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

Monique J. Roobol, F. H. Schröder, Jonas Hugosson, J. Stephen Jones, Michael W. Kattan, Eric A. Klein, Freddie Hamdy, David Neal, Jenny Donovan, Dipen J Parekh, Donna Ankerst, George Bartsch, Helmut Klocker, Wolfgang Horninger, Amine Benchikh, Gilles Salama, Arnauld Villers, Stephen J. Freedland, Daniel M. Moreira, Andrew J. VickersHans Lilja, Ewout W. Steyerberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

56 Citations (Scopus)

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 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)149-155
Number of pages7
JournalWorld Journal of Urology
Volume30
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Digital Rectal Examination
Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms
Biopsy
Area Under Curve
Calibration

Keywords

  • Calibration
  • Net benefit
  • Prostate cancer
  • Prostate volume
  • PSA
  • Risk

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

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; Parekh, Dipen J; Ankerst, Donna; Bartsch, George; Klocker, Helmut; Horninger, Wolfgang; Benchikh, Amine; Salama, Gilles; Villers, Arnauld; Freedland, Stephen J.; Moreira, Daniel M.; Vickers, Andrew J.; Lilja, Hans; Steyerberg, Ewout W.

In: World Journal of Urology, Vol. 30, No. 2, 01.04.2012, p. 149-155.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Roobol, MJ, Schröder, FH, Hugosson, J, Jones, JS, Kattan, MW, Klein, EA, 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, Vickers, AJ, Lilja, H & Steyerberg, EW 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 Journal of Urology, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 149-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0804-y
Roobol, Monique J. ; Schröder, F. H. ; Hugosson, Jonas ; Jones, J. Stephen ; Kattan, Michael W. ; Klein, Eric A. ; Hamdy, Freddie ; Neal, David ; Donovan, Jenny ; Parekh, Dipen J ; Ankerst, Donna ; Bartsch, George ; Klocker, Helmut ; Horninger, Wolfgang ; Benchikh, Amine ; Salama, Gilles ; Villers, Arnauld ; Freedland, Stephen J. ; Moreira, Daniel M. ; Vickers, Andrew J. ; Lilja, Hans ; Steyerberg, Ewout W. / Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators : Results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group. In: World Journal of Urology. 2012 ; Vol. 30, No. 2. pp. 149-155.
@article{37f255c5ab9640a4afa5f5402d2eafb3,
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",
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 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.",
keywords = "Calibration, Net benefit, Prostate cancer, Prostate volume, PSA, Risk",
author = "Roobol, {Monique J.} and Schr{\"o}der, {F. H.} and Jonas Hugosson and Jones, {J. Stephen} and Kattan, {Michael W.} and Klein, {Eric A.} and Freddie Hamdy and David Neal and Jenny Donovan and Parekh, {Dipen J} and Donna Ankerst and George Bartsch and Helmut Klocker and Wolfgang Horninger and Amine Benchikh and Gilles Salama and Arnauld Villers and Freedland, {Stephen J.} and Moreira, {Daniel M.} and Vickers, {Andrew J.} and Hans Lilja and Steyerberg, {Ewout W.}",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00345-011-0804-y",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "149--155",
journal = "World Journal of Urology",
issn = "0724-4983",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators

T2 - Results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group

AU - Roobol, Monique J.

AU - Schröder, F. H.

AU - Hugosson, Jonas

AU - Jones, J. Stephen

AU - Kattan, Michael W.

AU - Klein, Eric A.

AU - Hamdy, Freddie

AU - Neal, David

AU - Donovan, Jenny

AU - Parekh, Dipen J

AU - Ankerst, Donna

AU - Bartsch, George

AU - Klocker, Helmut

AU - Horninger, Wolfgang

AU - Benchikh, Amine

AU - Salama, Gilles

AU - Villers, Arnauld

AU - Freedland, Stephen J.

AU - Moreira, Daniel M.

AU - Vickers, Andrew J.

AU - Lilja, Hans

AU - Steyerberg, Ewout W.

PY - 2012/4/1

Y1 - 2012/4/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Calibration

KW - Net benefit

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Prostate volume

KW - PSA

KW - Risk

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859444637&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859444637&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00345-011-0804-y

DO - 10.1007/s00345-011-0804-y

M3 - Article

C2 - 22203238

AN - SCOPUS:84859444637

VL - 30

SP - 149

EP - 155

JO - World Journal of Urology

JF - World Journal of Urology

SN - 0724-4983

IS - 2

ER -