Cédric Poyet1, Marian S Wettstein1, Dara J Lundon2, Bimal Bhindi3, Girish S Kulkarni3, Karim Saba1, Tullio Sulser1, A J Vickers4, Thomas Hermanns5. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 2. Department of Urology, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 3. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: thomas.hermanns@usz.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We externally validated a novel prostate cancer risk calculator based on data from the Swiss arm of the ERSPC and assessed whether the risk calculator (ProstateCheck) is superior to the PCPT-RC and SWOP-RC in an independent Swiss cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from all men who underwent prostate biopsy at an academic tertiary care center between 2004 and 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. The probability of having any prostate cancer or high grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 7 or greater) on prostate biopsy was calculated using the ProstateCheck. Risk calculator performance was assessed using calibration and discrimination, and additionally compared with the PCPT-RC and SWOP-RC by decision curve analyses. RESULTS: Of 1,615 men 401 (25%) were diagnosed with any prostate cancer and 196 (12%) with high grade prostate cancer. Our analyses of the ProstateCheck-RC revealed good calibration in the low risk range (0 to 0.4) and moderate overestimation in the higher risk range (0.4 to 1) for any and high grade prostate cancer. The AUC for the discrimination of any prostate cancer and high grade prostate cancer was 0.69 and 0.72, respectively, which was slightly but significantly higher compared to the PCPT-RC (0.66 and 0.69, respectively) and SWOP-RC (0.64 and 0.70, respectively). Decision analysis, taking into account the harms of transrectal ultrasound measurement of prostate volume, showed little benefit for ProstateCheck-RC, with properties inferior to those of the PCPT-RC and SWOP-RC. CONCLUSIONS: Our independent external evaluation revealed moderate performance of the ProstateCheck-RC. Its clinical benefit is limited, and inferior to that of the PCPT-RC and SWOP-RC.
PURPOSE: We externally validated a novel prostate cancer risk calculator based on data from the Swiss arm of the ERSPC and assessed whether the risk calculator (ProstateCheck) is superior to the PCPT-RC and SWOP-RC in an independent Swiss cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from all men who underwent prostate biopsy at an academic tertiary care center between 2004 and 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. The probability of having any prostate cancer or high grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 7 or greater) on prostate biopsy was calculated using the ProstateCheck. Risk calculator performance was assessed using calibration and discrimination, and additionally compared with the PCPT-RC and SWOP-RC by decision curve analyses. RESULTS: Of 1,615 men 401 (25%) were diagnosed with any prostate cancer and 196 (12%) with high grade prostate cancer. Our analyses of the ProstateCheck-RC revealed good calibration in the low risk range (0 to 0.4) and moderate overestimation in the higher risk range (0.4 to 1) for any and high grade prostate cancer. The AUC for the discrimination of any prostate cancer and high grade prostate cancer was 0.69 and 0.72, respectively, which was slightly but significantly higher compared to the PCPT-RC (0.66 and 0.69, respectively) and SWOP-RC (0.64 and 0.70, respectively). Decision analysis, taking into account the harms of transrectal ultrasound measurement of prostate volume, showed little benefit for ProstateCheck-RC, with properties inferior to those of the PCPT-RC and SWOP-RC. CONCLUSIONS: Our independent external evaluation revealed moderate performance of the ProstateCheck-RC. Its clinical benefit is limited, and inferior to that of the PCPT-RC and SWOP-RC.
Authors: Monique J Roobol; Heidi A van Vugt; Stacy Loeb; Xiaoye Zhu; Meelan Bul; Chris H Bangma; Arno G L J H van Leenders; Ewout W Steyerberg; Fritz H Schröder Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 20.096
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: 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; 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 Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-04-22 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Simpa S Salami; Manish A Vira; Baris Turkbey; Mathew Fakhoury; Oksana Yaskiv; Robert Villani; Eran Ben-Levi; Ardeshir R Rastinehad Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Robert W Foley; Robert M Maweni; Laura Gorman; Keefe Murphy; Dara J Lundon; Garrett Durkan; Richard Power; Frank O'Brien; Kieran J O'Malley; David J Galvin; T Brendan Murphy; R William Watson Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 5.588