Dataset Information

Updating the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator with Invasive Cribriform and/or Intraductal Carcinoma for Men with a Prior Negative Biopsy.

ABSTRACT: The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) is a well-validated tool for upfront risk stratification to reduce the number of prostate biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging scans among both biopsy-naïve and previously biopsied men. The presence of invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma (CR/IDC) identifies men with aggressive grade group (GG) 2 tumors. This finding was recently incorporated in the RPCRC for biopsy-naïve men to predict the probability of no PCa, indolent PCa (GG 1 disease and GG 2 disease without CR/IDC), and clinically significant PCa (csPCa: GG 2 disease with CR/IDC and higher). The aim of the current study was to update the RPCRC for men with a previous negative biopsy with the presence of CR/IDC. A total of 2215 men were eligible for analyses, of whom 1776 (80%) were not diagnosed with PCa, 358 (16%) were diagnosed with indolent PCa, and 81 (4%) were diagnosed with csPCa according to the original 2014 Gleason grading. The optimism-corrected area under the curve was 0.69 for any PCa and 0.77 for csPCa. With a threshold of 10% for indolent PCa or 1% for csPCa, 20% of all prostate biopsies could be avoided and 2% of all csPCa cases would be missed. Our results support upfront risk stratification with the updated RPCRC.

Patient summary

Risk stratification for men without a prior diagnosis of prostate cancer can reduce the number of prostate biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging scans carried out in this patient population. Our study shows that it is possible to update the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for men with a previous negative biopsy with the presence of invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma.

SUBMITTER: Remmers S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8693011 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Updating the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator with Invasive Cribriform and/or Intraductal Carcinoma for Men with a Prior Negative Biopsy.

Remmers Sebastiaan S Nieboer Daan D Rijstenberg L Lucia LL Hansum Tim T van Leenders Geert J L H GJLH Roobol Monique J MJ

European urology open science 20211217

The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) is a well-validated tool for upfront risk stratification to reduce the number of prostate biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging scans among both biopsy-naïve and previously biopsied men. The presence of invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma (CR/IDC) identifies men with aggressive grade group (GG) 2 tumors. This finding was recently incorporated in the RPCRC for biopsy-naïve men to predict the probability of no PCa, indolent PCa ( ...[more]

PMID: 34977692

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeA pre-biopsy decision aid is needed to counsel men with a clinical suspicion for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), despite normal prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).MethodsA risk calculator (RC) for csPCa (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (ISUP) ⩾ 2) presence in men with a negative-MRI (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ⩽ 2) was developed, and its performance was compared with RCs of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG), and Prospective Loyola University mpMRI (PLUM). All biopsy-naïve and prior negative biopsy men with a negative-MRI followed by systematic prostate biopsy were included from October 2015 to September 2021. The RC was developed using multivariable logistic regression with the following parameters: age (years), family history of PCa (first- or second-degree family member), ancestry (African Caribbean/other), digital rectal exam (benign/malignant), MRI field strength (1.5/3.0 Tesla), prior negative biopsy status, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (ng/ml/cc). Performance of RCs was compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.ResultsA total of 232 men were included for analysis, of which 18.1% had csPCa. Parameters associated with csPCa were family history of PCa (p < 0.0001), African Caribbean ancestry (p = 0.005), PSA density (p = 0.002), prior negative biopsy (p = 0.06), and age at biopsy (p = 0.157). The area under the curve (AUC) of the developed RC was 0.76 (95% CI 0.68-0.85). This was significantly better than the RCs of the ERSPC (AUC: 0.59; p = 0.001) and PBCG (AUC: 0.60; p = 0.002), yet similar to PLUM (AUC: 0.69; p = 0.09).ConclusionThe developed RC (Prostate Biopsy Cohort Amsterdam ('PROBA' RC), integrated predictors for csPCa at prostate biopsy in negative-MRI men and outperformed other widely used RCs. These findings require external validation before introduction in daily practice.

Project description:Take Home Message Results from this population-based screening cohort show that the calibration of risk prediction tools need to be assessed in the local setting before using in clinical practice. The Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group Risk Calculator provided benefit in the online version. The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator needed recalibration for similar benefit. Background External validation of risk calculators (RCs) is necessary to determine their clinical applicability beyond the setting in which these were developed. Objective To assess the performance of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer RC (RPCRC) and the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group RC (PBCG-RC). Design, setting, and participants We used data from the prospective, population-based STHLM3 screening study, performed in 2012–2015. Participants with prostate-specific antigen ≥3 ng/ml who underwent systematic prostate biopsies were included. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Probabilities for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2, were calculated for each participant. External validity was assessed by calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness for both original and recalibrated models. Results and limitations Out of 5841 men, 1054 (18%) had csPCa. Distribution of risk predictions differed between RCs; median risks for csPCa using the RPCRC and PBCG-RC were 3.3% (interquartile range [IQR] 2.1–7.1%) and 20% (IQR 15–28%), respectively. The correlation between RC risk estimates on individual level was moderate (Spearman’s r = 0.55). Using the RPCRC’s recommended risk threshold of ≥4% for finding csPCa, 36% of participants would get concordant biopsy recommendations. At 10% risk cut-off, RCs agreed in 23% of cases. Both RCs showed good discrimination, with areas under the curves for the RPCRC of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72–0.76) and the PBCG-RC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.68–0.72). Calibration was adequate using the PBCG-RC (calibration slope: 1.13 [95% CI 1.03–1.23]), but the RPCRC underestimated the risk of csPCa (calibration slope: 0.73 [0.68–0.79]). The PBCG-RC showed a net benefit in a decision curve analysis, whereas the RPCRC showed no net benefit at clinically relevant risk threshold levels. Recalibration improved clinical benefit, and differences between RCs decreased. Conclusions Assessment of calibration is essential to ensure the clinical value of risk prediction tools. The PBCG-RC provided clinical benefit in its current version online. On the contrary, the RPCRC cannot be recommended in this setting. Patient summary Predicting the probability of finding prostate cancer on biopsy differed between two assessed risk calculators. After recalibration, the agreement of the models improved, and both were shown to be clinically useful.

Dataset Information

Updating the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator with Invasive Cribriform and/or Intraductal Carcinoma for Men with a Prior Negative Biopsy.

Patient summary

Publications

Updating the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator with Invasive Cribriform and/or Intraductal Carcinoma for Men with a Prior Negative Biopsy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets