Onder Kara1,2, Ahmed Elshafei3,4, Yaw A Nyame3, Bulent Akdogan5, Ercan Malkoc3,6, Tianming Gao7, Mesut Altan5, Burak Citamak5, Emin Mammadov5, Furkan Dursun6, Daniel J Greene3, Temucin Senkul6, Ferhat Ates6, Haluk Ozen5, J Stephen Jones3. 1. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. onerkara@yahoo.com. 2. Urology Department, Medical School, Amasya University, Amasya, Turkey. onerkara@yahoo.com. 3. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Urology Department, Al Kasr Al Aini Hospital, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt. 5. Urology Department, Medical School, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. 6. Urology Department, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Haydarpasa Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 7. Quantitative Health Sciences Department, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The utility of a nomogram is based on the patient population it is designed for-and their inherent properties and biases. Our aim was to demonstrate the variability in predictive model accuracy and utility between different populations. METHODS: Our model is based on 761 men who underwent initial TRUS biopsy at a single institution in Turkey. Patients were included if they had at least 10 cores on biopsy and PSA level <20 ng/ml. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to develop a new nomogram. External validity was tested with two different cohorts one from another institution in Turkey (N = 136) and cohort from USA (N = 2242). RESULTS: Prostate cancer (PCa) and high-grade PCa was diagnosed in 249/761 (32.7 %) and 101/761 (13.3 %) patients from Ankara, Turkey, respectively. Predictors of PCa were age (p < 0.0001, OR 2.11), PSA (p = 0.044, OR 1.44), PV (p < 0.0001, OR 0.38), %fPSA (p = 0.016, OR 0.72), and abnormal DRE (p < 0.0001, OR 2.05). The predictive accuracy (c-index) of our nomogram was 73 %. C-indices of 71 and 70 % were recorded in external validation cohorts from Turkey and the USA, respectively. Virtually ideal calibration was recorded for the internal validated predictive model, and good calibration was recorded when applied to the Istanbul cohort. However, the model/nomogram underestimates PCa risk in the US cohort. CONCLUSION: This is the first nomogram predicting the risk of PCa at initial biopsy in a Turkish population and provides a good risk estimation tool with good predictive accuracy and calibration in the Turkish populations. However, our study demonstrates the poor transferability of predictive tools to widely different populations.
PURPOSE: The utility of a nomogram is based on the patient population it is designed for-and their inherent properties and biases. Our aim was to demonstrate the variability in predictive model accuracy and utility between different populations. METHODS: Our model is based on 761 men who underwent initial TRUS biopsy at a single institution in Turkey. Patients were included if they had at least 10 cores on biopsy and PSA level <20 ng/ml. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to develop a new nomogram. External validity was tested with two different cohorts one from another institution in Turkey (N = 136) and cohort from USA (N = 2242). RESULTS:Prostate cancer (PCa) and high-grade PCa was diagnosed in 249/761 (32.7 %) and 101/761 (13.3 %) patients from Ankara, Turkey, respectively. Predictors of PCa were age (p < 0.0001, OR 2.11), PSA (p = 0.044, OR 1.44), PV (p < 0.0001, OR 0.38), %fPSA (p = 0.016, OR 0.72), and abnormal DRE (p < 0.0001, OR 2.05). The predictive accuracy (c-index) of our nomogram was 73 %. C-indices of 71 and 70 % were recorded in external validation cohorts from Turkey and the USA, respectively. Virtually ideal calibration was recorded for the internal validated predictive model, and good calibration was recorded when applied to the Istanbul cohort. However, the model/nomogram underestimates PCa risk in the US cohort. CONCLUSION: This is the first nomogram predicting the risk of PCa at initial biopsy in a Turkish population and provides a good risk estimation tool with good predictive accuracy and calibration in the Turkish populations. However, our study demonstrates the poor transferability of predictive tools to widely different populations.
Entities:
Keywords:
Nomogram; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Adam B Murphy; Folasade Akereyeni; Yaw A Nyame; Mignonne C Guy; Iman K Martin; Courtney M P Hollowell; Kelly Walker; Rick A Kittles; Chiledum Ahaghotu Journal: Prostate Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Mark Garzotto; R Guy Hudson; Laura Peters; Yi-Ching Hsieh; Eduardo Barrera; Motomi Mori; Tomasz M Beer; Thomas Klein Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Yong Mee Cho; Soo Jin Jung; Namhoon Cho; Min-Ju Kim; Michael W Kattan; Changhong Yu; Hanjong Ahn; Jae Y Ro Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 4.226