BACKGROUND: The decision to proceed to biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in clinical practice is a difficult one. Prostate cancer risk calculators allow for a systematic approach to the use of patient information to predict a patient's likelihood of prostate cancer. AIMS: In this paper, we validate the two leading prostate cancer risk calculators, the prostate cancer prevention trial (PCPT) and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) in an Irish population. METHODS: Data were collected for 337 men referred to one tertiary referral center in Ireland. Calibration analysis, ROC analysis and decision curve analysis were undertaken to ascertain the performance of the PCPT and the ERSPC risk calculators in this cohort. RESULTS: Of 337 consecutive biopsies, cancer was subsequently diagnosed in 146 men (43 %), 98 (67 %) of which were high grade. The AUC for the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators were 0.68 and 0.66, respectively for the prediction of prostate cancer. Each calculator was sufficiently calibrated in this cohort. Decision curve analysis demonstrated a net benefit via the use of the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators achieve a statistically significant prediction of prostate cancer in this Irish population. This study provides external validation for these calculators, and therefore these tools can be used to aid in clinical decision making.
BACKGROUND: The decision to proceed to biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in clinical practice is a difficult one. Prostate cancer risk calculators allow for a systematic approach to the use of patient information to predict a patient's likelihood of prostate cancer. AIMS: In this paper, we validate the two leading prostate cancer risk calculators, the prostate cancer prevention trial (PCPT) and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) in an Irish population. METHODS: Data were collected for 337 men referred to one tertiary referral center in Ireland. Calibration analysis, ROC analysis and decision curve analysis were undertaken to ascertain the performance of the PCPT and the ERSPC risk calculators in this cohort. RESULTS: Of 337 consecutive biopsies, cancer was subsequently diagnosed in 146 men (43 %), 98 (67 %) of which were high grade. The AUC for the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators were 0.68 and 0.66, respectively for the prediction of prostate cancer. Each calculator was sufficiently calibrated in this cohort. Decision curve analysis demonstrated a net benefit via the use of the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators achieve a statistically significant prediction of prostate cancer in this Irish population. This study provides external validation for these calculators, and therefore these tools can be used to aid in clinical decision making.
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 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: James C Forde; Laure Marignol; Ophelia Blake; Ted McDermott; Ronald Grainger; Vivien E Crowley; Thomas H Lynch Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 5.588
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: Ian M Thompson; Donna K Pauler; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Lori M Minasian; Leslie G Ford; Scott M Lippman; E David Crawford; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Monique J Roobol; F H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; J Stephen Jones; Michael W Kattan; Eric A Klein; Freddie Hamdy; David Neal; Jenny Donovan; Dipen J Parekh; Donna Ankerst; George Bartsch; Helmut Klocker; Wolfgang Horninger; Amine Benchikh; Gilles Salama; Arnauld Villers; Stephen J Freedland; Daniel M Moreira; Andrew J Vickers; Hans Lilja; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: World J Urol Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 4.226
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: Meghana Kulkarni; Simon Hughes; Andrew Mallia; Victoria Gibson; Jennifer Young; Ajay Aggarwal; Stephen Morris; Ben Challacombe; Rick Popert; Christian Brown; Paul Cathcart; Prokar Dasgupta; Victoria S Warbey; Gary J R Cook Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: F Roy MacKintosh; Preston C Sprenkle; Louise C Walter; Lori Rawson; R Jeffrey Karnes; Christopher H Morrell; Michael W Kattan; Cayce B Nawaf; Thomas B Neville Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 6.244