Can Western Based Online Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators Be Used to Predict Prostate Cancer After Prostate Biopsy for the Korean Population?

Overview

Journal Yonsei Med J

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2013 Apr 4

PMID 23549812

Citations 4

Authors

Dong Hoon Lee

Ha Bum Jung

Jae Won Park

Kyu Hyun Kim

Jongchan Kim

Seung Hwan Lee

Byung Ha Chung

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To access the predictive value of the European Randomized Screening of Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ERSPC-RC) and the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPT-RC) in the Korean population.

Materials And Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 517 men who underwent transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy between January 2008 and November 2010. Simple and multiple logistic regression analysis were performed to compare the result of prostate biopsy. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUC-ROC) and calibration plots were prepared for further analysis to compare the risk calculators and other clinical variables.

Results: Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 125 (24.1%) men. For prostate cancer prediction, the area under curve (AUC) of the ERSPC-RC was 77.4%. This result was significantly greater than the AUCs of the PCPT-RC and the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (64.5% and 64.1%, respectively, p<0.01), but not significantly different from the AUC of the PSA density (PSAD) (76.1%, p=0.540). When the results of the calibration plots were compared, the ERSPC-RC plot was more constant than that of PSAD.

Conclusion: The ERSPC-RC was better than PCPT-RC and PSA in predicting prostate cancer risk in the present study. However, the difference in performance between the ERSPC-RC and PSAD was not significant. Therefore, the Western based prostate cancer risk calculators are not useful for urologists in predicting prostate cancer in the Korean population.

Citing Articles

Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator: Development and Usability Testing of the Mobile Phone App.

Pereira-Azevedo N, Osorio L, Fraga A, Roobol M JMIR Cancer. 2017; 3(1):e1.

PMID: 28410180 PMC: 5367845. DOI: 10.2196/cancer.6750.

Association between tumor-associated macrophages and microvessel density on prostate cancer progression.

Yuri P, Hendri A, Danarto R Prostate Int. 2015; 3(3):93-8.

PMID: 26473151 PMC: 4588394. DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2015.06.002.

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

Rietbergen J, Kruger A, Hoedemaeker R, Bangma C, Kirkels W, Schroder F . Repeat screening for prostate cancer after 1-year followup in 984 biopsied men: clinical and pathological features of detected cancer. J Urol. 1998; 160(6 Pt 1):2121-5. DOI: 10.1097/00005392-199812010-00046. View

Henderson R, Eastham J, Culkin D, Kattan M, Whatley T, Mata J . Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA density: racial differences in men without prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997; 89(2):134-8. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/89.2.134. View

Shariat S, Karakiewicz P, Roehrborn C, Kattan M . An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer. 2008; 113(11):3075-99. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23908. View

Eyre S, Ankerst D, Wei J, Nair P, Regan M, Bueti G . Validation in a multiple urology practice cohort of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial calculator for predicting prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2009; 182(6):2653-8. PMC: 5890334. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.056. View

van Vugt H, Roobol M, Kranse R, Maattanen L, Finne P, Hugosson J . Prediction of prostate cancer in unscreened men: external validation of a risk calculator. Eur J Cancer. 2010; 47(6):903-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.11.012. View

Remzi M, Djavan B, Wammack R, Momeni M, Seitz C, Erne B . Can total and transition zone volume of the prostate determine whether to perform a repeat biopsy?. Urology. 2003; 61(1):161-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02099-x. View

Kranse R, Roobol M, Schroder F . A graphical device to represent the outcomes of a logistic regression analysis. Prostate. 2008; 68(15):1674-80. DOI: 10.1002/pros.20840. View

Cavadas V, Osorio L, Sabell F, Teves F, Branco F, Silva-Ramos M . 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. 2010; 58(4):551-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.023. View

van den Bergh R, Roobol M, Wolters T, van Leeuwen P, Schroder F . 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. 2008; 102(9):1068-73. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07940.x. View

10.

Ung J, San Francisco I, Regan M, DeWolf W, Olumi A . The relationship of prostate gland volume to extended needle biopsy on prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2002; 169(1):130-5. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64052-9. View

11.

Lee D, Jung H, Chung M, Lee S, Chung B . The change of prostate cancer treatment in Korea: 5 year analysis of a single institution. Yonsei Med J. 2012; 54(1):87-91. PMC: 3521261. DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2013.54.1.87. View

12.

Oliveira M, Marques V, Carvalho A, Santos A . Head-to-head comparison of two online nomograms for prostate biopsy outcome prediction. BJU Int. 2010; 107(11):1780-3. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09727.x. View

13.

Shin H, Masuyer E, Ferlay J, Curado M . Cancer in Asia - Incidence rates based on data in cancer incidence in five continents IX (1998-2002). Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010; 11 Suppl 2:11-6. View

14.

Thompson I, Goodman P, Tangen C, Lucia M, Miller G, Ford L . The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349(3):215-24. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa030660. View

15.

Karakiewicz P, Benayoun S, Kattan M, Perrotte P, Valiquette L, Scardino P . Development and validation of a nomogram predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy based on patient age, digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2005; 173(6):1930-4. PMC: 1855288. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000158039.94467.5d. View

16.

Lee S, Park K, Chung M, Chung B . Clinical features of familial or hereditary prostate cancer in korean men: a pilot study. Korean J Urol. 2011; 52(1):9-12. PMC: 3037512. DOI: 10.4111/kju.2011.52.1.9. View

17.

Hernandez D, Han M, Humphreys E, Mangold L, Taneja S, Childs S . 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. BJU Int. 2008; 103(5):609-14. PMC: 3340925. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08127.x. View

18.

Swords K, Wallen E, Pruthi R . The impact of race on prostate cancer detection and choice of treatment in men undergoing a contemporary extended biopsy approach. Urol Oncol. 2008; 28(3):280-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2008.09.021. View

19.

van Vugt H, Roobol M, Busstra M, Kil P, Oomens E, de Jong I . Compliance with biopsy recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator. BJU Int. 2011; 109(10):1480-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10611.x. View