M Maruf1, M Fascelli1, A K George1, M M Siddiqui2, M Kongnyuy1, J M DiBianco1, A Muthigi1, S Valayil1, A Sidana1, T P Frye1, A Kilchevsky1, P L Choyke3, B Turkbey3, B J Wood4, P A Pinto1. 1. Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Urologic Oncology Branch, Bethesda, MD, USA. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute & NIH Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 (PCPTRC) is a widely used risk-based calculator used to assess a man's risk of prostate cancer (PCa) before biopsy. This risk calculator was created from data of a patient cohort undergoing a 6-core sextant biopsy, and subsequently validated in men undergoing 12-core systematic biopsy (SBx). The accuracy of the PCPTRC has not been studied in patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion-guided biopsy (FBx). We sought to assess the performance of the PCPTRC for straitifying PCa risk in a FBx cohort. METHODS: A review of a prospective cohort undergoing MRI and FBx/SBx was conducted. Data from consecutive FBx/SBx were collected between August 2007 and February 2014, and PCPTRC scores using the PCPTRC2.0R-code were calculated. The risk of positive biopsy and high-grade cancer (Gleason ⩾7) on biopsy was calculated and compared with overall and high-grade cancer detection rates (CDRs). Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated and the areas under the curves (AUCs) were compared using DeLong's test. RESULTS: Of 595 men included in the study, PCa was detected in 39% (232) by SBx compared with 48% (287) on combined FBx/SBx biopsy. The PCPTRC AUCs for the CDR were similar (P=0.70) for SBx (0.69) and combined biopsy (0.70). For high-grade disease, AUCs for SBx (0.71) and combined biopsy (0.70) were slightly higher, but were not statistically different (P=0.55). CONCLUSIONS: In an MRI-screened population of men undergoing FBx, PCPTRC continues to represent a practical method of accurately stratifying PCa risk.
BACKGROUND: The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 (PCPTRC) is a widely used risk-based calculator used to assess a man's risk of prostate cancer (PCa) before biopsy. This risk calculator was created from data of a patient cohort undergoing a 6-core sextant biopsy, and subsequently validated in men undergoing 12-core systematic biopsy (SBx). The accuracy of the PCPTRC has not been studied in patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion-guided biopsy (FBx). We sought to assess the performance of the PCPTRC for straitifying PCa risk in a FBx cohort. METHODS: A review of a prospective cohort undergoing MRI and FBx/SBx was conducted. Data from consecutive FBx/SBx were collected between August 2007 and February 2014, and PCPTRC scores using the PCPTRC2.0R-code were calculated. The risk of positive biopsy and high-grade cancer (Gleason ⩾7) on biopsy was calculated and compared with overall and high-grade cancer detection rates (CDRs). Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated and the areas under the curves (AUCs) were compared using DeLong's test. RESULTS: Of 595 men included in the study, PCa was detected in 39% (232) by SBx compared with 48% (287) on combined FBx/SBx biopsy. The PCPTRC AUCs for the CDR were similar (P=0.70) for SBx (0.69) and combined biopsy (0.70). For high-grade disease, AUCs for SBx (0.71) and combined biopsy (0.70) were slightly higher, but were not statistically different (P=0.55). CONCLUSIONS: In an MRI-screened population of men undergoing FBx, PCPTRC continues to represent a practical method of accurately stratifying PCa risk.
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: Dmitry Volkin; Baris Turkbey; Anthony N Hoang; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Nitin Yerram; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Jeffrey W Nix; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-10-18 Impact factor: 5.588
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: Christopher P Filson; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Patricia Lieu; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 6.860
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