Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 1/2014

01-02-2014 | Original Article

Evaluating the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial High Grade prostate cancer risk calculator in 10 international biopsy cohorts: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group

Authors: Donna P. Ankerst, Andreas Boeck, Stephen J. Freedland, J. Stephen Jones, Angel M. Cronin, Monique J. Roobol, Jonas Hugosson, Michael W. Kattan, Eric A. Klein, Freddie Hamdy, David Neal, Jenny Donovan, Dipen J. Parekh, Helmut Klocker, Wolfgang Horninger, Amine Benchikh, Gilles Salama, Arnauld Villers, Daniel M. Moreira, Fritz H. Schröder, Hans Lilja, Andrew J. Vickers, Ian M. Thompson

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the applicability of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial High Grade (Gleason grade ≥ 7) Risk Calculator (PCPTHG) in ten international cohorts, representing a range of populations.

Methods

A total of 25,512 biopsies from 10 cohorts (6 European, 1 UK and 3 US) were included; 4 implemented 6-core biopsies, and the remaining had 10 or higher schemes; 8 were screening cohorts, and 2 were clinical. PCPTHG risks were calculated using prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, age, African origin and history of prior biopsy and evaluated in terms of calibration plots, areas underneath the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and net benefit curves.

Results

The median AUC of the PCPTHG for high-grade disease detection in the 10- and higher-core cohorts was 73.5 % (range, 63.9–76.7 %) compared with a median of 78.1 % (range, 72.0–87.6 %) among the four 6-core cohorts. Only the 10-core Cleveland Clinic cohort showed clear evidence of under-prediction by the PCPTHG, and this was restricted to risk ranges less than 15 %. The PCPTHG demonstrated higher clinical net benefit in higher-core compared with 6-core biopsy cohorts, and among the former, there were no notable differences observed between clinical and screening cohorts, nor between European and US cohorts.

Conclusions

The PCPTHG requires minimal patient information and can be applied across a range of populations. PCPTHG risk thresholds ranging from 5 to 20 %, depending on patient risk averseness, are recommended for clinical prostate biopsy decision-making.
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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 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
2.
go back to reference Nguyen CT, Yu C, Moussa A, Kattan MW, Jones JS (2010) Performance of Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator in a contemporary cohort screened for prostate cancer and diagnosed by extended prostate biopsy. J Urol 183:529–533PubMedCrossRef Nguyen CT, Yu C, Moussa A, Kattan MW, Jones JS (2010) Performance of Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator in a contemporary cohort screened for prostate cancer and diagnosed by extended prostate biopsy. J Urol 183:529–533PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Ngo TC, Turnbill BB, Lavori PW, Presti JC Jr (2011) The prostate cancer risk calculator from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial underestimates risk of high grade cancer in contemporary referral patients. J Urol 185:483–488PubMedCrossRef Ngo TC, Turnbill BB, Lavori PW, Presti JC Jr (2011) The prostate cancer risk calculator from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial underestimates risk of high grade cancer in contemporary referral patients. J Urol 185:483–488PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Nam RK, Kattan MW, Chin JL, Trachtenberg J, Singal R, Rendon R, Klotz LH, Sugar L, Sherman C, Izawa J, Bell D, Stanimirovic A, Venkateswaran V, Diamandis EP, Yu C, Loblaw A, Narod SA (2011) Prospective multi-institutional study evaluating the performance of prostate cancer risk calculators. J Clin Oncol 29:2959–2964PubMedCrossRef Nam RK, Kattan MW, Chin JL, Trachtenberg J, Singal R, Rendon R, Klotz LH, Sugar L, Sherman C, Izawa J, Bell D, Stanimirovic A, Venkateswaran V, Diamandis EP, Yu C, Loblaw A, Narod SA (2011) Prospective multi-institutional study evaluating the performance of prostate cancer risk calculators. J Clin Oncol 29:2959–2964PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference 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 16:4374–4381PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef 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 16:4374–4381PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Ankerst DP, Boeck A, Freedland SJ, Thompson IM, Cronin AM, Roobol MJ, Hugosson J, Jones JS, Kattan MW, Klein EA, Hamdy F, Neal D, Donovan J, Parekh DJ, Klocker H, Horninger W, Benchikh A, Salama G, Villers A, Moreira DM, Schroeder FH, Lilja H, Vickers AJ (2012) Evaluating the PCPT Risk Calculator in ten international biopsy cohorts: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group. World J Urol 30:181–187 Ankerst DP, Boeck A, Freedland SJ, Thompson IM, Cronin AM, Roobol MJ, Hugosson J, Jones JS, Kattan MW, Klein EA, Hamdy F, Neal D, Donovan J, Parekh DJ, Klocker H, Horninger W, Benchikh A, Salama G, Villers A, Moreira DM, Schroeder FH, Lilja H, Vickers AJ (2012) Evaluating the PCPT Risk Calculator in ten international biopsy cohorts: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group. World J Urol 30:181–187
7.
go back to reference van Buuren S (2007) Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Stat Methods Med Res 16:219–242PubMedCrossRef van Buuren S (2007) Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Stat Methods Med Res 16:219–242PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Vickers AJ, Elkin EB (2006) Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Mak 26:565–574CrossRef Vickers AJ, Elkin EB (2006) Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Mak 26:565–574CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Takenaka A, Hara R, Hyodo Y, Ishimura T, Sakai Y, Fujioka H, Fujii T, Jo Y, Fujisawa M (2006) Transperineal extended biopsy improves the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate: a comparative study of 6 and 12 biopsy cores. Int J Urol 13:10–14PubMedCrossRef Takenaka A, Hara R, Hyodo Y, Ishimura T, Sakai Y, Fujioka H, Fujii T, Jo Y, Fujisawa M (2006) Transperineal extended biopsy improves the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate: a comparative study of 6 and 12 biopsy cores. Int J Urol 13:10–14PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference O’Connell MJ, Smith CS, Fitzpatrick PE, Keane CO, Fitzpatrick JM, Behan M, Fenlon HF, Murray JG (2004) Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate gland: value of 12 versus 6 cores. Abdom Imaging 29:132–136PubMedCrossRef O’Connell MJ, Smith CS, Fitzpatrick PE, Keane CO, Fitzpatrick JM, Behan M, Fenlon HF, Murray JG (2004) Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate gland: value of 12 versus 6 cores. Abdom Imaging 29:132–136PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akbal C, Sofikerim M, Guenay M, Ekici S, Ozen H (2004) An extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer 45:444–448 Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akbal C, Sofikerim M, Guenay M, Ekici S, Ozen H (2004) An extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer 45:444–448
12.
go back to reference Ankerst DP, Miyamoto R, Nair PV, Pollock BH, Thompson IM, Parekh DJ (2009) Yearly prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination fluctuations in a screened population. J Urol 181:2071–2075PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Ankerst DP, Miyamoto R, Nair PV, Pollock BH, Thompson IM, Parekh DJ (2009) Yearly prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination fluctuations in a screened population. J Urol 181:2071–2075PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Vickers AJ, Cronin AM (2010) Everything you always wanted to know about evaluating prediction models (but were too afraid to ask). Urology 76:1298–1301PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Vickers AJ, Cronin AM (2010) Everything you always wanted to know about evaluating prediction models (but were too afraid to ask). Urology 76:1298–1301PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Thompson IM, Ankerst DP (2012) The benefits of risk assessment tools for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 61:662–663PubMedCrossRef Thompson IM, Ankerst DP (2012) The benefits of risk assessment tools for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 61:662–663PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Evaluating the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial High Grade prostate cancer risk calculator in 10 international biopsy cohorts: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group
Authors
Donna P. Ankerst
Andreas Boeck
Stephen J. Freedland
J. Stephen Jones
Angel M. Cronin
Monique J. Roobol
Jonas Hugosson
Michael W. Kattan
Eric A. Klein
Freddie Hamdy
David Neal
Jenny Donovan
Dipen J. Parekh
Helmut Klocker
Wolfgang Horninger
Amine Benchikh
Gilles Salama
Arnauld Villers
Daniel M. Moreira
Fritz H. Schröder
Hans Lilja
Andrew J. Vickers
Ian M. Thompson
Publication date
01-02-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0869-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

World Journal of Urology 1/2014 Go to the issue