Dataset Information

Development and External Validation of the Korean Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for High-Grade Prostate Cancer: Comparison with Two Western Risk Calculators in an Asian Cohort.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

We developed the Korean Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for High-Grade Prostate Cancer (KPCRC-HG) that predicts the probability of prostate cancer (PC) of Gleason score 7 or higher at the initial prostate biopsy in a Korean cohort (http://acl.snu.ac.kr/PCRC/RISC/). In addition, KPCRC-HG was validated and compared with internet-based Western risk calculators in a validation cohort.

Materials and methods

Using a logistic regression model, KPCRC-HG was developed based on the data from 602 previously unscreened Korean men who underwent initial prostate biopsies. Using 2,313 cases in a validation cohort, KPCRC-HG was compared with the European Randomized Study of Screening for PC Risk Calculator for high-grade cancer (ERSPCRC-HG) and the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 for high-grade cancer (PCPTRC-HG). The predictive accuracy was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots.

Results

PC was detected in 172 (28.6%) men, 120 (19.9%) of whom had PC of Gleason score 7 or higher. Independent predictors included prostate-specific antigen levels, digital rectal examination findings, transrectal ultrasound findings, and prostate volume. The AUC of the KPCRC-HG (0.84) was higher than that of the PCPTRC-HG (0.79, p<0.001) but not different from that of the ERSPCRC-HG (0.83) on external validation. Calibration plots also revealed better performance of KPCRC-HG and ERSPCRC-HG than that of PCPTRC-HG on external validation. At a cut-off of 5% for KPCRC-HG, 253 of the 2,313 men (11%) would not have been biopsied, and 14 of the 614 PC cases with Gleason score 7 or higher (2%) would not have been diagnosed.

Conclusions

KPCRC-HG is the first web-based high-grade prostate cancer prediction model in Korea. It had higher predictive accuracy than PCPTRC-HG in a Korean population and showed similar performance with ERSPCRC-HG in a Korean population. This prediction model could help avoid unnecessary biopsy and reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment in clinical settings.

SUBMITTER: Park JY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5207506 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and External Validation of the Korean Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for High-Grade Prostate Cancer: Comparison with Two Western Risk Calculators in an Asian Cohort.

Park Jae Young JY Yoon Sungroh S Park Man Sik MS Choi Hoon H Bae Jae Hyun JH Moon Du Geon DG Hong Sung Kyu SK Lee Sang Eun SE Park Chanwang C Byun Seok-Soo SS

PloS one 20170103 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>We developed the Korean Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for High-Grade Prostate Cancer (KPCRC-HG) that predicts the probability of prostate cancer (PC) of Gleason score 7 or higher at the initial prostate biopsy in a Korean cohort (http://acl.snu.ac.kr/PCRC/RISC/). In addition, KPCRC-HG was validated and compared with internet-based Western risk calculators in a validation cohort.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Using a logistic regression model, KPCRC-HG was developed based on the ...[more]

PMID: 28046017

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExternal validation of risk calculators (RCs) is necessary to determine their clinical applicability beyond the setting in which these were developed.ObjectiveTo assess the performance of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer RC (RPCRC) and the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group RC (PBCG-RC).Design setting and participantsWe used data from the prospective, population-based STHLM3 screening study, performed in 2012-2015. Participants with prostate-specific antigen ≥3 ng/ml who underwent systematic prostate biopsies were included.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisProbabilities for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2, were calculated for each participant. External validity was assessed by calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness for both original and recalibrated models.Results and limitationsOut of 5841 men, 1054 (18%) had csPCa. Distribution of risk predictions differed between RCs; median risks for csPCa using the RPCRC and PBCG-RC were 3.3% (interquartile range [IQR] 2.1-7.1%) and 20% (IQR 15-28%), respectively. The correlation between RC risk estimates on individual level was moderate (Spearman's r = 0.55). Using the RPCRC's recommended risk threshold of ≥4% for finding csPCa, 36% of participants would get concordant biopsy recommendations. At 10% risk cut-off, RCs agreed in 23% of cases. Both RCs showed good discrimination, with areas under the curves for the RPCRC of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.76) and the PBCG-RC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.68-0.72). Calibration was adequate using the PBCG-RC (calibration slope: 1.13 [95% CI 1.03-1.23]), but the RPCRC underestimated the risk of csPCa (calibration slope: 0.73 [0.68-0.79]). The PBCG-RC showed a net benefit in a decision curve analysis, whereas the RPCRC showed no net benefit at clinically relevant risk threshold levels. Recalibration improved clinical benefit, and differences between RCs decreased.ConclusionsAssessment of calibration is essential to ensure the clinical value of risk prediction tools. The PBCG-RC provided clinical benefit in its current version online. On the contrary, the RPCRC cannot be recommended in this setting.Patient summaryPredicting the probability of finding prostate cancer on biopsy differed between two assessed risk calculators. After recalibration, the agreement of the models improved, and both were shown to be clinically useful.

Project description:ObjectivesTo develop and validate a prostate cancer (PCa) risk calculator (RC) incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and to compare its performance with that of the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) RC.Patients and methodsMen without a PCa diagnosis receiving mpMRI before biopsy in the Prospective Loyola University mpMRI (PLUM) Prostate Biopsy Cohort (2015-2020) were included. Data from a separate institution were used for external validation. The primary outcome was diagnosis of no cancer, grade group (GG)1 PCa, and clinically significant (cs)PCa (≥GG2). Binary logistic regression was used to explore standard clinical and mpMRI variables (prostate volume, Prostate Imaging-Reporting Data System [PI-RADS] version 2.0 lesions) with the final PLUM RC, based on a multinomial logistic regression model. Receiver-operating characteristic curve, calibration curves, and decision-curve analysis were evaluated in the training and validation cohorts.ResultsA total of 1010 patients were included for development (N = 674 training [47.8% PCa, 30.9% csPCa], N = 336 internal validation) and 371 for external validation. The PLUM RC outperformed the PBCG RC in the training (area under the curve [AUC] 85.9% vs 66.0%; P < 0.001), internal validation (AUC 88.2% vs 67.8%; P < 0.001) and external validation (AUC 83.9% vs 69.4%; P < 0.001) cohorts for csPCa detection. The PBCG RC was prone to overprediction while the PLUM RC was well calibrated. At a threshold probability of 15%, the PLUM RC vs the PBCG RC could avoid 13.8 vs 2.7 biopsies per 100 patients without missing any csPCa. At a cost level of missing 7.5% of csPCa, the PLUM RC could have avoided 41.0% (566/1381) of biopsies compared to 19.1% (264/1381) for the PBCG RC. The PLUM RC compared favourably with the Stanford Prostate Cancer Calculator (SPCC; AUC 84.1% vs 81.1%; P = 0.002) and the MRI-European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) RC (AUC 84.5% vs 82.6%; P = 0.05).ConclusionsThe mpMRI-based PLUM RC significantly outperformed the PBCG RC and compared favourably with other mpMRI-based RCs. A large proportion of biopsies could be avoided using the PLUM RC in shared decision making while maintaining optimal detection of csPCa.

Project description:BackgroundThe European Association of Urology guidelines recommend the use of imaging, biomarkers, and risk calculators in men at risk of prostate cancer. Risk predictive calculators that combine multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with prebiopsy variables aid as an individualized decision-making tool for patients at risk of prostate cancer, and advanced neural networking increases reliability of these tools.ObjectiveTo develop a comprehensive risk predictive online web-based tool using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical data, to predict the risk of any prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) applicable to biopsy-naïve men, men with a prior negative biopsy, men with prior positive low-grade cancer, and men with negative MRI.Design setting and participantsInstitutional review board-approved prospective data of 1902 men undergoing biopsy from October 2013 to September 2021 at Mount Sinai were collected.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisUnivariable and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate clinical variables such as age, race, digital rectal examination, family history, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy status, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score, and prostate volume, which emerged as predictors for any PCa and csPCa. Binary logistic regression was performed to study the probability. Validation was performed with advanced neural networking (ANN), multi-institutional European cohort (Prostate MRI Outcome Database [PROMOD]), and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ERSPC RC) 3/4.Results and limitationsOverall, 2363 biopsies had complete clinical information, with 57.98% any cancer and 31.40% csPCa. The prediction model was significantly associated with both any PCa and csPCa having an area under the curve (AUC) of 81.9% including clinical data. The AUC for external validation was calculated in PROMOD, ERSPC RC, and ANN for any PCa (0.82 vs 0.70 vs 0.90) and csPCa (0.82 vs 0.78 vs 0.92), respectively. This study is limited by its retrospective design and overestimation of csPCa in the PROMOD cohort.ConclusionsThe Mount Sinai Prebiopsy Risk Calculator combines PSA, imaging and clinical data to predict the risk of any PCa and csPCa for all patient settings. With accurate validation results in a large European cohort, ERSPC RC, and ANN, it exhibits its efficiency and applicability in a more generalized population. This calculator is available online in the form of a free web-based tool that can aid clinicians in better patients counseling and treatment decision-making.Patient summaryWe developed the Mount Sinai Prebiopsy Risk Calculator (MSP-RC) to assess the likelihood of any prostate cancer and clinically significant disease based on a combination of clinical and imaging characteristics. MSP-RC is applicable to all patient settings and accessible online.

Project description:BackgroundOur objective was to assess the accuracy of transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) measured prostate volume in the primary care setting with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) measured prostate volume by the urologist as the reference test. Furthermore, our objective was to assess whether risk-stratification using TAUS prostate volume by the primary care physician could reduce unnecessary referrals to the urologist.MethodsMen in two Dutch primary care offices with a prostate cancer (PCa) screening request received a digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate specific-antigen (PSA), and TAUS prostate volume measurement by the general practitioner, followed by Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) risk assessment. The examination was repeated by a urologist using TRUS. A prostate biopsy was performed in case of a RPCRC positive biopsy advice. A non-inferiority analysis was performed comparing TAUS and TRUS prostate volume differences. A risk-based referral strategy using TAUS and the RPCRC in the primary care setting was compared with the standard referral strategy based on PSA (≥3 ng/mL) and DRE.ResultsA total of 105 men were included with a median PSA of 1.9 ng/mL. The mean prostate volumes measured by TAUS and TRUS were 55 and 45 mL, respectively. The mean overestimation of the prostate volume by TAUS as compared to the reference test was 9.9 mL (95% CI: 5.9-13.8). According to Dutch standard practice, 41 out of 105 (39%) men would have been referred to the urologist. Stratification in primary care based on the RPCRC using TAUS prostate volume would have avoided 29 out of the 41 (71%) referrals, at the expense of non-referral of 5 out of 11 (45%) men with a biopsy indication, according to the urologist.ConclusionsRPCRC-based risk stratification in primary care using TAUS prostate volume measurement is feasible and may prevent unnecessary referrals to the urologist and reduce costs. The accuracy of the risk assessment with TAUS might be improved by sufficient training and centralization to achieve a higher volume of consultations in primary care facilities.

Dataset Information

Development and External Validation of the Korean Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for High-Grade Prostate Cancer: Comparison with Two Western Risk Calculators in an Asian Cohort.

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Development and External Validation of the Korean Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for High-Grade Prostate Cancer: Comparison with Two Western Risk Calculators in an Asian Cohort.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets