OBJECTIVE: To compare the prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator (PCPT-RC) and European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator (ERSPC-RC) in a unique unscreened population from the West of Ireland. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data was prospectively recorded for all 556 consecutive men who underwent prostate biopsy at our institution as part of the Rapid Access Prostate Assessment Clinic program in Ireland. The estimated probabilities of detecting prostate cancer and high-grade disease were calculated using the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators. For each calculator the discriminative ability, calibration and clinical utility was assessed. RESULTS: Prostate cancer was detected in 49% and high-grade prostate cancer in 34% of men. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that the PCPT-RCs outperformed the ERSPC-RCs for the prediction of prostate cancer areas underneath the ROC curve (AUC 0.628 vs. 0.588, p = 0.0034) and for the prediction of high-grade prostate cancer (AUC 0.792 vs. 0.690, p = 0.0029). Both risk calculators generally over-predicted the risk of prostate cancer and high-grade disease across a wide range of predicted probabilities. Decision curve analysis suggested greater net benefit using the PCPT-RCs in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Multivariable nomograms can further aid patient counselling for early prostate cancer detection. In unscreened men from Western Ireland, the PCPT-RCs provided better discrimination for overall prostate cancer and high-grade disease compared to the ERSPC-RC. However, both tools overpredicted the risk of cancer detection on biopsy, and it is possible that a different set of predictive variables may be more useful in this population.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator (PCPT-RC) and European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator (ERSPC-RC) in a unique unscreened population from the West of Ireland. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data was prospectively recorded for all 556 consecutive men who underwent prostate biopsy at our institution as part of the Rapid Access Prostate Assessment Clinic program in Ireland. The estimated probabilities of detecting prostate cancer and high-grade disease were calculated using the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators. For each calculator the discriminative ability, calibration and clinical utility was assessed. RESULTS:Prostate cancer was detected in 49% and high-grade prostate cancer in 34% of men. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that the PCPT-RCs outperformed the ERSPC-RCs for the prediction of prostate cancer areas underneath the ROC curve (AUC 0.628 vs. 0.588, p = 0.0034) and for the prediction of high-grade prostate cancer (AUC 0.792 vs. 0.690, p = 0.0029). Both risk calculators generally over-predicted the risk of prostate cancer and high-grade disease across a wide range of predicted probabilities. Decision curve analysis suggested greater net benefit using the PCPT-RCs in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Multivariable nomograms can further aid patient counselling for early prostate cancer detection. In unscreened men from Western Ireland, the PCPT-RCs provided better discrimination for overall prostate cancer and high-grade disease compared to the ERSPC-RC. However, both tools overpredicted the risk of cancer detection on biopsy, and it is possible that a different set of predictive variables may be more useful in this population.
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: Greg Trottier; Monique J Roobol; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Peter J Boström; Kimberly A Fernandes; Antonio Finelli; Karen Chadwick; Andrew Evans; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Ants Toi; Alexandre R Zlotta; Neil E Fleshner Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 5.588
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: 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: 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
Authors: Enrique Gomez Gomez; Juan José Salamanca Bustos; Julia Carrasco Valiente; Jose Luis Fernandez Rueda; Ana Blanca; José Valero Rosa; Ines Bravo Arrebola; Javier Marquez López; Juan Manuel Jimenez Vacas; Raul Luque; Maria José Requena Tapia Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sudeh Izadmehr; Dara J Lundon; Nihal Mohamed; Andrew Katims; Vaibhav Patel; Benjamin Eilender; Reza Mehrazin; Ketan K Badani; John P Sfakianos; Che-Kai Tsao; Peter Wiklund; William K Oh; Carlos Cordon-Cardo; Ashutosh K Tewari; Matthew D Galsky; Natasha Kyprianou Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 6.244