Dataset Information

External validation of two mpMRI-risk calculators predicting risk of prostate cancer before biopsy.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Risk calculators (RC) aim to improve prebiopsy risk stratification. Their latest versions now include multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings. For their implementation into clinical practice, critical external validations are needed.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the patient data of 554 men who underwent ultrasound-guided targeted and systematic prostate biopsies at 2 centers. We validated the mpMRI-RCs of Radtke et al. (RC-R) and Alberts et al. (RC-A), previously shown to predict prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa). We assessed these RCs' prediction accuracy by analyzing the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve and evaluated their clinical utility using Decision Curve Analysis (DCA), including Net-Benefit and Net-Reduction curves.

Results

We found that the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) for predicting PCa was 0.681 [confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.635-0.727] for RC-A. The AUCs for predicting csPCa were 0.635 (CI 95% 0.583-0.686) for RC-A and 0.676 (CI 95% 0.627-0.725) for RC-R. For example, at a risk threshold of 12%, RC-A needs to assess 334 and RC-R 500 patients to detect one additional true positive PCa or csPCa patient, respectively. At the same risk threshold of 12%, RC-A only needs to assess 6 and RC-R 16 patients to detect one additional true negative PCa or csPCa patient.

Conclusion

The mpMRI-RCs, RC-R and RC-A, are robust and valuable tools for patient counseling. Although they do not improve PCa and csPCa detection rates by a clinically meaningful margin, they aid in avoiding unnecessary prostate biopsies. Their implementation could reduce overdiagnosis and reduce PCa screening morbidity.

SUBMITTER: Pallauf M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9512729 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

External validation of two mpMRI-risk calculators predicting risk of prostate cancer before biopsy.

Pallauf Maximilian M Steinkohl Fabian F Zimmermann Georg G Horetzky Maximilian M Rajwa Pawel P Pradere Benjamin B Lindner Andrea Katharina AK Pichler Renate R Kunit Thomas T Shariat Shahrokh F SF Lusuardi Lukas L Drerup Martin M

World journal of urology 20220808 10

<h4>Purpose</h4>Risk calculators (RC) aim to improve prebiopsy risk stratification. Their latest versions now include multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings. For their implementation into clinical practice, critical external validations are needed.<h4>Methods</h4>We retrospectively analyzed the patient data of 554 men who underwent ultrasound-guided targeted and systematic prostate biopsies at 2 centers. We validated the mpMRI-RCs of Radtke et al. (RC-R) and Alberts et al. ( ...[more]

PMID: 35941246

Similar Datasets

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: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: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:PurposeTo assess the association of radiomics features based on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) with the proportion of intraductal carcinoma of prostate (IDC-P) and validate the predictive models.Materials and methodsWe retrospectively included pre-treatment MR images of prostate cancer (PCa) with IDC components of high proportion (≥10%, hpIDC-P), low proportion (<10%, lpIDC-P), and pure acinar adenocarcinoma (PAC) from our institution for training and internal validation and cooperated cohort for external validation. Normalized images of T2WI, diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map, and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) sequences were used for radiomics modeling. The clinical model was built based on serum total prostate specific antigen (tPSA) and Gleason score (GS), and the integrated model was the combination of Rad-score and clinicopathological data. The discrimination ability was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) in the internal and external validation sets and compared by DeLong test.ResultsOverall, 97 patients with hpIDC-P, 87 lpIDC-P, and 78 PAC were included for training and internal validation, and 11, 16, and 19 patients for external validation. The integrated model for predicting hpIDC-P got the best ROC-AUC of 0.88 (95%CI = 0.83-0.93) in internal and 0.86 (95%CI = 0.72-1.0) in external validation, which both outperformed clinical models (AUC=0.78, 95% CI = 0.72-0.85, AUC=0.69, 95% CI = 0.5-0.85, respectively) based solely on GS, and the radiomics model (AUC=0.85, 95% CI = 0.79-0.91) was slightly inferior to the integrated model and better than the clinical model in internal dataset. The integrated model for predicting lpIDC-P outperformed both radiomics and clinical models in the internal dataset, while slightly inferior to the integrated model for predicting hpIDC-P.ConclusionsRadiomics signature improved differentiation of both hpIDC-P and lpIDC-P versus PAC when compared with the clinical model based on Gleason score, and was validated in an external cohort.

Dataset Information

External validation of two mpMRI-risk calculators predicting risk of prostate cancer before biopsy.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

External validation of two mpMRI-risk calculators predicting risk of prostate cancer before biopsy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets