Urologic oncology · 2016
Development and external multicenter validation of Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium prostate cancer risk calculator for initial prostate biopsy.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Rui, Xie Liping, Xue Wei, Ye Zhangqun, Ma Lulin, Gao Xu, Ren Shancheng, Wang Fubo, Zhao Lin, Xu Chuanliang, Sun Yinghao, Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Substantial differences exist in the relationship of prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level between Western and Asian populations. Classic Western risk calculators, European Randomized Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator, and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator, were shown to be not applicable in Asian populations. We aimed to develop and validate a risk calculator for predicting the probability of PCa and high-grade PCa (defined as Gleason Score sum 7 or higher) at initial prostate biopsy in Chinese men.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urology outpatients who underwent initial prostate biopsy according to the inclusion criteria were included. The multivariate logistic regression-based Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium Risk Calculator (CPCC-RC) was constructed with cases from 2 hospitals in Shanghai. Discriminative ability, calibration and decision curve analysis were externally validated in 3 CPCC member hospitals.
RESULTS: Of the 1,835 patients involved, PCa was identified in 338/924 (36.6%) and 294/911 (32.3%) men in the development and validation cohort, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that 5 predictors (age, logPSA, logPV, free PSA ratio, and digital rectal examination) were associated with PCa (Model 1) or high-grade PCa (Model 2), respectively. The area under the curve of Model 1 and Model 2 was 0.801 (95% CI: 0.771-0.831) and 0.826 (95% CI: 0.796-0.857), respectively. Both models illustrated good calibration and substantial improvement in decision curve analyses than any single predictors at all threshold probabilities. Higher predicting accuracy, better calibration, and greater clinical benefit were achieved by CPCC-RC, compared with European Randomized Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator in predicting PCa.
CONCLUSIONS: CPCC-RC performed well in discrimination and calibration and decision curve analysis in external validation compared with Western risk calculators. CPCC-RC may aid in decision-making of prostate biopsy in Chinese or in other Asian populations with similar genetic and environmental backgrounds.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urology outpatients who underwent initial prostate biopsy according to the inclusion criteria were included. The multivariate logistic regression-based Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium Risk Calculator (CPCC-RC) was constructed with cases from 2 hospitals in Shanghai. Discriminative ability, calibration and decision curve analysis were externally validated in 3 CPCC member hospitals.
RESULTS: Of the 1,835 patients involved, PCa was identified in 338/924 (36.6%) and 294/911 (32.3%) men in the development and validation cohort, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that 5 predictors (age, logPSA, logPV, free PSA ratio, and digital rectal examination) were associated with PCa (Model 1) or high-grade PCa (Model 2), respectively. The area under the curve of Model 1 and Model 2 was 0.801 (95% CI: 0.771-0.831) and 0.826 (95% CI: 0.796-0.857), respectively. Both models illustrated good calibration and substantial improvement in decision curve analyses than any single predictors at all threshold probabilities. Higher predicting accuracy, better calibration, and greater clinical benefit were achieved by CPCC-RC, compared with European Randomized Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator in predicting PCa.
CONCLUSIONS: CPCC-RC performed well in discrimination and calibration and decision curve analysis in external validation compared with Western risk calculators. CPCC-RC may aid in decision-making of prostate biopsy in Chinese or in other Asian populations with similar genetic and environmental backgrounds.