study biopsies. RESULTS: For PSA levels above biopsy thresholds (∼4 ng/mL), the PCPT Risk Calculator greatly overestimated actual empirical risks (eg, 44% versus 26% at 5 ng/mL). The change in risk with increasing PSA was less among for-cause biopsies compared with the end-of-study biopsies (P = .001). Risk of high-grade disease was overestimated at PSA level of ≥ 6 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS: The PCPT Risk Calculator overestimates risks for PSAs close to and above typical biopsy thresholds. Separating for-cause biopsies from end-of-study biopsies and using empirical rather than model-based risks reduces overall risk estimates and replicates prior findings that, in men who have been screened with PSA, there is no rapid increase in prostate cancer risk with higher PSA. Revision of the PCPT Risk Calculator should be considered.
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: 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: 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
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: Stephen J Eyre; Donna P Ankerst; John T Wei; Prakash V Nair; Meredith M Regan; Gerrardina Bueti; Jeffrey Tang; Mark A Rubin; Michael Kearney; Ian M Thompson; Martin G Sanda Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Tineke Wolters; Caroline J Savage; Angel M Cronin; M Frank O'Brien; Kim Pettersson; Monique J Roobol; Gunnar Aus; Peter T Scardino; Jonas Hugosson; Fritz H Schröder; Hans Lilja Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 20.096
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
Authors: Scott E Eggener; Ketan Badani; Daniel A Barocas; Glen W Barrisford; Jed-Sian Cheng; Arnold I Chin; Anthony Corcoran; Jonathan I Epstein; Arvin K George; Gopal N Gupta; Matthew H Hayn; Eric C Kauffman; Brian Lane; Michael A Liss; Moben Mirza; Todd M Morgan; Kelvin Moses; Kenneth G Nepple; Mark A Preston; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Matthew J Resnick; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Jonathan Silberstein; Eric A Singer; Geoffrey A Sonn; Preston Sprenkle; Kelly L Stratton; Jennifer Taylor; Jeffrey Tomaszewski; Matt Tollefson; Andrew Vickers; Wesley M White; William T Lowrance Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-04-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrzej Prajsner; Jerzy Chudek; Aleksandra Szybalska; Karolina Piotrowicz; Jan Zejda; Andrzej Więcek Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 3.318