Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 185–191 | Cite as

Evaluating the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial High Grade prostate cancer risk calculator in 10 international biopsy cohorts: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group

  • Donna P. AnkerstEmail author
  • Andreas Boeck
  • Stephen J. Freedland
  • J. Stephen Jones
  • Angel M. Cronin
  • Monique J. Roobol
  • Jonas Hugosson
  • Michael W. Kattan
  • Eric A. Klein
  • Freddie Hamdy
  • David Neal
  • Jenny Donovan
  • Dipen J. Parekh
  • Helmut Klocker
  • Wolfgang Horninger
  • Amine Benchikh
  • Gilles Salama
  • Arnauld Villers
  • Daniel M. Moreira
  • Fritz H. Schröder
  • Hans Lilja
  • Andrew J. Vickers
  • Ian M. Thompson
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the applicability of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial High Grade (Gleason grade ≥ 7) Risk Calculator (PCPTHG) in ten international cohorts, representing a range of populations.

Methods

A total of 25,512 biopsies from 10 cohorts (6 European, 1 UK and 3 US) were included; 4 implemented 6-core biopsies, and the remaining had 10 or higher schemes; 8 were screening cohorts, and 2 were clinical. PCPTHG risks were calculated using prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, age, African origin and history of prior biopsy and evaluated in terms of calibration plots, areas underneath the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and net benefit curves.

Results

The median AUC of the PCPTHG for high-grade disease detection in the 10- and higher-core cohorts was 73.5 % (range, 63.9–76.7 %) compared with a median of 78.1 % (range, 72.0–87.6 %) among the four 6-core cohorts. Only the 10-core Cleveland Clinic cohort showed clear evidence of under-prediction by the PCPTHG, and this was restricted to risk ranges less than 15 %. The PCPTHG demonstrated higher clinical net benefit in higher-core compared with 6-core biopsy cohorts, and among the former, there were no notable differences observed between clinical and screening cohorts, nor between European and US cohorts.

Conclusions

The PCPTHG requires minimal patient information and can be applied across a range of populations. PCPTHG risk thresholds ranging from 5 to 20 %, depending on patient risk averseness, are recommended for clinical prostate biopsy decision-making.

Keywords

Calibration Discrimination Net benefit High-grade prostate cancer Risk 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Statistics supported by a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant for the Cancer Therapy and Research Center at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio [P30-CA054174]. Grants to support the work of the ERSPC include: European Union Grants SOC 95 35109, SOC 96 201869 05F022, SOC 97 201329, SOC 98 32241, the 6th Framework Program of the EU: PMark:LSHC-CT-2004-503011; The Dutch Cancer Society (KWF 94-869, 98-1657, 2002-277, 2006-3518); The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW-002822820, 22000106, 50-50110-98-311); The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation of Rotterdam (SWOP); Institut National du Cancer convention 12-2008 Convention : 07/3D1616/SPC-111-13/NG-NC Appel à projets 2007 : Santé publique et Cancers Ligue Nationale Contre le cancer PROJET No. PRE08/AV-CONV. DRC 2009/119 (Tarn); Beckman-Coulter-Hybritech Inc; Abbott Pharmaceuticals, Sweden; Af Jochnick’s foundation; Catarina and Sven Hagstroms family foundation; Gunvor and Ivan Svensson’s foundation; Johanniterorden, King Gustav V Jubilée Clinic Cancer Research Foundation; Sahlgrenska University Hospital; Schering Plough, Sweden, Swedish Cancer Society (Contract numbers 09 0107, 080315 and 083455); Wallac Oy, Turkku, Finland. The Tyrol study is supported by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon and the Tyrolean Prostate Cancer Early Detection Group. The SABOR project is supported by the San Antonio Center of Biomarkers of Risk for Prostate Cancer CA086402. The ProtecT study is funded by the UK NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (projects 96/20/06, 96/20/99).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Feng Z, Parnes HL, Coltman CA Jr (2006) Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:529–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nguyen CT, Yu C, Moussa A, Kattan MW, Jones JS (2010) Performance of Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator in a contemporary cohort screened for prostate cancer and diagnosed by extended prostate biopsy. J Urol 183:529–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ngo TC, Turnbill BB, Lavori PW, Presti JC Jr (2011) The prostate cancer risk calculator from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial underestimates risk of high grade cancer in contemporary referral patients. J Urol 185:483–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nam RK, Kattan MW, Chin JL, Trachtenberg J, Singal R, Rendon R, Klotz LH, Sugar L, Sherman C, Izawa J, Bell D, Stanimirovic A, Venkateswaran V, Diamandis EP, Yu C, Loblaw A, Narod SA (2011) Prospective multi-institutional study evaluating the performance of prostate cancer risk calculators. J Clin Oncol 29:2959–2964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Roobol MJ, Hugosson J, Jones JS, Kattan MW, Klein E, Hamdy F, Neal D, Donovan J, Parekh DJ, Ankerst D, Bartsch G, Klocker H, Horninger W, Benchikh A, Salama G, Villers A, Freedland SJ, Moreira DM, Schroeder FH, Lilja H (2010) The relationship between prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer risk: the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group. Clin Cancer Res 16:4374–4381PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ankerst DP, Boeck A, Freedland SJ, Thompson IM, Cronin AM, Roobol MJ, Hugosson J, Jones JS, Kattan MW, Klein EA, Hamdy F, Neal D, Donovan J, Parekh DJ, Klocker H, Horninger W, Benchikh A, Salama G, Villers A, Moreira DM, Schroeder FH, Lilja H, Vickers AJ (2012) Evaluating the PCPT Risk Calculator in ten international biopsy cohorts: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group. World J Urol 30:181–187Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Buuren S (2007) Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Stat Methods Med Res 16:219–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vickers AJ, Elkin EB (2006) Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Mak 26:565–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Takenaka A, Hara R, Hyodo Y, Ishimura T, Sakai Y, Fujioka H, Fujii T, Jo Y, Fujisawa M (2006) Transperineal extended biopsy improves the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate: a comparative study of 6 and 12 biopsy cores. Int J Urol 13:10–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Connell MJ, Smith CS, Fitzpatrick PE, Keane CO, Fitzpatrick JM, Behan M, Fenlon HF, Murray JG (2004) Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate gland: value of 12 versus 6 cores. Abdom Imaging 29:132–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akbal C, Sofikerim M, Guenay M, Ekici S, Ozen H (2004) An extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer 45:444–448Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ankerst DP, Miyamoto R, Nair PV, Pollock BH, Thompson IM, Parekh DJ (2009) Yearly prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination fluctuations in a screened population. J Urol 181:2071–2075PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vickers AJ, Cronin AM (2010) Everything you always wanted to know about evaluating prediction models (but were too afraid to ask). Urology 76:1298–1301PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thompson IM, Ankerst DP (2012) The benefits of risk assessment tools for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 61:662–663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donna P. Ankerst
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Andreas Boeck
    • 2
  • Stephen J. Freedland
    • 3
  • J. Stephen Jones
    • 4
  • Angel M. Cronin
    • 5
  • Monique J. Roobol
    • 6
  • Jonas Hugosson
    • 7
  • Michael W. Kattan
    • 4
  • Eric A. Klein
    • 4
  • Freddie Hamdy
    • 8
  • David Neal
    • 9
  • Jenny Donovan
    • 10
  • Dipen J. Parekh
    • 1
  • Helmut Klocker
    • 11
  • Wolfgang Horninger
    • 11
  • Amine Benchikh
    • 12
  • Gilles Salama
    • 13
  • Arnauld Villers
    • 14
  • Daniel M. Moreira
    • 3
  • Fritz H. Schröder
    • 6
  • Hans Lilja
    • 15
  • Andrew J. Vickers
    • 15
  • Ian M. Thompson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA)San AntonioUSA
  2. 2.Technische Universitaet MuenchenGarchingGermany
  3. 3.Durham VA Medical Center and Duke UniversityDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Cleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  5. 5.Dana Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  6. 6.Erasmus Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Sahlgrenska University HospitalGoteborgSweden
  8. 8.Oxford UniversityOxfordUK
  9. 9.Cambridge UniversityCambridgeUK
  10. 10.Bristol UniversityBristolUK
  11. 11.Innsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
  12. 12.Hôpital Bichat-Claude BernardParisFrance
  13. 13.Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal Castres-MazametCastresFrance
  14. 14.Department of UrologyCHU LilleUniv Lille Nord deFrance
  15. 15.Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations