Enrique Gómez-Gómez1, Julia Carrasco-Valiente2, Ana Blanca-Pedregosa3, Beatriz Barco-Sánchez2, Jose Luis Fernandez-Rueda4, Helena Molina-Abril4, Jose Valero-Rosa2, Pilar Font-Ugalde5, Maria José Requena-Tapia2. 1. Urology Department, Reina Sofia University Hospital/IMIBIC/University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain. Electronic address: enriquegomezgomez@yahoo.es. 2. Urology Department, Reina Sofia University Hospital/IMIBIC/University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain. 3. IMIBIC/University of Cordoba/Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba, Spain. 4. Innovation and Analysis Department, IMIBIC/Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba, Spain. 5. Medicine Department, Reina Sofia University Hospital/IMIBIC/University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator (RC) and to evaluate its variability between 2 consecutive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively catalogued 1021 consecutive patients before prostate biopsy for suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). The risk of PCa and significant PCa (Gleason score ≥7) from 749 patients was calculated according to ERSPC-RC (digital rectal examination-based version 3 of 4) for 2 consecutive PSA tests per patient. The calculators' predictions were analyzed using calibration plots and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (area under the curve). Cohen kappa coefficient was used to compare the ability and variability. RESULTS: Of 749 patients, PCa was detected in 251 (33.5%) and significant PCa was detected in 133 (17.8%). Calibration plots showed an acceptable parallelism and similar discrimination ability for both PSA levels with an area under the curve of 0.69 for PCa and 0.74 for significant PCa. The ERSPC showed 226 (30.2%) unnecessary biopsies with the loss of 10 significant PCa. The variability of the RC was 16% for PCa and 20% for significant PCa, and a higher variability was associated with a reduced risk of significant PCa. CONCLUSION: We can conclude that the performance of the ERSPC-RC in the present cohort shows a high similitude between the 2 PSA levels; however, the RC variability value is associated with a decreased risk of significant PCa. The use of the ERSPC in our cohort detects a high number of unnecessary biopsies. Thus, the incorporation of ERSPC-RC could help the clinical decision to carry out a prostate biopsy.
OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator (RC) and to evaluate its variability between 2 consecutive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively catalogued 1021 consecutive patients before prostate biopsy for suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). The risk of PCa and significant PCa (Gleason score ≥7) from 749 patients was calculated according to ERSPC-RC (digital rectal examination-based version 3 of 4) for 2 consecutive PSA tests per patient. The calculators' predictions were analyzed using calibration plots and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (area under the curve). Cohen kappa coefficient was used to compare the ability and variability. RESULTS: Of 749 patients, PCa was detected in 251 (33.5%) and significant PCa was detected in 133 (17.8%). Calibration plots showed an acceptable parallelism and similar discrimination ability for both PSA levels with an area under the curve of 0.69 for PCa and 0.74 for significant PCa. The ERSPC showed 226 (30.2%) unnecessary biopsies with the loss of 10 significant PCa. The variability of the RC was 16% for PCa and 20% for significant PCa, and a higher variability was associated with a reduced risk of significant PCa. CONCLUSION: We can conclude that the performance of the ERSPC-RC in the present cohort shows a high similitude between the 2 PSA levels; however, the RC variability value is associated with a decreased risk of significant PCa. The use of the ERSPC in our cohort detects a high number of unnecessary biopsies. Thus, the incorporation of ERSPC-RC could help the clinical decision to carry out a prostate biopsy.
Authors: Ana Rita Lima; Joana Pinto; Maria de Lourdes Bastos; Márcia Carvalho; Paula Guedes de Pinho Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 4.290
Authors: Jan Chandra Engel; Thorgerdur Palsdottir; Donna Ankerst; Sebastiaan Remmers; Ashkan Mortezavi; Venkatesh Chellappa; Lars Egevad; Henrik Grönberg; Martin Eklund; Tobias Nordström Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-05-19
Authors: Javier Moreno-Montañés; Ana García-Nieva; Indira Aristeguieta Osio; Adriano Guarnieri; Antonio Morilla-Grasa; Marta García-Granero; Alfonso Antón Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Maria Frantzi; Enrique Gomez Gomez; Ana Blanca Pedregosa; José Valero Rosa; Agnieszka Latosinska; Zoran Culig; Axel S Merseburger; Raul M Luque; María José Requena Tapia; Harald Mischak; Julia Carrasco Valiente Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 7.640
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: Maria Frantzi; Isabel Heidegger; Marie C Roesch; Enrique Gomez-Gomez; Eberhard Steiner; Antonia Vlahou; William Mullen; Ipek Guler; Axel S Merseburger; Harald Mischak; Zoran Culig Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-07-16 Impact factor: 3.661