Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/2342 |
Resumo: | Background: Multivariable risk calculators (RCs) predicting prostate cancer (PCa) aim to reduce unnecessary workup (e.g., MRI and biopsy) by selectively identifying those men at risk for PCa or clinically significant PCa (csPCa) (Gleason ≥7). The lack of an adequate comparison makes choosing between RCs difficult for patients, clinicians and guideline developers. We aim to perform a head-to-head comparison of seven well known RCs predicting biopsy outcome. Methods: Our study comprised 7,119 men from ten independent contemporary cohorts in Europe and Australia, who underwent prostate biopsy between 2007 and 2015. We evaluated the performance of the ERSPC RPCRC, Finne, Chun, ProstataClass, Karakiewicz, Sunnybrook, and PCPT 2.0 (HG) RCs in predicting the presence of any PCa and csPCa. Performance was assessed by discrimination, calibration and net benefit analyses. Results: A total of 3,458 (48%) PCa were detected; 1,784 (25%) men had csPCa. No particular RC stood out predicting any PCa: pooled area under the ROC-curve (AUC) ranged between 0.64 and 0.72. The ERSPC RPCRC had the highest pooled AUC 0.77 (95% CI: 0.73-0.80) when predicting csPCa. Decision curve analysis (DCA) showed limited net benefit in the detection of csPCa, but that can be improved by a simple calibration step. The main limitation is the retrospective design of the study. Conclusions: No particular RC stands out when predicting biopsy outcome on the presence of any PCa. The ERSPC RPCRC is superior in identifying those men at risk for csPCa. Net benefit analyses show that a multivariate approach before further workup is advisable. |
id |
RCAP_64f1797f66c2abbaef32ca0fd00adb94 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.chporto.pt:10400.16/2342 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcomeProstate biopsyoverdiagnosisprostate cancer (PCa)prostate-specific antigen (PSA)risk calculators (RCs)Background: Multivariable risk calculators (RCs) predicting prostate cancer (PCa) aim to reduce unnecessary workup (e.g., MRI and biopsy) by selectively identifying those men at risk for PCa or clinically significant PCa (csPCa) (Gleason ≥7). The lack of an adequate comparison makes choosing between RCs difficult for patients, clinicians and guideline developers. We aim to perform a head-to-head comparison of seven well known RCs predicting biopsy outcome. Methods: Our study comprised 7,119 men from ten independent contemporary cohorts in Europe and Australia, who underwent prostate biopsy between 2007 and 2015. We evaluated the performance of the ERSPC RPCRC, Finne, Chun, ProstataClass, Karakiewicz, Sunnybrook, and PCPT 2.0 (HG) RCs in predicting the presence of any PCa and csPCa. Performance was assessed by discrimination, calibration and net benefit analyses. Results: A total of 3,458 (48%) PCa were detected; 1,784 (25%) men had csPCa. No particular RC stood out predicting any PCa: pooled area under the ROC-curve (AUC) ranged between 0.64 and 0.72. The ERSPC RPCRC had the highest pooled AUC 0.77 (95% CI: 0.73-0.80) when predicting csPCa. Decision curve analysis (DCA) showed limited net benefit in the detection of csPCa, but that can be improved by a simple calibration step. The main limitation is the retrospective design of the study. Conclusions: No particular RC stands out when predicting biopsy outcome on the presence of any PCa. The ERSPC RPCRC is superior in identifying those men at risk for csPCa. Net benefit analyses show that a multivariate approach before further workup is advisable.AME PubRepositório Científico do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo AntónioPereira-Azevedo, NunoVerbeek, J.Nieboer, D.Bangma, C.Roobol, M.2020-03-24T11:21:12Z2018-022018-02-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/2342engPereira-Azevedo N, Verbeek JFM, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(1):18–26. doi:10.21037/tau.2017.12.212223-469110.21037/tau.2017.12.21info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-10-20T11:00:23Zoai:repositorio.chporto.pt:10400.16/2342Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T20:38:33.303963Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome |
title |
Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome |
spellingShingle |
Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome Pereira-Azevedo, Nuno Prostate biopsy overdiagnosis prostate cancer (PCa) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) risk calculators (RCs) |
title_short |
Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome |
title_full |
Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome |
title_fullStr |
Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome |
title_full_unstemmed |
Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome |
title_sort |
Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome |
author |
Pereira-Azevedo, Nuno |
author_facet |
Pereira-Azevedo, Nuno Verbeek, J. Nieboer, D. Bangma, C. Roobol, M. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Verbeek, J. Nieboer, D. Bangma, C. Roobol, M. |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo António |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Pereira-Azevedo, Nuno Verbeek, J. Nieboer, D. Bangma, C. Roobol, M. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Prostate biopsy overdiagnosis prostate cancer (PCa) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) risk calculators (RCs) |
topic |
Prostate biopsy overdiagnosis prostate cancer (PCa) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) risk calculators (RCs) |
description |
Background: Multivariable risk calculators (RCs) predicting prostate cancer (PCa) aim to reduce unnecessary workup (e.g., MRI and biopsy) by selectively identifying those men at risk for PCa or clinically significant PCa (csPCa) (Gleason ≥7). The lack of an adequate comparison makes choosing between RCs difficult for patients, clinicians and guideline developers. We aim to perform a head-to-head comparison of seven well known RCs predicting biopsy outcome. Methods: Our study comprised 7,119 men from ten independent contemporary cohorts in Europe and Australia, who underwent prostate biopsy between 2007 and 2015. We evaluated the performance of the ERSPC RPCRC, Finne, Chun, ProstataClass, Karakiewicz, Sunnybrook, and PCPT 2.0 (HG) RCs in predicting the presence of any PCa and csPCa. Performance was assessed by discrimination, calibration and net benefit analyses. Results: A total of 3,458 (48%) PCa were detected; 1,784 (25%) men had csPCa. No particular RC stood out predicting any PCa: pooled area under the ROC-curve (AUC) ranged between 0.64 and 0.72. The ERSPC RPCRC had the highest pooled AUC 0.77 (95% CI: 0.73-0.80) when predicting csPCa. Decision curve analysis (DCA) showed limited net benefit in the detection of csPCa, but that can be improved by a simple calibration step. The main limitation is the retrospective design of the study. Conclusions: No particular RC stands out when predicting biopsy outcome on the presence of any PCa. The ERSPC RPCRC is superior in identifying those men at risk for csPCa. Net benefit analyses show that a multivariate approach before further workup is advisable. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-02 2018-02-01T00:00:00Z 2020-03-24T11:21:12Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/2342 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/2342 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Pereira-Azevedo N, Verbeek JFM, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(1):18–26. doi:10.21037/tau.2017.12.21 2223-4691 10.21037/tau.2017.12.21 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
AME Pub |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
AME Pub |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799133646427258880 |