Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
World Journal of Urology
Published in: World Journal of Urology 2/2012

Open Access 01-04-2012 | Topic Paper

Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group

Authors: Monique J. Roobol, F. H. Schröder, Jonas Hugosson, J. Stephen Jones, Michael W. Kattan, Eric A. Klein, Freddie Hamdy, David Neal, Jenny Donovan, Dipen J. Parekh, Donna Ankerst, George Bartsch, Helmut Klocker, Wolfgang Horninger, Amine Benchikh, Gilles Salama, Arnauld Villers, Stephen J. Freedland, Daniel M. Moreira, Andrew J. Vickers, Hans Lilja, Ewout W. Steyerberg

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 2/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the predictive performance and potential clinical usefulness of risk calculators of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC RC) with and without information on prostate volume.

Methods

We studied 6 cohorts (5 European and 1 US) with a total of 15,300 men, all biopsied and with pre-biopsy TRUS measurements of prostate volume. Volume was categorized into 3 categories (25, 40, and 60 cc), to reflect use of digital rectal examination (DRE) for volume assessment. Risks of prostate cancer were calculated according to a ERSPC DRE-based RC (including PSA, DRE, prior biopsy, and prostate volume) and a PSA + DRE model (including PSA, DRE, and prior biopsy). Missing data on prostate volume were completed by single imputation. Risk predictions were evaluated with respect to calibration (graphically), discrimination (AUC curve), and clinical usefulness (net benefit, graphically assessed in decision curves).

Results

The AUCs of the ERSPC DRE-based RC ranged from 0.61 to 0.77 and were substantially larger than the AUCs of a model based on only PSA + DRE (ranging from 0.56 to 0.72) in each of the 6 cohorts. The ERSPC DRE-based RC provided net benefit over performing a prostate biopsy on the basis of PSA and DRE outcome in five of the six cohorts.

Conclusions

Identifying men at increased risk for having a biopsy detectable prostate cancer should consider multiple factors, including an estimate of prostate volume.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL III, Buys SS, Chia D et al (2009) Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360:1310–1319PubMedCrossRef
2.
Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360:1320–1328PubMedCrossRef
3.
Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, Bergdahl S, Khatami A et al (2010) Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol 11:725–732PubMedCrossRef
4.
Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Lucia MS, Goodman PJ, Crowley JJ, Parnes HL, Coltman CA Jr (2005) Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/ml or lower. JAMA 294(1):66–70PubMedCrossRef
5.
Schröder F, Kattan MW (2008) The comparability of models for predicting the risk of a positive prostate biopsy with prostate-specific antigen alone: a systematic review. Eur Urol 54(2):274–290. (Epub 2008 May 22. Review)
6.
Kranse R, Roobol M, Schröder FH (2008) A graphical device to represent the outcomes of a logistic regression analysis. Prostate 68(15):1674–1680PubMedCrossRef
7.
Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, van der Kwast TH, de Koning HJ, Schröder FH (2007) Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol 177(1):107–112 (discussion 112)PubMedCrossRef
8.
Trottier G, Roobol MJ, Lawrentschuk N et al (2011) Comparison of risk calculators from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer in a contemporary Canadian cohort. BJU Int 108(8B):E237–E244
9.
Cavadas V, Osorio L, Sabell F et al (2010) Prostate cancer prevention trial and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculators: a performance comparison in a contemporary screened cohort. Eur Urol 58(4):551–558PubMedCrossRef
10.
Dong F, Kattan MW, Steyerberg EW, Jones JS, Stephenson AJ, Schröder FH, Klein EA (2008) Validation of pretreatment nomograms for predicting indolent prostate cancer: efficacy in contemporary urological practice. J Urol 180(1):150–154 (discussion 154)PubMedCrossRef
11.
Roobol MJ, van Vugt HA, Loeb S, Zhu X, Bul M, Bangma CH, van Leenders AG, Steyerberg EW, Schröder FH (2011) Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol [Epub ahead of print]
12.
Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Roobol MJ, Hugosson J, Jones JS, Kattan MW, Klein E, Hamdy F, Neal D, Donovan J, Parekh DJ, Ankerst D, Bartsch G, Klocker H, Horninger W, Benchikh A, Salama G, Villers A, Freedland SJ, Moreira DM, Schroeder FH, Lilja H (2010) The relationship between prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer risk: the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group. Clin Cancer Res 16:4374–4381PubMedCrossRef
13.
Steyerberg EW (2009) Clinical prediction models: a practical approach to development, validation, and updating. Springer, New York
14.
Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N, Kattan MW, Pencinac MJ (2010) Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework forctraditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 21(1):128–138PubMedCrossRef
15.
Vickers AJ, Elkin EB (2006) Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 26(6):565–574PubMedCrossRef
16.
Vergouwe Y, Moons KG, Steyerberg EW (2010) External validity of risk models: use of benchmark values to disentangle a case-mix effect from incorrect coefficients. Am J Epidemiol 172(8):971–980PubMedCrossRef
17.
Ankerst DP, Boeck A, Thompson IM, Cronin AM, Roobol MJ, Hugosson J, Jones S, Kattan MW et al. (in press) Mass validation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator: results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group. WJU
18.
Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Feng Z, Parnes HL, Coltman CA Jr (2006) Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:529–534PubMedCrossRef
19.
van den Bergh RC, Roobol MJ, Wolters T, van Leeuwen PJ, Schröder FH (2008) The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculators indicating a positive prostate biopsy: a comparison. BJU Int 102(9):1068–1073PubMedCrossRef
20.
Roobol MJ, Schröder FH, Kranse R, ERSPC, Rotterdam (2006) A comparison of first and repeat (four years later) prostate cancer screening in a randomized cohort of a symptomatic men aged 55–75 years using a biopsy indication of 3.0 ng/ml (results of ERSPC, Rotterdam). Prostate 66(6):604–612PubMedCrossRef
21.
Roehrborn CG, Boyle P, Gould AL, Waldstreicher J (1999) Serum prostate-specific antigen as a predictor of prostate volume in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 53(3):581–589PubMedCrossRef
22.
Chung BH, Hong SJ, Cho JS, Seong DH (2006) Relationship between serum prostate-specific antigen and prostate volume in Korean men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a multicentre study. BJU Int 97(4):742–746PubMedCrossRef
23.
Berry SJ, Coffey DS, Walsh PC, Ewing LL (1984) The development of human benign prostatic hyperplasia with age. J Urol 132:474–479PubMed
Metadata
Title
Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group
Authors
Monique J. Roobol
F. H. Schröder
Jonas Hugosson
J. Stephen Jones
Michael W. Kattan
Eric A. Klein
Freddie Hamdy
David Neal
Jenny Donovan
Dipen J. Parekh
Donna Ankerst
George Bartsch
Helmut Klocker
Wolfgang Horninger
Amine Benchikh
Gilles Salama
Arnauld Villers
Stephen J. Freedland
Daniel M. Moreira
Andrew J. Vickers
Hans Lilja
Ewout W. Steyerberg
Publication date
01-04-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0804-y

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

World Journal of Urology 2/2012 Go to the issue

Topic Paper

Chemoprevention of prostate cancer: an updated view

Topic Paper

Prostate cancer epidemiology in the United States

Topic paper

Predicting prostate cancer many years before diagnosis: how and why?

Topic paper

Familial risk and familial survival in prostate cancer

Topic Paper

Evaluating the PCPT risk calculator in ten international biopsy cohorts: results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group

Original Article

Prospective blinded comparison of real-time sonoelastography targeted versus randomised biopsy of the prostate in the primary and re-biopsy setting