A risk calculator to inform the need for a prostate biopsy: a rapid access clinic cohort

Background Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a significant healthcare problem. The critical clinical question is the need for a biopsy. Accurate risk stratification of patients before a biopsy can allow for individualised risk stratification thus improving clinical decision making. This study aims to build a risk calculator to inform the need for a prostate biopsy. Methods Using the clinical information of 4801 patients an Irish Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (IPRC) for diagnosis of PCa and high grade (Gleason ≥7) was created using a binary regression model including age, digital rectal examination, family history of PCa, negative prior biopsy and Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level as risk factors. The discrimination ability of the risk calculator is internally validated using cross validation to reduce overfitting, and its performance compared with PSA and the American risk calculator (PCPT), Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) and European risk calculator (ERSPC) using various performance outcome summaries. In a subgroup of 2970 patients, prostate volume was included. Separate risk calculators including the prostate volume (IPRCv) for the diagnosis of PCa (and high-grade PCa) was created. Results IPRC area under the curve (AUC) for the prediction of PCa and high-grade PCa was 0.6741 (95% CI, 0.6591 to 0.6890) and 0.7214 (95% CI, 0.7018 to 0.7409) respectively. This significantly outperforms the predictive ability of cancer detection for PSA (0.5948), PCPT (0.6304), PBCG (0.6528) and ERSPC (0.6502) risk calculators; and also, for detecting high-grade cancer for PSA (0.6623) and PCPT (0.6804) but there was no significant improvement for PBCG (0.7185) and ERSPC (0.7140). The inclusion of prostate volume into the risk calculator significantly improved the AUC for cancer detection (AUC = 0.7298; 95% CI, 0.7119 to 0.7478), but not for high-grade cancer (AUC = 0.7256; 95% CI, 0.7017 to 0.7495). The risk calculator also demonstrated an increased net benefit on decision curve analysis. Conclusion The risk calculator developed has advantages over prior risk stratification of prostate cancer patients before the biopsy. It will reduce the number of men requiring a biopsy and their exposure to its side effects. The interactive tools developed are beneficial to translate the risk calculator into practice and allows for clarity in the clinical recommendations.

[1]  I. Thompson,et al.  Incorporation of detailed family history from the Swedish Family Cancer Database into the PCPT risk calculator. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[2]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. , 2012, European urology.

[3]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[4]  Shlomi Constantini,et al.  Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of childhood hydrocephalus. , 2009, The Journal of pediatrics.

[5]  H. Klocker,et al.  Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group , 2011, World Journal of Urology.

[6]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  A Contemporary Prostate Biopsy Risk Calculator Based on Multiple Heterogeneous Cohorts. , 2018, European urology.

[7]  Hilde van der Togt,et al.  Publisher's Note , 2003, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[8]  S. Creedon An Irish Study , 2005 .

[9]  P. Scardino,et al.  Predicting High-Grade Cancer at Ten-Core Prostate Biopsy Using Four Kallikrein Markers Measured in Blood in the ProtecT Study , 2015, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[10]  J Col,et al.  Predictors of 30-day mortality in the era of reperfusion for acute myocardial infarction. Results from an international trial of 41,021 patients. GUSTO-I Investigators. , 1995, Circulation.

[11]  E. Elkin,et al.  Decision Curve Analysis: A Novel Method for Evaluating Prediction Models , 2006, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[12]  Thomas Brendan Murphy,et al.  Evaluation of prediction models for the staging of prostate cancer , 2013, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[13]  C. Mathers,et al.  Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012 , 2015, International journal of cancer.

[14]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  Compliance with biopsy recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator , 2012, BJU international.

[15]  R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al.  The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculators indicating a positive prostate biopsy: a comparison , 2008, BJU international.

[16]  D. Lundon,et al.  European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators significantly outperform the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer: a multi‐institutional study , 2016, BJU international.

[17]  Lori J Sokoll,et al.  Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- vs high-grade prostate cancer. , 2014, Urology.

[18]  P. Sasieni,et al.  Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening? A meta-analysis. , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[19]  L. Marignol,et al.  Standardization of assay methods reduces variability of total PSA measurements: an Irish study , 2012, BJU international.

[20]  A. Vickers Prediction models: revolutionary in principle, but do they do more good than harm? , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[22]  I. Thompson,et al.  The Next Generation of Clinical Decision Making Tools: Development of a Real-Time Prediction Tool for Outcome of Prostate Biopsy in Response to a Continuously Evolving Prostate Cancer Landscape. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[23]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. , 2013, European urology.

[24]  C.J.H. Mann,et al.  Clinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation and Updating , 2009 .

[25]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[26]  R. Watson,et al.  Improving multivariable prostate cancer risk assessment using the Prostate Health Index , 2016, BJU international.

[27]  Nicolas Barry Delongchamps,et al.  Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence. , 2007, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[28]  M. Kattan,et al.  How to tell if a new marker improves prediction. , 2011, European urology.