Moniek M Vedder1, Esther W de Bekker-Grob2, Hans G Lilja3, Andrew J Vickers4, Geert J L H van Leenders5, Ewout W Steyerberg2, Monique J Roobol6. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.vedder@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Departments of Surgery (Urology), Laboratory Medicine, and Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing has limited accuracy for the early detection of prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To assess the value added by percentage of free to total PSA (%fPSA), prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), and a kallikrein panel (4k-panel) to the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) multivariable prediction models: risk calculator (RC) 4, including transrectal ultrasound, and RC 4 plus digital rectal examination (4+DRE) for prescreened men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were invited for rescreening between October 2007 and February 2009 within the Dutch part of the ERSPC study. Biopsies were taken in men with a PSA level ≥3.0 ng/ml or a PCA3 score ≥10. Additional analyses of the 4k-panel were done on serum samples. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcome was defined as PCa detectable by sextant biopsy. Receiver operating characteristic curve and decision curve analyses were performed to compare the predictive capabilities of %fPSA, PCA3, 4k-panel, the ERSPC RCs, and their combinations in logistic regression models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: PCa was detected in 119 of 708 men. The %fPSA did not perform better univariately or added to the RCs compared with the RCs alone. In 202 men with an elevated PSA, the 4k-panel discriminated better than PCA3 when modelled univariately (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.78 vs. 0.62; p=0.01). The multivariable models with PCA3 or the 4k-panel were equivalent (AUC: 0.80 for RC 4+DRE). In the total population, PCA3 discriminated better than the 4k-panel (univariate AUC: 0.63 vs. 0.56; p=0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the multivariable model with PCA3 (AUC: 0.73) versus the model with the 4k-panel (AUC: 0.71; p=0.18). The multivariable model with PCA3 performed better than the reference model (0.73 vs. 0.70; p=0.02). Decision curves confirmed these patterns, although numbers were small. CONCLUSIONS: Both PCA3 and, to a lesser extent, a 4k-panel have added value to the DRE-based ERSPC RC in detecting PCa in prescreened men. PATIENT SUMMARY: We studied the added value of novel biomarkers to previously developed risk prediction models for prostate cancer. We found that inclusion of these biomarkers resulted in an increase in predictive ability.
BACKGROUND:Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing has limited accuracy for the early detection of prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To assess the value added by percentage of free to total PSA (%fPSA), prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), and a kallikrein panel (4k-panel) to the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) multivariable prediction models: risk calculator (RC) 4, including transrectal ultrasound, and RC 4 plus digital rectal examination (4+DRE) for prescreened men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were invited for rescreening between October 2007 and February 2009 within the Dutch part of the ERSPC study. Biopsies were taken in men with a PSA level ≥3.0 ng/ml or a PCA3 score ≥10. Additional analyses of the 4k-panel were done on serum samples. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcome was defined as PCa detectable by sextant biopsy. Receiver operating characteristic curve and decision curve analyses were performed to compare the predictive capabilities of %fPSA, PCA3, 4k-panel, the ERSPC RCs, and their combinations in logistic regression models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: PCa was detected in 119 of 708 men. The %fPSA did not perform better univariately or added to the RCs compared with the RCs alone. In 202 men with an elevated PSA, the 4k-panel discriminated better than PCA3 when modelled univariately (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.78 vs. 0.62; p=0.01). The multivariable models with PCA3 or the 4k-panel were equivalent (AUC: 0.80 for RC 4+DRE). In the total population, PCA3 discriminated better than the 4k-panel (univariate AUC: 0.63 vs. 0.56; p=0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the multivariable model with PCA3 (AUC: 0.73) versus the model with the 4k-panel (AUC: 0.71; p=0.18). The multivariable model with PCA3 performed better than the reference model (0.73 vs. 0.70; p=0.02). Decision curves confirmed these patterns, although numbers were small. CONCLUSIONS: Both PCA3 and, to a lesser extent, a 4k-panel have added value to the DRE-based ERSPC RC in detecting PCa in prescreened men. PATIENT SUMMARY: We studied the added value of novel biomarkers to previously developed risk prediction models for prostate cancer. We found that inclusion of these biomarkers resulted in an increase in predictive ability.
Keywords:
Kallikrein panel (4k-panel); Percentage of free to total PSA; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3); Prostate cancer risk calculator; Validation
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew Vickers; Angel Cronin; Monique Roobol; Caroline Savage; Mari Peltola; Kim Pettersson; Peter T Scardino; Fritz Schröder; Hans Lilja Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marco Auprich; Alexander Haese; Jochen Walz; Karl Pummer; Alexandre de la Taille; Markus Graefen; Theo de Reijke; Margit Fisch; Paul Kil; Paolo Gontero; Jacques Irani; Felix K-H Chun Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-07-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marco Auprich; Felix K-H Chun; John F Ward; Karl Pummer; Richard Babaian; Herbert Augustin; Ferdinand Luger; Stefan Gutschi; Lars Budäus; Margit Fisch; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Alexander Haese Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Geert L J H van Leenders; Daphne Hessels; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Tineke Wolters; Pim J van Leeuwen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-09-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Pim van Leeuwen; Tineke Wolters; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Geert J L H van Leenders; Daphne Hessels Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-07-09 Impact factor: 20.096
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: A Gupta; M J Roobol; C J Savage; M Peltola; K Pettersson; P T Scardino; A J Vickers; F H Schröder; H Lilja Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-07-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Padraic G O'Malley; Daniel P Nguyen; Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh; Guojiao Wu; Ian M Thompson; Martin Sanda; Mark Rubin; John T Wei; Richard Lee; Paul Christos; Christopher Barbieri; Douglas S Scherr Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew Vickers; Emily A Vertosick; Daniel D Sjoberg; Monique J Roobol; Freddie Hamdy; David Neal; Anders Bjartell; Jonas Hugosson; Jenny L Donovan; Arnauld Villers; Stephen Zappala; Hans Lilja Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Robert K Nam; Raj Satkunavisam; Joseph L Chin; Jonathan Izawa; John Trachtenberg; Ricardo Rendon; David Bell; Rajiv Singal; Christopher Sherman; Linda Sugar; Kevin Chagin; Michael W Kattan Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 1.862