» Articles » PMID: 19007374

Predicting the Outcome of Prostate Biopsy: Comparison of a Novel Logistic Regression-based Model, the Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator, and Prostate-specific Antigen Level Alone

Overview
Journal BJU Int
Specialty Urology
Date 2008 Nov 15
PMID 19007374
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To develop a logistic regression-based model to predict prostate cancer biopsy at, and compare its performance to the risk calculator developed by the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT), which was based on age, race, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, a digital rectal examination (DRE), family history, and history of a previous negative biopsy, and to PSA level alone.

Patients And Methods: We retrospectively analysed the data of 1280 men who had a biopsy while enrolled in a prospective, multicentre clinical trial. Of these, 1108 had all relevant clinical and pathological data available, and no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer. Using the PCPT risk calculator, we calculated the risks of prostate cancer and of high-grade disease (Gleason score > or =7) for each man. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the risk calculator, PSA level and the novel regression-based model were compared.

Results: Prostate cancer was detected in 394 (35.6%) men, and 155 (14.0%) had Gleason > or =7 disease. For cancer prediction, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the risk calculator was 66.7%, statistically greater than the AUC for PSA level of 61.9% (P < 0.001). For predicting high-grade disease, the AUCs were 74.1% and 70.7% for the risk calculator and PSA level, respectively (P = 0.024). The AUCs increased to 71.2% (P < 0.001) and 78.7% (P = 0.001) for detection and high-grade disease, respectively, with our novel regression-based models.

Conclusions: ROC analyses show that the PCPT risk calculator modestly improves the performance of PSA level alone in predicting an individual's risk of prostate cancer or high-grade disease on biopsy. This predictive tool might be enhanced by including percentage free PSA and the number of biopsy cores.

Citing Articles

Re-evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of PSA as a referral test to detect clinically significant prostate cancer in contemporary MRI-based image-guided biopsy pathways.

Lophatananon A, Light A, Burns-Cox N, Maccormick A, John J, Otti V J Clin Urol. 2023; 16(4):264-273.

PMID: 37614642 PMC: 7614972. DOI: 10.1177/20514158211059057.


Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review.

AlAdwani M, Lophatananon A, Ollier W, Muir K BMJ Open. 2020; 10(7):e034661.

PMID: 32690501 PMC: 7371149. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034661.


The combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2) and periprostatic fat thickness on multi-parametric MRI to predict the presence of prostate cancer.

Cao Y, Cao M, Chen Y, Yu W, Fan Y, Liu Q Oncotarget. 2017; 8(27):44040-44049.

PMID: 28476042 PMC: 5546460. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.17182.


Improving patient prostate cancer risk assessment: Moving from static, globally-applied to dynamic, practice-specific risk calculators.

Strobl A, Vickers A, Van Calster B, Steyerberg E, Leach R, Thompson I J Biomed Inform. 2015; 56:87-93.

PMID: 25989018 PMC: 4532612. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2015.05.001.


Incorporation of detailed family history from the Swedish Family Cancer Database into the PCPT risk calculator.

Grill S, Fallah M, Leach R, Thompson I, Freedland S, Hemminki K J Urol. 2014; 193(2):460-5.

PMID: 25242395 PMC: 5034721. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.018.


References
1.
Eastham J, May R, Robertson J, Sartor O, Kattan M . Development of a nomogram that predicts the probability of a positive prostate biopsy in men with an abnormal digital rectal examination and a prostate-specific antigen between 0 and 4 ng/mL. Urology. 1999; 54(4):709-13. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00213-7. View

2.
Partin A, Brawer M, Bartsch G, Horninger W, Taneja S, Lepor H . Complexed prostate specific antigen improves specificity for prostate cancer detection: results of a prospective multicenter clinical trial. J Urol. 2003; 170(5):1787-91. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000092695.55705.dd. View

3.
Thompson I, Ankerst D, Chi C, Goodman P, Tangen C, Lucia M . Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98(8):529-34. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djj131. View

4.
Chun F, Karakiewicz P, Briganti A, Gallina A, Kattan M, Montorsi F . Prostate cancer nomograms: an update. Eur Urol. 2006; 50(5):914-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.07.042. View

5.
Parekh D, Ankerst D, Higgins B, Hernandez J, Canby-Hagino E, Brand T . External validation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator in a screened population. Urology. 2006; 68(6):1152-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.10.022. View