Article

Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators.

Erasmus University Medical Centre, Department of Urology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
European Urology (Impact Factor: 12.48). 11/2011; 61(3):577-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators (RCs) are validated tools for prostate cancer (PCa) risk assessment and include prostate volume (PV) data from transrectal ultrasound (TRUS).
Develop and validate an RC based on digital rectal examination (DRE) that circumvents the need for TRUS but still includes information on PV.
For development of the DRE-based RC, we studied the original ERSPC Rotterdam RC population including 3624 men (885 PCa cases) and 2896 men (547 PCa cases) detected at first and repeat screening 4 yr later, respectively. A validation cohort consisted of 322 men, screened in 2010-2011 as participants in ERSPC Rotterdam.
Data on TRUS-assessed PV in the development cohorts were re-coded into three categories (25, 40, and 60 cm3) to assess the loss of information by categorization of volume information. New RCs including PSA, DRE, and PV categories (DRE-based RC) were developed for men with and without a previous negative biopsy to predict overall and clinically significant PCa (high-grade [HG] PCa) defined as T stage>T2b and/or Gleason score≥7. Predictive accuracy was quantified by the area under the receiver operating curve. We compared performance with the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) RC in the validation study.
Areas under the curve (AUC) of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) alone, PSA and DRE, the DRE-based RC, and the original ERSPC RC to predict PCa at initial biopsy were 0.69, 0.73, 0.77, and 0.79, respectively. The corresponding AUCs for predicting HG PCa were higher (0.74, 0.82, 0.85, and 0.86). Similar results were seen in men previously biopsied and in the validation cohort. The DRE-based RC outperformed the PCPT RC (AUC 0.69 vs 0.59; p=0.0001) and a model based on PSA and DRE only (AUC 0.69 vs 0.63; p=0.0075) in the relatively small validation cohort. Further validation is required.
An RC should contain volume estimates based either on TRUS or DRE. Replacing TRUS measurements by DRE estimates may enhance implementation in the daily practice of urologists and general practitioners.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Monique J Roobol, Jun 21, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
179 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) assay in combination with established clinical risk factors improves the identification of men at risk of harboring prostate cancer (PCa) at initial biopsy (IBX). OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate internally the first IBX-specific PCA3-based nomogram that allows an individual assessment of a man's risk of harboring any PCa and high-grade PCa (HGPCa). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Clinical and biopsy data including urinary PCA3 score of 692 referred IBX men at risk of PCa were collected within two prospective multi-institutional studies. INTERVENTION: IBX (≥10 biopsy cores) with standard risk factor assessment including prebiopsy urinary PCA3 measurement. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PCA3 assay cut-off thresholds were investigated. Regression coefficients of logistic risk factor analyses were used to construct specific sets of PCA3-based nomograms to predict any PCa and HGPCa at IBX. Accuracy estimates for the presence of any PCa and HGPCa were quantified using area under the curve of the receiver operator characteristic analysis and compared with a clinical model. Bootstrap resamples were used for internal validation. Decision curve analyses quantified the clinical net benefit related to the novel PCA3-based IBX nomogram versus the clinical model. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Any PCa and HGPCa were diagnosed in 46% (n=318) and 20% (n=137), respectively. Age, prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, prostate volume, and PCA3 were independent predictors of PCa at IBX (all p<0.001). The PCA3-based IBX nomograms significantly outperformed the clinical models without PCA3 (all p<0.001). Accuracy was increased by 4.5-7.1% related to PCA3 inclusion. When applying nomogram-derived PCa probability thresholds ≤30%, only a few patients with HGPCa (≤2%) will be missed while avoiding up to 55% of unnecessary biopsies. External validation of the PCA3-based IBX-specific nomogram is warranted. CONCLUSIONS: The internally validated PCA3-based IBX-specific nomogram outperforms a clinical prediction model without PCA3 for the prediction of any PCa, leading to the avoidance of unnecessary biopsies while missing only a few cases of HGPCa. Our findings support the concepts of a combination of novel markers with established clinical risk factors and the superiority of decision tools that are specific to a clinical scenario.
    European Urology 07/2012; 63(2). DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.07.030 · 12.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Inconclusive test results often occur after prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa), leading to uncertainty on whether, how, and when to repeat testing. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a prediction tool for the risk of PCa 4 yr after an initially negative screen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed data from 15 791 screen-negative men aged 55-70 yr at the initial screening round of the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Follow-up and repeat screening at 4 yr showed either no PCa, low-risk PCa, or potentially high-risk PCa (defined as clinical stage >T2b and/or biopsy Gleason score ≥7 and/or PSA ≥10.0 ng/ml). A multinomial logistic regression analysis included initial screening data on age, PSA, digital rectal examination (DRE), family history, prostate volume, and having had a previous negative biopsy. The 4-yr risk predictions were validated with additional follow-up data up to 8 yr after initial screening. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Positive family history and, especially, PSA level predicted PCa, whereas a previous negative biopsy or a large prostate volume reduced the likelihood of future PCa. The risk of having PCa 4 yr after an initially negative screen was 3.6% (interquartile range: 1.0-4.7%). Additional 8-yr follow-up data confirmed these predictions. Although data were based on sextant biopsies and a strict protocol-based biopsy indication, we suggest that men with a low predicted 4-yr risk (eg, ≤1.0%) could be rescreened at longer intervals or not at all, depending on competing risks, while men with an elevated 4-yr risk (eg, ≥5%) might benefit from immediate retesting. These findings need to be validated externally. CONCLUSIONS: This 4-yr future risk calculator, based on age, PSA, DRE, family history, prostate volume, and previous biopsy status, may be a promising tool for reducing uncertainty, unnecessary testing, and overdiagnosis of PCa.
    European Urology 07/2012; DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.07.029 · 12.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We aimed to compare nonlinear modeling methods for handling continuous predictors for reproducibility and transportability of prediction models. We analyzed four cohorts of previously unscreened men who underwent prostate biopsy for diagnosing prostate cancer. Continuous predictors of prostate cancer included prostate-specific antigen and prostate volume. The logistic regression models included linear terms, logarithmic terms, fractional polynomials of degree one or two (FP1 and FP2), or restricted cubic splines (RCS) with three or five knots (RCS3 and RCS5). The resulting models were internally validated by bootstrap resampling and externally validated in the cohorts not used at model development. Performance was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the calibration component of the Brier score (CAL). At internal validation models with FP2 or RCS5 showed slightly better performance than the other models (typically 0.004 difference in AUC and 0.001 in CAL). At external validation models containing logarithms, FP1, or RCS3 showed better performance (differences 0.01 and 0.002). Flexible nonlinear modeling methods led to better model performance at internal validation. However, when application of the model is intended across a wide range of settings, less flexible functions may be more appropriate to maximize external validity. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 04/2015; 68(4):426-34. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.022 · 5.48 Impact Factor