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

Author:

Nam Robert K.1,Kattan Michael W.1,Chin Joseph L.1,Trachtenberg John1,Singal Rajiv1,Rendon Ricardo1,Klotz Laurence H.1,Sugar Linda1,Sherman Christopher1,Izawa Jonathan1,Bell David1,Stanimirovic Aleksandra1,Venkateswaran Vasundara1,Diamandis Eleftherios P.1,Yu Changhong1,Loblaw D. Andrew1,Narod Steven A.1

Affiliation:

1. Robert K. Nam, Laurence H. Klotz, Linda Sugar, Christopher Sherman, Aleksandra Stanimirovic, Vasundara Venkateswaran, and D. Andrew Loblaw, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre; John Trachtenberg, Princess Margaret Hospital; Rajiv Singal, Toronto East General Hospital; Steven A. Narod, University of Toronto; Eleftherios Diamandis, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto; Joseph L. Chin and Jonathan Izawa, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario; Ricardo Rendon and David Bell, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences...

Abstract

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.

Publisher

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)

Subject

Cancer Research,Oncology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3