Advertisement

Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -)

, Volume 184, Issue 3, pp 701–706 | Cite as

Predicting prostate cancer: analysing the clinical efficacy of prostate cancer risk calculators in a referral population

  • R. W. Foley
  • D. J. Lundon
  • K. Murphy
  • T. B. Murphy
  • D. J. Galvin
  • R. W. G. Watson
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The decision to proceed to biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in clinical practice is a difficult one. Prostate cancer risk calculators allow for a systematic approach to the use of patient information to predict a patient’s likelihood of prostate cancer.

Aims

In this paper, we validate the two leading prostate cancer risk calculators, the prostate cancer prevention trial (PCPT) and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) in an Irish population.

Methods

Data were collected for 337 men referred to one tertiary referral center in Ireland. Calibration analysis, ROC analysis and decision curve analysis were undertaken to ascertain the performance of the PCPT and the ERSPC risk calculators in this cohort.

Results

Of 337 consecutive biopsies, cancer was subsequently diagnosed in 146 men (43 %), 98 (67 %) of which were high grade. The AUC for the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators were 0.68 and 0.66, respectively for the prediction of prostate cancer. Each calculator was sufficiently calibrated in this cohort. Decision curve analysis demonstrated a net benefit via the use of the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Conclusions

The PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators achieve a statistically significant prediction of prostate cancer in this Irish population. This study provides external validation for these calculators, and therefore these tools can be used to aid in clinical decision making.

Keywords

Biopsy Decision support techniques Prostatic neoplasm Risk 

Notes

Acknowledgments

RWG Watson and D. J. Lundon received funding from the Prostate Cancer Research Consortium (PCRC) under the Irish Cancer Society, the Urology Foundation and the Irish Research Council. RW Foley received funding through the UCD School of Medicine Intercalated MSc. Medical Science Scholarship Programme.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    National Cancer Registry (2014) Cancer in Ireland 1994–2011: annual report of the National Cancer Registry 2014. http://www.ncri.ie/sites/ncri/files/pubs/annualreport2014.pdf. Accessed 2 Jul 2014
  2. 2.
    National Cancer Registry (2010) Cancer trends. No. 3. Recent trends in prostate cancerGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, Rosario DJ, Scattoni V, Lotan Y (2013) Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 64:876–892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2014) Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment, 1-recommendations. [CG175]. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175. Accessed 9 Mar 2015
  5. 5.
    Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Feng Z, Parnes HL, Coltman CA (2006) Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:529–534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kranse R, Roobol M, Schröder FH (2008) A graphical device to represent the outcomes of a logistic regression analysis. Prostate 68:1674–1680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heidenreich A, Abrahamsson P-A, Artibani W, Catto J, Montorsi F, Van Poppel H, Wirth M, Mottet N (2013) Early detection of prostate cancer: European Association of Urology recommendation. Eur Urol 64:347–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    SWOP (2014) SWOP: prostate cancer risk calculator (based on ERSPC). http://www.prostatecancer-riskcalculator.com/. Accessed 3 Jul 2014
  9. 9.
    Roobol MJ, Schröder FH, Hugosson J et al (2012) Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group. World J Urol 30:149–155PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhu Y, Wang J-Y, Shen Y-J, Dai B, Ma C-G, Xiao W-J, Lin G-W, Yao X-D, Zhang S-L, Ye D-W (2012) External validation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening For Prostate Cancer risk calculators in a Chinese cohort. Asian J Androl 14:738–744PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Trottier G, Roobol MJ, Lawrentschuk N et al (2011) Comparison of risk calculators from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening For Prostate Cancer in a contemporary Canadian cohort. BJU Int 108:E237–E244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Vugt HA, Roobol MJ, Kranse R, Määttänen L, Finne P, Hugosson J, Bangma CH, Schröder FH, Steyerberg EW (2011) Prediction of prostate cancer in unscreened men: external validation of a risk calculator. Eur J Cancer 47:903–909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cavadas V, Osório L, Sabell F, Teves F, Branco F, Silva-Ramos M (2010) 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 58:551–558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, Dahm P (2013) Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane database Syst Rev 1:4720Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Irish National Cancer Control Programme (2011) NCCP Prostate cancer referral guideline. http://www.healthlink.ie/Oncology/NCCP. Prostate cancer referral guideline version 1.3 Jan 2011.pdf
  16. 16.
    Tormey WP (2014) The complexity of PSA interpretation in clinical practice. Surgeon 12:323–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    PCPT (2014) Individualized risk assessment of prostate cancer (based on PCPT). http://deb.uthscsa.edu/URORiskCalc/Pages/uroriskcalc.jsp. Accessed 3 Jul 2014
  19. 19.
    DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez J-C, Müller M (2011) pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinform 12:77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vickers A, Cronin A, Roobol M, Savage C, Peltola M, Pettersson K, Scardino PT, Schröder F, Lilja H (2010) Reducing unnecessary biopsy during prostate cancer screening using a four-kallikrein panel: an independent replication. J Clin Oncol 28:2493–2498PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ et al (2004) Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level ≤4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 350:2239–2246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Vugt HA, Kranse R, Steyerberg EW, van der Poel HG, Busstra M, Kil P, Oomens EH, de Jong IJ, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ (2012) Prospective validation of a risk calculator which calculates the probability of a positive prostate biopsy in a contemporary clinical cohort. Eur J Cancer 48:1809–1815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roobol MJ, Zhu X, Schröder FH, van Leenders GJLH, van Schaik RH, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW (2013) A calculator for prostate cancer risk 4 years after an initially negative screen: findings from ERSPC Rotterdam. Eur Urol 63:627–633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lundon DJ, Kelly BD, Foley R, Loeb S, Fitzpatrick JM, Watson RWG, Rogers E, Durkan GC, Walsh K (2014) Prostate cancer risk assessment tools in an unscreened population. World J Urol. doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1365-7 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roemeling S, Schröder FH (2008) Words of wisdom. Re: needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence. Eur Urol 53:663–664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Forde JC, Marignol L, Blake O, McDermott T, Grainger R, Crowley VE, Lynch TH (2012) Standardization of assay methods reduces variability of total PSA measurements: an Irish study. BJU Int 110:644–650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. W. Foley
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • D. J. Lundon
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • K. Murphy
    • 4
  • T. B. Murphy
    • 4
    • 5
  • D. J. Galvin
    • 1
    • 3
  • R. W. G. Watson
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.UCD School of Medicine and Medical ScienceUniversity College DublinDublin 4Ireland
  2. 2.UCD Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical ResearchUniversity College DublinDublin 4Ireland
  3. 3.Department of UrologyMater Misericordiae University HospitalDublin 7Ireland
  4. 4.UCD School of Mathematical SciencesUniversity College DublinDublin 4Ireland
  5. 5.Insight Centre for Data AnalyticsUniversity College DublinDublin 4Ireland

Personalised recommendations