Improving prostate biopsy decision making in Mexican patients: Still a major public health concern

被引:5
作者
Amaya-Fragoso, Eduardo [1 ]
Garcia-Perez, Carlos Marcel [1 ]
机构
[1] Inst Mexicano Seguro Social, Northeast Natl Med Ctr, Dept Urol, San Nicolas De Los Garza, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
关键词
Prostate cancer screening; Prostate specific antigen; Gleason score; Prostate biopsy; Latin America; RISK CALCULATOR 2.0; CANCER; PREDICTION;
D O I
10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.05.022
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Prostate cancer screening has reduced its mortality in 21%. However, this has also led to an increased number of biopsies in order to establish the diagnosis, many of them unnecessary. Current screening guidelines prioritize use of prostatic magnetic resonance and new biomarkers to reduce unnecessary biopsies, however, their implementation in developing countries screening programs is mainly limited by its costs. Objective: We aimed to evaluate Prostate Biopsy Risk Collaborative Group (PBCG) and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPTRC) 2.0 predictions accuracy in Mexican patients in order to guide prostate biopsy decision making and reduce unnecessary biopsies. Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients between 55 and 90 years old who underwent prostate biopsy in a highvolume center in Mexico between January 2017 and June 2020. Clinical utility of PBCG and PCPTRC 2.0 to predict high-grade prostate cancer (HGPCa) biopsy outcomes was evaluated using decision curve analysis and compared to actual biopsy decision making. Receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (AUC) was used to measure discrimination and external validation. Results: From 687 patients eligible for prostate biopsy, 433 met selections criteria. One hundred and thirty-five (31.17%) patients were diagnosed with HGPCa, 63 (14.54%) with low-grade disease and 235 (54.27%) had a negative biopsy. PCPTRC 2.0 >= 15% threshold got a standardized net benefit (sNB) of 0.70, while PBCG >= 30% and >= 35% had a sNB of 0.27 and 0.15, respectively. Use of both models for guiding prostate biopsy decision resulted in no statistical difference for HGCPa detection rates, while achieved a significant difference in reducing total and unnecessary biopsies. However, this difference was lower (better) for PCPTRC 2.0, being statistically significative when compared against PBCG thresholds. Both models were well calibrated (AUC 0.79) and achieved external validation compared with international cohorts. Conclusions: Our study is the first to effectively validate both PCPTRC 2.0 and PBCG predictions for the Mexican population, proving that their use in daily practice improves biopsy decision making by accurately predicting HGPCa and limit unnecessary biopsies without representing additional costs to screening programs. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:831.e11 / 831.e18
页数:8
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]   Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 for the Prediction of Low- vs High-grade Prostate Cancer [J].
Ankerst, Donna P. ;
Hoefler, Josef ;
Bock, Sebastian ;
Goodman, Phyllis J. ;
Vickers, Andrew ;
Hernandez, Javier ;
Sokoll, Lori J. ;
Sanda, Martin G. ;
Wei, John T. ;
Leach, Robin J. ;
Thompson, Ian M. .
UROLOGY, 2014, 83 (06) :1362-1367
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Survivorship
[3]   A comparative effectiveness analysis of the PBCG vs. PCPT risks calculators in a multi-ethnic cohort [J].
Carbunaru, Samuel ;
Nettey, Oluwarotimi S. ;
Gogana, Pooja ;
Helenowski, Irene B. ;
Jovanovic, Borko ;
Ruden, Maria ;
Hollowell, Courtney M. P. ;
Sharifi, Roohollah ;
Kittles, Rick A. ;
Schaeffer, Edward ;
Gann, Peter ;
Murphy, Adam B. .
BMC UROLOGY, 2019, 19 (01)
[4]   Prostate cancer disparities in Hispanics by country of origin: a nationwide population-based analysis [J].
Dobbs, Ryan W. ;
Malhotra, Neha R. ;
Abern, Michael R. ;
Moreira, Daniel M. .
PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2019, 22 (01) :159-167
[5]   Re: Marco Borghesi, Hashim Ahmed, Robert Nam, et al. Complications After Systematic, Random, and Image-guided Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 353-65 [J].
Grummet, Jeremy ;
Pepdjonovic, Lana ;
Moon, Daniel .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2017, 71 (05) :E143-E144
[6]   A 16-yr Follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [J].
Hugosson, Jonas ;
Roobol, Monique J. ;
Mansson, Marianne ;
Tammela, Teuvo L. J. ;
Zappa, Marco ;
Nelen, Vera ;
Kwiatkowski, Maciej ;
Lujan, Marcos ;
Carlsson, Sigrid, V ;
Talala, Kirsi M. ;
Lilja, Hans ;
Denis, Louis J. ;
Recker, Franz ;
Paez, Alvaro ;
Puliti, Donella ;
Villers, Arnauld ;
Rebillard, Xavier ;
Kilpelainen, Tuomas P. ;
Stenman, Ulf H. ;
Godtman, Rebecka Arnsrud ;
Kollberg, Karin Stinesen ;
Moss, Sue M. ;
Kujala, Paula ;
Taari, Kimmo ;
Huber, Andreas ;
van der Kwast, Theodorus ;
Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. ;
Bangma, Chris ;
De Koning, Harry J. ;
Schroder, Fritz H. ;
Auvinen, Anssi .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2019, 76 (01) :43-51
[7]   Prostate cancer screening in low- and middle- income countries: the Mexican case [J].
Lajous, Martin ;
Cooperberg, Matthew R. ;
Rider, Jennifer ;
Arturo Manzanilla-Garcia, Hugo ;
Bernardo Gabilondo-Navarro, Fernando ;
Tomas Rodriguez-Covarrubias, Francisco ;
Lopez-Ridaura, Ruy ;
Elvira Torres-Sanchez, Luisa ;
Mohar, Alejandro .
SALUD PUBLICA DE MEXICO, 2019, 61 (04) :542-544
[8]   Prostate cancer risk prediction in a urology clinic in Mexico [J].
Liang, Yuanyuan ;
Messer, Jamie C. ;
Louden, Christopher ;
Jimenez-Rios, Miguel A. ;
Thompson, Ian M. ;
Camarena-Reynoso, Hector R. .
UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2013, 31 (07) :1085-1092
[9]   The prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator 2.0 performs equally for standard biopsy and MRI/US fusion- guided biopsy [J].
Maruf, M. ;
Fascelli, M. ;
George, A. K. ;
Siddiqui, M. M. ;
Kongnyuy, M. ;
DiBianco, J. M. ;
Muthigi, A. ;
Valayil, S. ;
Sidana, A. ;
Frye, T. P. ;
Kilchevsky, A. ;
Choyke, P. L. ;
Turkbey, B. ;
Wood, B. J. ;
Pinto, P. A. .
PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2017, 20 (02) :179-185
[10]   World Cancer Report 2014. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, WHO Press, 2015 [J].
McGuire, Shelley .
ADVANCES IN NUTRITION, 2016, 7 (02) :418-419