Jan F M Verbeek1, Chris H Bangma2, Charlotte F Kweldam3, Theodorus H van der Kwast4, Intan P Kümmerlin3, Geert J L H van Leenders3, Monique J Roobol2. 1. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.f.m.verbeek@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Pathology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Pathology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of risk calculators predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (csCaP) on biopsy reduces unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of indolent disease compared to a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) strategy. Updating these tools using more specific outcome measures and contemporary predictors could potentially lead to further reductions. Our objective was to assess clinical impact of the 4 kallikrein (4K) score, the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC), and the combination of both for predicting csCaP based on the latest International Society of Urological Pathology grading system and cribriform growth pattern. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our prospective cohort consisted of 2,872 men from the first screening round in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam; biopsy indication PSA ≥ 3.0. The predictive performance of the 4Kscore, RPCRC, and the combination of RPCRC with 4Kscore were assessed with area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots. Decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the reduction of unnecessary biopsy and indolent CaP. RESULTS: The csCaP was present in 242 (8%) men, and indolent CaP in 578 (20%). The 4Kscore and RPCRC had similar high AUCs (0.88 vs. 0.87; P = 0.41). The 4Kscore-RPCRC combination improved AUC to 0.89 compared to 4Kscore (P < 0.01) and RPCRC (P < 0.01). The RPCRC and 4Kscore reduced the number of Bx with 42 and 44, respectively, per 100 men at risk compared to a ≥PSA 3.0 strategy without increasing missed csCaP. The RPCRC-4Kscore combination resulted in a slight additional net reduction of 3.3 biopsies per 100 men. CONCLUSIONS: The RPCRC and 4Kscore had similar reductions of unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of indolent disease. Combination of both models slightly reduced unnecessary biopsies further. Gain in net benefit must, however, be weighed against additional costs and availability of tests.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The use of risk calculators predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (csCaP) on biopsy reduces unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of indolent disease compared to a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) strategy. Updating these tools using more specific outcome measures and contemporary predictors could potentially lead to further reductions. Our objective was to assess clinical impact of the 4 kallikrein (4K) score, the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC), and the combination of both for predicting csCaP based on the latest International Society of Urological Pathology grading system and cribriform growth pattern. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our prospective cohort consisted of 2,872 men from the first screening round in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam; biopsy indication PSA ≥ 3.0. The predictive performance of the 4Kscore, RPCRC, and the combination of RPCRC with 4Kscore were assessed with area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots. Decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the reduction of unnecessary biopsy and indolent CaP. RESULTS: The csCaP was present in 242 (8%) men, and indolent CaP in 578 (20%). The 4Kscore and RPCRC had similar high AUCs (0.88 vs. 0.87; P = 0.41). The 4Kscore-RPCRC combination improved AUC to 0.89 compared to 4Kscore (P < 0.01) and RPCRC (P < 0.01). The RPCRC and 4Kscore reduced the number of Bx with 42 and 44, respectively, per 100 men at risk compared to a ≥PSA 3.0 strategy without increasing missed csCaP. The RPCRC-4Kscore combination resulted in a slight additional net reduction of 3.3 biopsies per 100 men. CONCLUSIONS: The RPCRC and 4Kscore had similar reductions of unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of indolent disease. Combination of both models slightly reduced unnecessary biopsies further. Gain in net benefit must, however, be weighed against additional costs and availability of tests.
Keywords:
Clinical prediction model; Cribriform growth; European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer; International Society of Urological Pathology grading system; Kallikrein panel; Prostate cancer
Authors: Elizabeth C Page; Elizabeth K Bancroft; Mark N Brook; Melissa Assel; Mona Hassan Al Battat; Sarah Thomas; Natalie Taylor; Anthony Chamberlain; Jennifer Pope; Holly Ni Raghallaigh; D Gareth Evans; Jeanette Rothwell; Lovise Maehle; Eli Marie Grindedal; Paul James; Lyon Mascarenhas; Joanne McKinley; Lucy Side; Tessy Thomas; Christi van Asperen; Hans Vasen; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Janneke Ringelberg; Thomas Dyrsø Jensen; Palle J S Osther; Brian T Helfand; Elena Genova; Rogier A Oldenburg; Cezary Cybulski; Dominika Wokolorczyk; Kai-Ren Ong; Camilla Huber; Jimmy Lam; Louise Taylor; Monica Salinas; Lidia Feliubadaló; Jan C Oosterwijk; Wendy van Zelst-Stams; Jackie Cook; Derek J Rosario; Susan Domchek; Jacquelyn Powers; Saundra Buys; Karen O'Toole; Margreet G E M Ausems; Rita K Schmutzler; Kerstin Rhiem; Louise Izatt; Vishakha Tripathi; Manuel R Teixeira; Marta Cardoso; William D Foulkes; Armen Aprikian; Heleen van Randeraad; Rosemarie Davidson; Mark Longmuir; Mariëlle W G Ruijs; Apollonia T J M Helderman van den Enden; Muriel Adank; Rachel Williams; Lesley Andrews; Declan G Murphy; Dorothy Halliday; Lisa Walker; Annelie Liljegren; Stefan Carlsson; Ashraf Azzabi; Irene Jobson; Catherine Morton; Kylie Shackleton; Katie Snape; Helen Hanson; Marion Harris; Marc Tischkowitz; Amy Taylor; Judy Kirk; Rachel Susman; Rakefet Chen-Shtoyerman; Allan Spigelman; Nicholas Pachter; Munaza Ahmed; Teresa Ramon Y Cajal; Janez Zgajnar; Carole Brewer; Neus Gadea; Angela F Brady; Theo van Os; David Gallagher; Oskar Johannsson; Alan Donaldson; Julian Barwell; Nicola Nicolai; Eitan Friedman; Elias Obeid; Lynn Greenhalgh; Vedang Murthy; Lucia Copakova; Sibel Saya; John McGrath; Peter Cooke; Karina Rønlund; Kate Richardson; Alex Henderson; Soo H Teo; Banu Arun; Karin Kast; Alexander Dias; Neil K Aaronson; Audrey Ardern-Jones; Chris H Bangma; Elena Castro; David Dearnaley; Diana M Eccles; Karen Tricker; Jorunn Eyfjord; Alison Falconer; Christopher Foster; Henrik Gronberg; Freddie C Hamdy; Vigdis Stefansdottir; Vincent Khoo; Geoffrey J Lindeman; Jan Lubinski; Karol Axcrona; Christos Mikropoulos; Anita Mitra; Clare Moynihan; Gadi Rennert; Mohnish Suri; Penny Wilson; Tim Dudderidge; Judith Offman; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Andrew Vickers; Hans Lilja; Rosalind A Eeles Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Heminder Sokhi; Anwar R Padhani; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Lois Kim; Nicholas Boxall; Anne George; Keith Burling; Pete Acher; Jonathan Aning; Stuart McCracken; Toby Page; Vincent J Gnanapragasam Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Simone Flammia; Marco Frisenda; Martina Maggi; Fabio Massimo Magliocca; Antonio Ciardi; Valeria Panebianco; Ettore De Berardinis; Stefano Salciccia; Giovanni Battista Di Pierro; Alessandro Gentilucci; Francesco Del Giudice; Gian Maria Busetto; Michele Gallucci; Alessandro Sciarra Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 1.817