Peter K F Chiu1, Monique J Roobol2, Jeremy Y Teoh1, Wai-Man Lee1, Siu-Ying Yip1, See-Ming Hou1, Chris H Bangma2, Chi-Fai Ng3,4. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. 2. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. ngcf@surgery.cuhk.edu.hk. 4. Department of Surgery, SH Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. ngcf@surgery.cuhk.edu.hk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate PSA- and PHI (prostate health index)-based models for prediction of prostate cancer (PCa) and the feasibility of using DRE-estimated prostate volume (DRE-PV) in the models. METHODS: This study included 569 Chinese men with PSA 4-10 ng/mL and non-suspicious DRE with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) 10-core prostate biopsies performed between April 2008 and July 2015. DRE-PV was estimated using 3 pre-defined classes: 25, 40, or 60 ml. The performance of PSA-based and PHI-based predictive models including age, DRE-PV, and TRUS prostate volume (TRUS-PV) was analyzed using logistic regression and area under the receiver operating curves (AUC), in both the whole cohort and the screening age group of 55-75. RESULTS: PCa and high-grade PCa (HGPCa) was diagnosed in 10.9 % (62/569) and 2.8 % (16/569) men, respectively. The performance of DRE-PV-based models was similar to TRUS-PV-based models. In the age group 55-75, the AUCs for PCa of PSA alone, PSA with DRE-PV and age, PHI alone, PHI with DRE-PV and age, and PHI with TRUS-PV and age were 0.54, 0.71, 0.76, 0.78, and 0.78, respectively. The corresponding AUCs for HGPCa were higher (0.60, 0.70, 0.85, 0.83, and 0.83). At 10 and 20 % risk threshold for PCa, 38.4 and 55.4 % biopsies could be avoided in the PHI-based model, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PHI had better performance over PSA-based models and could reduce unnecessary biopsies. A DRE-assessed PV can replace TRUS-assessed PV in multivariate prediction models to facilitate clinical use.
PURPOSE: To investigate PSA- and PHI (prostate health index)-based models for prediction of prostate cancer (PCa) and the feasibility of using DRE-estimated prostate volume (DRE-PV) in the models. METHODS: This study included 569 Chinese men with PSA 4-10 ng/mL and non-suspicious DRE with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) 10-core prostate biopsies performed between April 2008 and July 2015. DRE-PV was estimated using 3 pre-defined classes: 25, 40, or 60 ml. The performance of PSA-based and PHI-based predictive models including age, DRE-PV, and TRUS prostate volume (TRUS-PV) was analyzed using logistic regression and area under the receiver operating curves (AUC), in both the whole cohort and the screening age group of 55-75. RESULTS: PCa and high-grade PCa (HGPCa) was diagnosed in 10.9 % (62/569) and 2.8 % (16/569) men, respectively. The performance of DRE-PV-based models was similar to TRUS-PV-based models. In the age group 55-75, the AUCs for PCa of PSA alone, PSA with DRE-PV and age, PHI alone, PHI with DRE-PV and age, and PHI with TRUS-PV and age were 0.54, 0.71, 0.76, 0.78, and 0.78, respectively. The corresponding AUCs for HGPCa were higher (0.60, 0.70, 0.85, 0.83, and 0.83). At 10 and 20 % risk threshold for PCa, 38.4 and 55.4 % biopsies could be avoided in the PHI-based model, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PHI had better performance over PSA-based models and could reduce unnecessary biopsies. A DRE-assessed PV can replace TRUS-assessed PV in multivariate prediction models to facilitate clinical use.
Authors: Donna P Ankerst; Josef Hoefler; Sebastian Bock; Phyllis J Goodman; Andrew Vickers; Javier Hernandez; Lori J Sokoll; Martin G Sanda; John T Wei; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson Journal: Urology Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.649
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: Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Edward P Gelmann; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Richard B Hayes; Barnett S Kramer; Grant Izmirlian; Anthony B Miller; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Janet Bouttell; Jeremy Teoh; Peter K Chiu; Kevin S Chan; Chi-Fai Ng; Robert Heggie; Neil Hawkins Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Da Huang; Yi-Shuo Wu; Ding-Wei Ye; Jun Qi; Fang Liu; Brian T Helfand; Siqun L Zheng; Qiang Ding; Dan-Feng Xu; Rong Na; Jian-Feng Xu; Ying-Hao Sun Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2020 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.285
Authors: Edna Keeney; Howard Thom; Emma Turner; Richard M Martin; Josie Morley; Sabina Sanghera Journal: Value Health Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 5.725