4.7 Article

Prospective Multi-Institutional Study Evaluating the Performance of Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 22, Pages 2959-2964

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.6371

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute [010284, 015164]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Prostate cancer risk calculators incorporate many factors to evaluate an individual's risk for prostate cancer. We validated two common North American-based, prostate cancer risk calculators. Patients and Methods We conducted a prospective, multi-institutional study of 2,130 patients who underwent a prostate biopsy for prostate cancer detection from five centers. We evaluated the performance of the Sunnybrook nomogram-based prostate cancer risk calculator (SRC) and the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT)-based risk calculator (PRC) to predict the presence of any cancer and high-grade cancer. We examined discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis techniques to evaluate the prediction models. Results Of the 2,130 patients, 867 men (40.7%) were found to have cancer, and 1,263 (59.3%) did not have cancer. Of the patients with cancer, 403 (46.5%) had a Gleason score of 7 or more. The area under the [ concentration-time] curve (AUC) for the SRC was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.69); the AUC for the PRC was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.64). The AUC was higher for predicting aggressive disease from the SRC (0.72; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.75) compared with that from the PRC (0.67; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.70). Decision curve analyses showed that the SRC performed better than the PRC for risk thresholds of more than 30% for any cancer and more than 15% for aggressive cancer. Conclusion The SRC performed better than the PRC, but neither one added clinical benefit for risk thresholds of less than 30%. Further research is needed to improve the AUCs of the risk calculators, particularly for higher-grade cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available