Dataset Information

External Validation of the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group Risk Calculator and the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in a Swedish Population-based Screening Cohort.

ABSTRACT:

Background

External validation of risk calculators (RCs) is necessary to determine their clinical applicability beyond the setting in which these were developed.

Objective

To assess the performance of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer RC (RPCRC) and the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group RC (PBCG-RC).

Design setting and participants

We 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 analysis

Probabilities 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 limitations

Out 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.

Conclusions

Assessment 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 summary

Predicting 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.

SUBMITTER: Chandra Engel J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9257644 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:PurposeWe 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 methodsUsing 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.ResultsPC 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.ConclusionsKPCRC-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.

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.

Project description:Background & aimsThe Liver Cancer Risk test algorithm (LCR1-LCR2) is a multianalyte blood test combining proteins involved in liver cell repair (apolipoprotein-A1 and haptoglobin), known hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk factors (sex, age, and gamma-glutamyl transferase), a marker of fibrosis (alpha2-macroglobulin) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), a specific marker of HCC. The aim was to externally validate the LCR1-LCR2 in patients with chronic HCV (CHC) treated or not with antivirals.MethodsPre-included patients were from the Hepather cohort, a multicentre prospective study in adult patients with CHC in France. LCR1-LCR2 was assessed retrospectively in patients with the test components and AFP, available at baseline. The co-primary study outcome was the negative predictive value (NPV) of LCR1-LCR2 for the occurrence of HCC at 5 years and for survival without HCC according to the predetermined LCR1-LCR2 cut-offs. The cut-offs were adjusted for risk covariables and for the response to HCV treatment, and were quantified using time-dependent proportional hazards models.ResultsIn total, 4,903 patients, 1,026 (21.9%) with baseline cirrhosis, were included in the study. Patients were followed for a median of 5.7 (IQR 4.2-11.3) years. A total of 3,788/4,903 (77.3%) patients had a sustained virological response. There were 137 cases of HCC at 5 years and 214 at the end of follow-up. HCC occurred at 5 years in 24/3,755 patients with low-risk LCR1-LCR2 compared with 113/1,148 patients with high-risk LCR1-LCR2. The NPV was 99.4% (95% CI 99.1-99.6). Similar findings (hazard ratio, 10.8; 95% CI, 8.1-14.3; p <0.001) were obtained after adjustment for exposure to antivirals, age, sex, geographical origin, HCV genotype 3, alcohol consumption, and type 2 diabetes mellitus.ConclusionsThe results showed that LCR1-LCR2 can be used to successfully identify patients with HCV at very low risk of HCC at 5 years.Lay summaryHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide and the fastest growing cause of cancer death in many countries. We constructed and internally validated a new multianalyte blood test to assess this Liver Cancer Risk (LCR1-LCR2). This study confirmed the performance of LCR1-LCR2 in patients with chronic HCV in the national French cohort Hepather, and its ability to identify patients at a very low risk of HCC at 5 years.Clinical trials registrationThe study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01953458).

Project description:Background & aimsThe Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk index (THRI) is a predictive model to determine the risk of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. This study aimed to externally validate the THRI in a Swedish setting to investigate whether it could identify patients not requiring HCC surveillance.MethodsFrom 2004-2017, 2,491 patients with cirrhosis at the Karolinska University Hospital were evaluated. Patients were classified into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups for future HCC according to the THRI. Harrell's C-index, calibration-in-the-large, calibration slope and goodness-of-fit estimates were calculated to assess model discrimination and calibration. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine the risk of HCC.ResultsMost patients were male (n = 1,638, 66%). The most common etiologies of cirrhosis were steatohepatitis (n = 1,182, 48%) followed by viral hepatitis (n = 987, 40%). In all, 131 patients (5.3%) were designated as low risk for HCC. Harrell's C-index was 0.69. Calibration-in-the-large (0.11), calibration slope (1.24, not different from 1, p = 0.66) and goodness-of-fit showed good model calibration. Patients in the high-risk group had a 7.1-fold (95% CI 2.9-17.2) higher risk of HCC and patients in the intermediate-risk group had a 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.0-6.3) higher risk compared to the low-risk group.ConclusionsIn a Swedish setting, the THRI could differentiate between low- and high-risk of HCC development. However, because the low-risk group was relatively small (5.3%), the clinical applicability of the THRI could be limited.Lay summaryThe Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk index (THRI) is a novel prediction model used to stratify patients with cirrhosis based on future risk of HCC. In this study, the THRI was validated in an external cohort using the TRIPOD guidance. Few patients were identified as low-risk, and the THRI had a modest discriminative ability, limiting its clinical applicability.