Observational study comparing the accuracy/variability between the ERSPC and the PCPT risk calculators for the prediction of significant prostate cancer in patients with PSA <10 ng/mL. Issue 11 (12th November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gomez Gomez, Enrique; Salamanca Bustos, Juan José; Carrasco Valiente, Julia; Fernandez Rueda, Jose Luis; Blanca, Ana; Valero Rosa, José; Bravo Arrebola, Ines; Marquez López, Javier; Jimenez Vacas, Juan Manuel; Luque, Raul; Requena Tapia, Maria José
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 9:Issue 11(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-11-12
• Subjects: significant prostate cancer -- risk calculator variability -- ERSPC -- PCPT; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031032
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Risk calculators (RCs) are easy-to-use tools considering available clinical variables that could help to select those patients with risk of prostate cancer (PCa) who should undergo a prostate biopsy. Objective: To perform a comparison for the prediction of significant PCa (SigPCa) between the European Randomised Study of Screening for PCa (ERSPC) and the PCa Prevention Trial (PCPT) RCs in patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) between 3 and 10 ng/mL through an evaluation of the accuracy/variability between two consecutive PSA values. Setting: An observational study in a major university hospital in the south of Spain. Methods and participants: An observational study was performed in patients who underwent a prostate biopsy. SigPCa probabilities were calculated with the two PSA measures using ERSPC3/4+digital rectal examination and PCPT v2+free PSA RCs. The prediction of SigPCa was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration, discrimination and decision curve analysis were studied. The variability between both RCs&#39; agreement was compared using Cohen&#39;s kappa coefficient. Results: 510 patients were analysed (87 diagnosed with SigPCa). The median PSA values were 5.3 and 5 ng/mL for PSA1 and PSA2, respectively. Both RCs overestimated the risk in the case of high-risk probabilities. Discriminative ability for SigPCa was similar between models with an AUC=0.73 (0.68–0.79) for ERSPC-RC versus 0.73 (0.67–0.79) for PCPT-RC. ERSPC-RC showed less variability than PCPT-RC, with a constant agreement (k=0.7–0.8) for usual range of clinical decision-making. Remarkably, a higher number of biopsies would be avoided using the ERSPC-RC, but more SigPCa would be missed along all the risk probabilities. Conclusions: Both RCs performed similar in the prediction of SigPCa. However, ERSPC-RC seems to be more stable for intraindividual PSA variations.