Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators : Results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group

Roobol, Monique J. ; Schröder, F. H. ; Hugosson, Jonas ; Jones, J. Stephen ; Kattan, Michael W. ; Klein, Eric A. ; Hamdy, Freddie ; Neal, David ; Donovan, Jenny and Parekh, Dipen J. , et al. (2012) In World Journal of Urology 30(2). p.149-155
Abstract

Objectives: To compare the predictive performance and potential clinical usefulness of risk calculators of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC RC) with and without information on prostate volume. Methods: We studied 6 cohorts (5 European and 1 US) with a total of 15,300 men, all biopsied and with pre-biopsy TRUS measurements of prostate volume. Volume was categorized into 3 categories (25, 40, and 60 cc), to reflect use of digital rectal examination (DRE) for volume assessment. Risks of prostate cancer were calculated according to a ERSPC DRE-based RC (including PSA, DRE, prior biopsy, and prostate volume) and a PSA + DRE model (including PSA, DRE, and prior biopsy). Missing data on prostate volume were... (More)

Objectives: To compare the predictive performance and potential clinical usefulness of risk calculators of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC RC) with and without information on prostate volume. Methods: We studied 6 cohorts (5 European and 1 US) with a total of 15,300 men, all biopsied and with pre-biopsy TRUS measurements of prostate volume. Volume was categorized into 3 categories (25, 40, and 60 cc), to reflect use of digital rectal examination (DRE) for volume assessment. Risks of prostate cancer were calculated according to a ERSPC DRE-based RC (including PSA, DRE, prior biopsy, and prostate volume) and a PSA + DRE model (including PSA, DRE, and prior biopsy). Missing data on prostate volume were completed by single imputation. Risk predictions were evaluated with respect to calibration (graphically), discrimination (AUC curve), and clinical usefulness (net benefit, graphically assessed in decision curves). Results: The AUCs of the ERSPC DRE-based RC ranged from 0.61 to 0.77 and were substantially larger than the AUCs of a model based on only PSA + DRE (ranging from 0.56 to 0.72) in each of the 6 cohorts. The ERSPC DRE-based RC provided net benefit over performing a prostate biopsy on the basis of PSA and DRE outcome in five of the six cohorts. Conclusions: Identifying men at increased risk for having a biopsy detectable prostate cancer should consider multiple factors, including an estimate of prostate volume.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and , et al. (More)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and (Less)
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
keywords
Calibration, Net benefit, Prostate cancer, Prostate volume, PSA, Risk
in
World Journal of Urology
volume
30
issue
2
pages
149 - 155
publisher
Springer
external identifiers
  • pmid:22203238
  • scopus:84859444637
ISSN
0724-4983
DOI
10.1007/s00345-011-0804-y
language
English
LU publication?
no
id
6376639b-0b70-4903-9760-d64042501d93
date added to LUP
2022-12-06 15:27:17
date last changed
2024-04-04 13:49:04
@article{6376639b-0b70-4903-9760-d64042501d93,
  abstract     = {{<p>Objectives: To compare the predictive performance and potential clinical usefulness of risk calculators of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC RC) with and without information on prostate volume. Methods: We studied 6 cohorts (5 European and 1 US) with a total of 15,300 men, all biopsied and with pre-biopsy TRUS measurements of prostate volume. Volume was categorized into 3 categories (25, 40, and 60 cc), to reflect use of digital rectal examination (DRE) for volume assessment. Risks of prostate cancer were calculated according to a ERSPC DRE-based RC (including PSA, DRE, prior biopsy, and prostate volume) and a PSA + DRE model (including PSA, DRE, and prior biopsy). Missing data on prostate volume were completed by single imputation. Risk predictions were evaluated with respect to calibration (graphically), discrimination (AUC curve), and clinical usefulness (net benefit, graphically assessed in decision curves). Results: The AUCs of the ERSPC DRE-based RC ranged from 0.61 to 0.77 and were substantially larger than the AUCs of a model based on only PSA + DRE (ranging from 0.56 to 0.72) in each of the 6 cohorts. The ERSPC DRE-based RC provided net benefit over performing a prostate biopsy on the basis of PSA and DRE outcome in five of the six cohorts. Conclusions: Identifying men at increased risk for having a biopsy detectable prostate cancer should consider multiple factors, including an estimate of prostate volume.</p>}},
  author       = {{Roobol, Monique J. and Schröder, F. H. and Hugosson, Jonas and Jones, J. Stephen and Kattan, Michael W. and Klein, Eric A. and Hamdy, Freddie and Neal, David and Donovan, Jenny and Parekh, Dipen J. and Ankerst, Donna and Bartsch, George and Klocker, Helmut and Horninger, Wolfgang and Benchikh, Amine and Salama, Gilles and Villers, Arnauld and Freedland, Stephen J. and Moreira, Daniel M. and Vickers, Andrew J. and Lilja, Hans and Steyerberg, Ewout W.}},
  issn         = {{0724-4983}},
  keywords     = {{Calibration; Net benefit; Prostate cancer; Prostate volume; PSA; Risk}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{2}},
  pages        = {{149--155}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  series       = {{World Journal of Urology}},
  title        = {{Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators : Results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0804-y}},
  doi          = {{10.1007/s00345-011-0804-y}},
  volume       = {{30}},
  year         = {{2012}},
}