Rui Chen1, Jan F M Verbeek2, Yue Yang1, Zijian Song1, Yinghao Sun3, Monique J Roobol4. 1. Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Changhai Road 168, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China. 2. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Room Na1706, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Changhai Road 168, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China. sunyhsmmu@126.com. 4. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Room Na1706, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.roobol@erasmusmc.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To externally validate the clinical utility of Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium Risk Calculator (CPCC-RC) and Asian adapted Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator 3 (A-ERSPC-RC3) for prediction prostate cancer (PCa) and high-grade prostate cancer (HGPCa, Gleason Score ≥ 3 + 4) in both Chinese and European populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Chinese clinical cohort, the European population-based screening cohort, and the European clinical cohort included 2,508, 3,616 and 617 prostate biopsy-naive men, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plot and decision curve analyses were applied in the analysis. RESULTS: The CPCC-RC's predictive ability for any PCa (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.75-0.79) was lower than the A-ERSPC-RC3 (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.81) in the European screening cohort (p < 0.001), but similar for HGPCa (p = 0.24). The CPCC-RC showed lower predictive accuracy for any PCa (AUC 0.65, 95% CI 0.61-0.70), but acceptable predictive accuracy for HGPCa (AUC 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.77) in the European clinical cohort. The A-ERSPC-RC3 showed an AUC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72-0.76) in predicting any PCa, and a similar AUC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72-0.76) in predicting HGPCa in Chinese cohort. In the Chinese population, decision curve analysis revealed a higher net benefit for CPCC-RC than A-ERSPC-RC3, while in the European screening and clinical cohorts, the net benefit was higher for A-ERSPC-RC3. CONCLUSIONS: The A-ERSPC-RC3 accurately predict the prostate biopsy in a contemporary Chinese multi-center clinical cohort. The CPCC-RC can predict accurately in a population-based screening cohort, but not in the European clinical cohort.
PURPOSE: To externally validate the clinical utility of Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium Risk Calculator (CPCC-RC) and Asian adapted Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator 3 (A-ERSPC-RC3) for prediction prostate cancer (PCa) and high-grade prostate cancer (HGPCa, Gleason Score ≥ 3 + 4) in both Chinese and European populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Chinese clinical cohort, the European population-based screening cohort, and the European clinical cohort included 2,508, 3,616 and 617 prostate biopsy-naive men, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plot and decision curve analyses were applied in the analysis. RESULTS: The CPCC-RC's predictive ability for any PCa (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.75-0.79) was lower than the A-ERSPC-RC3 (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.81) in the European screening cohort (p < 0.001), but similar for HGPCa (p = 0.24). The CPCC-RC showed lower predictive accuracy for any PCa (AUC 0.65, 95% CI 0.61-0.70), but acceptable predictive accuracy for HGPCa (AUC 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.77) in the European clinical cohort. The A-ERSPC-RC3 showed an AUC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72-0.76) in predicting any PCa, and a similar AUC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72-0.76) in predicting HGPCa in Chinese cohort. In the Chinese population, decision curve analysis revealed a higher net benefit for CPCC-RC than A-ERSPC-RC3, while in the European screening and clinical cohorts, the net benefit was higher for A-ERSPC-RC3. CONCLUSIONS: The A-ERSPC-RC3 accurately predict the prostate biopsy in a contemporary Chinese multi-center clinical cohort. The CPCC-RC can predict accurately in a population-based screening cohort, but not in the European clinical cohort.
Entities:
Keywords:
Asian populations; Biopsy; Clinical prediction model; External validation; Net benefit; Prostate cancer; Risk calculators
Authors: Juan Morote; Angel Borque-Fernando; Marina Triquell; Anna Celma; Lucas Regis; Richard Mast; Inés M de Torres; María E Semidey; José M Abascal; Pol Servian; Anna Santamaría; Jacques Planas; Luis M Esteban; Enrique Trilla Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Maximilian Pallauf; Fabian Steinkohl; Georg Zimmermann; Maximilian Horetzky; Pawel Rajwa; Benjamin Pradere; Andrea Katharina Lindner; Renate Pichler; Thomas Kunit; Shahrokh F Shariat; Lukas Lusuardi; Martin Drerup Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 3.661