Literature DB >> 28162815

Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for Initial Prostate Biopsy by Incorporating the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading and Cribriform growth.

Monique J Roobol1, Jan F M Verbeek2, Theo van der Kwast3, Intan P Kümmerlin3, Charlotte F Kweldam3, Geert J L H van Leenders3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The survival rate for men with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 prostate cancer (PCa) without invasive cribriform (CR) and intraductal carcinoma (IDC) is similar to that for ISUP grade 1. If updated into the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC Rotterdam) risk calculator number 3 (RC3), this may further improve upfront selection of men who need a biopsy.
OBJECTIVE: To improve the number of possible biopsies avoided, while limiting undiagnosed clinically important PCa by applying the updated RC3 for risk-based patient selection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The RC3 is based on the first screening round of the ERSPC Rotterdam, which involved 3616 men. In 2015, histopathologic slides for PCa cases (n=885) were re-evaluated. Low-risk (LR) PCa was defined as ISUP grade 1 or 2 without CR/IDC. High-risk (HR) PCa was defined as ISUP grade 2 with CR/IDC and PCa with ISUP grade≥3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We updated the RC3 using multinomial logistic regression analysis, including data on age, PSA, digital rectal examination, and prostate volume, for predicting LR and HR PCa. Predictive accuracy was quantified using receiver operating characteristic analysis and decision curve analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Men without PCa could effectively be distinguished from men with LR PCa and HR PCa (area under the curve 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.72 and 0.92, 95% CI 0.90-0.94). At a 1% risk threshold, the updated calculator would lead to a 34% reduction in unnecessary biopsies, while only 2% of HR PCa cases would be undiagnosed.
CONCLUSIONS: A relatively simple risk stratification tool augmented with a highly sensitive contemporary pathologic biopsy classification would result in a considerable decrease in unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdiagnosis of potentially indolent disease. PATIENT
SUMMARY: We improved a well-known prostate risk calculator with a new pathology classification system that better reflects disease burden. This new risk calculator allows individualized prediction of the chance of having (potentially aggressive) biopsy-detectable prostate cancer and can guide shared decision-making when considering prostate biopsy.
Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cribriform; International Society of Urological Pathology grading system; Intraductal carcinoma; Prediction model; Prognosis; Prostate cancer; Risk calculator

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28162815     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  20 in total

1.  Population net benefit of prostate MRI with high spatiotemporal resolution contrast-enhanced imaging: A decision curve analysis.

Authors:  Vinay Prabhu; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ricardo Otazo; Daniel K Sodickson; Stella K Kang
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-01-10       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 2.  'Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator' mobile applications (Apps): a systematic review and scoring using the validated user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS).

Authors:  Ahmed Adam; Julian C Hellig; Marlon Perera; Damien Bolton; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Genetic and Epigenetic Determinants of Aggressiveness in Cribriform Carcinoma of the Prostate.

Authors:  Habiba Elfandy; Joshua Armenia; Filippo Pederzoli; Eli Pullman; Nelma Pertega-Gomes; Nikolaus Schultz; Kartik Viswanathan; Aram Vosoughi; Mirjam Blattner; Konrad H Stopsack; Giorgia Zadra; Kathryn L Penney; Juan Miguel Mosquera; Svitlana Tyekucheva; Lorelei A Mucci; Christopher Barbieri; Massimo Loda
Journal:  Mol Cancer Res       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 5.852

4.  Development and head-to-head comparison of machine-learning models to identify patients requiring prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Shuanbao Yu; Jin Tao; Biao Dong; Yafeng Fan; Haopeng Du; Haotian Deng; Jinshan Cui; Guodong Hong; Xuepei Zhang
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2021-05-16       Impact factor: 2.264

5.  Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome.

Authors:  Nuno Pereira-Azevedo; Jan F M Verbeek; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

Review 6.  On cribriform prostate cancer.

Authors:  Charlotte F Kweldam; Theodorus van der Kwast; Geert J van Leenders
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

7.  Can active surveillance really reduce the harms of overdiagnosing prostate cancer? A reflection of real life clinical practice in the PRIAS study.

Authors:  Frank-Jan H Drost; Antti Rannikko; Riccardo Valdagni; Tom Pickles; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Sebastiaan Remmers; Henk G van der Poel; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

Review 8.  Stopping screening, when and how?

Authors:  Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

9.  Downregulation of miR-133a-3p promotes prostate cancer bone metastasis via activating PI3K/AKT signaling.

Authors:  Yubo Tang; Jincheng Pan; Shuai Huang; Xinsheng Peng; Xuenong Zou; Yongxiang Luo; Dong Ren; Xin Zhang; Ronggang Li; Peiheng He; Qingde Wa
Journal:  J Exp Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2018-07-18

10.  The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Geert J L H van Leenders; Theodorus H van der Kwast; David J Grignon; Andrew J Evans; Glen Kristiansen; Charlotte F Kweldam; Geert Litjens; Jesse K McKenney; Jonathan Melamed; Nicholas Mottet; Gladell P Paner; Hemamali Samaratunga; Ivo G Schoots; Jeffry P Simko; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Murali Varma; Anne Y Warren; Thomas M Wheeler; Sean R Williamson; Kenneth A Iczkowski
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 6.298

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.