Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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. National Cancer Registry (2010) Cancer trends. No. 3. Recent trends in prostate cancer

  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 64:876–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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 98:529–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kranse R, Roobol M, Schröder FH (2008) A graphical device to represent the outcomes of a logistic regression analysis. Prostate 68:1674–1680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 64:347–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. SWOP (2014) SWOP: prostate cancer risk calculator (based on ERSPC). http://www.prostatecancer-riskcalculator.com/. Accessed 3 Jul 2014

  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 30:149–155

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 14:738–744

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–E244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 47:903–909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 58:551–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, Dahm P (2013) Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane database Syst Rev 1:4720

    Google Scholar 

  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. Tormey WP (2014) The complexity of PSA interpretation in clinical practice. Surgeon 12:323–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 29:1228–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 12:77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 28:2493–2498

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 350:2239–2246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 48:1809–1815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 63:627–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 53:663–664

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 110:644–650

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UCD School of Medicine and Medical Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

    R. W. Foley, D. J. Lundon, D. J. Galvin & R. W. G. Watson

  2. UCD Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Research, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

    R. W. Foley, D. J. Lundon & R. W. G. Watson

  3. Department of Urology, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Eccles Street, Dublin 7, Ireland

    R. W. Foley, D. J. Lundon & D. J. Galvin

  4. UCD School of Mathematical Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland

    K. Murphy & T. B. Murphy

  5. Insight Centre for Data Analytics, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland

    T. B. Murphy

Authors
  1. R. W. Foley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. J. Lundon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. B. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. J. Galvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. W. G. Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. W. Foley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Foley, R.W., Lundon, D.J., Murphy, K. et al. Predicting prostate cancer: analysing the clinical efficacy of prostate cancer risk calculators in a referral population. Ir J Med Sci 184, 701–706 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-015-1291-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-015-1291-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation