External Validation of the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group Risk Calculator and the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in a Swedish Population-based Screening Cohort

Overview

Journal Eur Urol Open Sci

Date 2022 Jul 11

PMID 35813248

Authors

Jan Chandra Engel

Thorgerdur Palsdottir

Donna Ankerst

Sebastiaan Remmers

Ashkan Mortezavi

Venkatesh Chellappa

Lars Egevad

Henrik Gronberg

Martin Eklund

Tobias Nordstrom

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: External validation of risk calculators (RCs) is necessary to determine their clinical applicability beyond the setting in which these were developed.

Objective: To assess the performance of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer RC (RPCRC) and the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group RC (PBCG-RC).

Design Setting And Participants: We used data from the prospective, population-based STHLM3 screening study, performed in 2012-2015. Participants with prostate-specific antigen ≥3 ng/ml who underwent systematic prostate biopsies were included.

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: Probabilities for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2, were calculated for each participant. External validity was assessed by calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness for both original and recalibrated models.

Results And Limitations: Out of 5841 men, 1054 (18%) had csPCa. Distribution of risk predictions differed between RCs; median risks for csPCa using the RPCRC and PBCG-RC were 3.3% (interquartile range [IQR] 2.1-7.1%) and 20% (IQR 15-28%), respectively. The correlation between RC risk estimates on individual level was moderate (Spearman's = 0.55). Using the RPCRC's recommended risk threshold of ≥4% for finding csPCa, 36% of participants would get concordant biopsy recommendations. At 10% risk cut-off, RCs agreed in 23% of cases. Both RCs showed good discrimination, with areas under the curves for the RPCRC of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.76) and the PBCG-RC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.68-0.72). Calibration was adequate using the PBCG-RC (calibration slope: 1.13 [95% CI 1.03-1.23]), but the RPCRC underestimated the risk of csPCa (calibration slope: 0.73 [0.68-0.79]). The PBCG-RC showed a net benefit in a decision curve analysis, whereas the RPCRC showed no net benefit at clinically relevant risk threshold levels. Recalibration improved clinical benefit, and differences between RCs decreased.

Conclusions: Assessment of calibration is essential to ensure the clinical value of risk prediction tools. The PBCG-RC provided clinical benefit in its current version online. On the contrary, the RPCRC cannot be recommended in this setting.

Patient Summary: Predicting the probability of finding prostate cancer on biopsy differed between two assessed risk calculators. After recalibration, the agreement of the models improved, and both were shown to be clinically useful.

Citing Articles

Screening for prostate cancer: evidence, ongoing trials, policies and knowledge gaps.

Bratt O, Auvinen A, Arnsrud Godtman R, Hellstrom M, Hugosson J, Lilja H BMJ Oncol. 2025; 2(1):e000039.

PMID: 39886507 PMC: 11203092. DOI: 10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000039.

Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Denijs F, van Harten M, Meenderink J, Leenen R, Remmers S, Venderbos L Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024; 27(3):544-557.

PMID: 38830997 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00852-w.

The Capio Prostate Cancer Center Model for Prostate Cancer Diagnostics-Real-world Evidence from 2018 to 2022.

Palsdottir T, Soderback H, Jaderling F, Bergman M, Vigneswaran H, Gronberg H Eur Urol Open Sci. 2024; 61:29-36.

PMID: 38384438 PMC: 10879938. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.01.012.

References

Vickers A, Russo G, Lilja H, Evans C, Schalken J, Klein E . How Should Molecular Markers and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Be Used in the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer?. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021; 5(2):135-137. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.01.010. View

Louie K, Seigneurin A, Cathcart P, Sasieni P . Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening? A meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2014; 26(5):848-864. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu525. View

Nordstrom T, Aly M, Eklund M, Egevad L, Gronberg H . A genetic score can identify men at high risk for prostate cancer among men with prostate-specific antigen of 1-3 ng/ml. Eur Urol. 2013; 65(6):1184-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.07.005. View

Vickers A, Elkin E . Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making. 2006; 26(6):565-74. PMC: 2577036. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06295361. View

Poyet C, Nieboer D, Bhindi B, Kulkarni G, Wiederkehr C, Wettstein M . Prostate cancer risk prediction using the novel versions of the European Randomised Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk calculators: independent validation and comparison in a contemporary.... BJU Int. 2015; 117(3):401-8. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13314. View

Osses D, Roobol M, Schoots I . Prediction Medicine: Biomarkers, Risk Calculators and Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Risk Stratification Tools in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. Int J Mol Sci. 2019; 20(7). PMC: 6480079. DOI: 10.3390/ijms20071637. View

Gomez-Gomez E, Carrasco-Valiente J, Blanca-Pedregosa A, Barco-Sanchez B, Fernandez-Rueda J, Molina-Abril H . European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator: External Validation, Variability, and Clinical Significance. Urology. 2016; 102:85-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.11.004. View

Ankerst D, Straubinger J, Selig K, Guerrios L, de Hoedt A, Hernandez J . A Contemporary Prostate Biopsy Risk Calculator Based on Multiple Heterogeneous Cohorts. Eur Urol. 2018; 74(2):197-203. PMC: 6082177. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.003. View

Mortezavi A, Palsdottir T, Eklund M, Chellappa V, Murugan S, Saba K . Head-to-head Comparison of Conventional, and Image- and Biomarker-based Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators. Eur Urol Focus. 2020; 7(3):546-553. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.05.002. View

10.

Gayet M, Mannaerts C, Nieboer D, Beerlage H, Wijkstra H, Mulders P . Prediction of Prostate Cancer: External Validation of the ERSPC Risk Calculator in a Contemporary Dutch Clinical Cohort. Eur Urol Focus. 2017; 4(2):228-234. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.07.007. View

11.

Epstein J, Allsbrook Jr W, Amin M, Egevad L . The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29(9):1228-42. DOI: 10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1. View

12.

Roobol M, Kranse R, Bangma C, van Leenders A, Blijenberg B, van Schaik R . Screening for prostate cancer: results of the Rotterdam section of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013; 64(4):530-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.030. View

13.

Roobol M, Steyerberg E, Kranse R, Wolters T, van den Bergh R, Bangma C . A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2009; 57(1):79-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.08.025. View

14.

Strobl A, Vickers A, Van Calster B, Steyerberg E, Leach R, Thompson I . Improving patient prostate cancer risk assessment: Moving from static, globally-applied to dynamic, practice-specific risk calculators. J Biomed Inform. 2015; 56:87-93. PMC: 4532612. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2015.05.001. View

15.

Nordstrom T, Akre O, Aly M, Gronberg H, Eklund M . Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017; 21(1):57-63. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-017-0024-7. View

16.

Gronberg H, Adolfsson J, Aly M, Nordstrom T, Wiklund P, Brandberg Y . Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50-69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16(16):1667-76. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00361-7. View

17.

De Nunzio C, Lombardo R, Tema G, Alkhatatbeh H, Gandaglia G, Briganti A . External validation of Chun, PCPT, ERSPC, Kawakami, and Karakiewicz nomograms in the prediction of prostate cancer: A single center cohort-study. Urol Oncol. 2018; 36(8):364.e1-364.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.05.010. View

18.

Braun K, Sjoberg D, Vickers A, Lilja H, Bjartell A . A Four-kallikrein Panel Predicts High-grade Cancer on Biopsy: Independent Validation in a Community Cohort. Eur Urol. 2015; 69(3):505-11. PMC: 4643413. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.028. View

19.

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

20.

Eklund M, Jaderling F, Discacciati A, Bergman M, Annerstedt M, Aly M . MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Screening. N Engl J Med. 2021; 385(10):908-920. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2100852. View