A comparative effectiveness analysis of the PBCG vs. PCPT risks calculators in a multi-ethnic cohort

被引:19
作者
Carbunaru, Samuel [1 ]
Nettey, Oluwarotimi S. [1 ]
Gogana, Pooja [1 ]
Helenowski, Irene B. [2 ]
Jovanovic, Borko [2 ]
Ruden, Maria [3 ]
Hollowell, Courtney M. P. [4 ]
Sharifi, Roohollah [5 ,6 ]
Kittles, Rick A. [7 ]
Schaeffer, Edward [1 ]
Gann, Peter [8 ]
Murphy, Adam B. [1 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Northwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Dept Urol, 303 E Chicago Ave,Tarry 16, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[2] Northwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Dept Prevent Med, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[3] Univ Illinois, Dept Med, Chicago, IL USA
[4] Cook Cty Hlth & Hosp Syst, Div Urol, 303 E Chicago Ave,Tarry 16, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[5] Jesse Brown VA Med Ctr, Sect Urol, 303 E Chicago Ave,Tarry 16, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[6] Univ Illinois, Sch Med, Dept Urol, Chicago, IL USA
[7] City Hope Canc Ctr, Dept Populat Sci, Div Hlth Equ, Duarte, CA USA
[8] Univ Illinois, Sch Med, Dept Pathol, Chicago, IL USA
关键词
Prostate biopsy collaborative group risk calculator; Prostate Cancer prevention trial risk calculator 2; 0; Prostate cancer risk prediction; Risk calculator; African American validation; 2014 INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY; PROSTATE-CANCER; ROTTERDAM SECTION; BIOPSY; COMPLICATIONS; PREVENTION; PREDICTION; AMERICAN;
D O I
10.1186/s12894-019-0553-6
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Predictive models that take race into account like the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 (PCPT RC) and the new Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) RC have been developed to equitably mitigate the overdiagnosis of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening. Few studies have compared the performance of both calculators across racial groups. Methods From 1485 prospectively recruited participants, 954 men were identified undergoing initial prostate biopsy for abnormal PSA or digital rectal examination in five Chicago hospitals between 2009 and 2014. Discrimination, calibration, and frequency of avoided biopsies were calculated to assess the performance of both risk calculators. Results Of 954 participants, 463 (48.5%) were Black, 355 (37.2%) were White, and 136 (14.2%) identified as Other. Biopsy results were as follows: 310 (32.5%) exhibited no cancer, 323 (33.9%) indolent prostate cancer, and 321 (33.6%) clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Differences in area under the curve (AUC)s for the detection of csPCa between PCPT and PBCG were not statistically different across all racial groups. PBCG did not improve calibration plots in Blacks and Others, as it showed higher levels of overprediction at most risk thresholds. PCPT led to an increased number of avoidable biopsies in minorities compared to PBCG at the 30% threshold (68% vs. 28% of all patients) with roughly similar rates of missed csPCa (23% vs. 20%). Conclusion Significant improvements were noticed in PBCG's calibrations and net benefits in Whites compared to PCPT. Since PBCG's improvements in Blacks are disputable and potentially biases a greater number of low risk Black and Other men towards unnecessary biopsies, PCPT may lead to better biopsy decisions in racial minority groups. Further comparisons of commonly used risk calculators across racial groups is warranted to minimize excessive biopsies and overdiagnosis in ethnic minorities.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer Following Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators [J].
Alberts, Arnout R. ;
Roobol, Monique J. ;
Verbeek, Jan F. M. ;
Schoots, Ivo G. ;
Chiu, Peter K. ;
Osses, Daniel F. ;
Tijsterman, Jasper D. ;
Beerlage, Harrie P. ;
Mannaerts, Christophe K. ;
Schimmoeller, Lars ;
Albers, Peter ;
Arsov, Christian .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2019, 75 (02) :310-318
[2]   A Contemporary Prostate Biopsy Risk Calculator Based on Multiple Heterogeneous Cohorts [J].
Ankerst, Donna P. ;
Straubinger, Johanna ;
Selig, Katharina ;
Guerrios, Lourdes ;
De Hoedt, Amanda ;
Hernandez, Javier ;
Liss, Michael A. ;
Leach, Robin J. ;
Freedland, Stephen J. ;
Kattan, Michael W. ;
Nam, Robert ;
Haese, Alexander ;
Montorsi, Francesco ;
Boorjian, Stephen A. ;
Cooperberg, Matthew R. ;
Poyet, Cedric ;
Vertosick, Emily ;
Vickers, Andrew J. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2018, 74 (02) :197-203
[3]   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
[4]   Evaluating the PCPT risk calculator in ten international biopsy cohorts: results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group [J].
Ankerst, Donna P. ;
Boeck, Andreas ;
Freedland, Stephen J. ;
Thompson, Ian M. ;
Cronin, Angel M. ;
Roobol, Monique J. ;
Hugosson, Jonas ;
Jones, J. Stephen ;
Kattan, Michael W. ;
Klein, Eric A. ;
Hamdy, Freddie ;
Neal, David ;
Donovan, Jenny ;
Parekh, Dipen J. ;
Klocker, Helmut ;
Horninger, Wolfgang ;
Benchikh, Amine ;
Salama, Gilles ;
Villers, Arnauld ;
Moreira, Daniel M. ;
Schroder, Fritz H. ;
Lilja, Hans ;
Vickers, Andrew J. .
WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 30 (02) :181-187
[5]   Prostate-specific Antigen-Based Prostate Cancer Screening: Reduction of Prostate Cancer Mortality After Correction for Nonattendance and Contamination in the Rotterdam Section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [J].
Bokhorst, Leonard P. ;
Bangma, Chris H. ;
van Leenders, Geert J. L. H. ;
Lous, Jan J. ;
Moss, Sue M. ;
Schroder, Fritz H. ;
Roobol, Monique J. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2014, 65 (02) :329-336
[6]   Additional benefit of using a risk-based selection for prostate biopsy: an analysis of biopsy complications in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [J].
Chiu, Peter K. ;
Alberts, Arnout R. ;
Venderbos, Lionne D. F. ;
Bangma, Chris H. ;
Roobol, Monique J. .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 120 (03) :394-400
[7]   The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System [J].
Epstein, Jonathan I. ;
Egevad, Lars ;
Amin, Mahul B. ;
Delahunt, Brett ;
Srigley, John R. ;
Humphrey, Peter A. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2016, 40 (02) :244-252
[8]   Comparison of initial and tertiary centre second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy [J].
Hansen, Nienke L. ;
Koo, Brendan C. ;
Gallagher, Ferdia A. ;
Warren, Anne Y. ;
Doble, Andrew ;
Gnanapragasam, Vincent ;
Bratt, Ola ;
Kastner, Christof ;
Barrett, Tristan .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2017, 27 (06) :2259-2266
[9]   Challenges in Adopting Level 1 Evidence for Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Biomarker for Prostate Cancer Screening [J].
Kim, Soo Jeong ;
Vickers, Andrew J. ;
Hu, Jim C. .
JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2018, 4 (12) :1663-1664
[10]   An Update of the American Urological Association White Paper on the Prevention and Treatment of the More Common Complications Related to Prostate Biopsy [J].
Liss, Michael A. ;
Ehdaie, Behfar ;
Loeb, Stacy ;
Meng, Maxwell V. ;
Raman, Jay D. ;
Spears, Vanessa ;
Stroup, Sean P. .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 198 (02) :329-334