Prospective development of a prostate cancer risk calculator in a racially diverse population: The Kaiser Permanente Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator

被引:3
作者
Presti, Joseph [1 ,2 ]
Alexeeff, Stacey [2 ]
Horton, Brandon [2 ]
Prausnitz, Stephanie [2 ]
Avins, Andrew L. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Kaiser Permanente Northern Calif, Dept Urol, Oakland, CA 94611 USA
[2] Kaiser Permanente Northern Calif, Div Res, Oakland, CA 94611 USA
[3] Kaiser Permanente Northern Calif, Dept Med, Oakland, CA USA
关键词
Prostate cancer; PSA; Risk calculator; SERVICES TASK-FORCE; PREDICTION; PATTERNS; BIOPSY;
D O I
10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.05.011
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: To prospectively develop a prostate cancer (CaP) risk calculator in a racially diverse population. Materials and Methods: All patients referred for prostate biopsy due to an elevated prostate-specific antigen or abnormal digital rectal exam in a 19-months period at Kaiser Permanente Northern California underwent a standardized systematic, ultrasound-guided biopsy scheme (14-cores for initial biopsy, 18-20 cores for repeat biopsy). All pertinent clinical variables were prospectively collected. The highest Gleason score for each patient was recorded for all positive biopsies. We used a split sample design to develop and validate 3 multivariable prediction models using multinomial logistic regression with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator. All models included these core variables: age, race, prostate-specific antigen, prior biopsy status, body mass index, and family history of CaP. Model 1 included only the core variables, Model 2 added digital rectal exam, and Model 3 added digital rectal exam and prostate volume. We considered 3 outcomes: high-grade disease (Gleason score >= 7), low-grade disease (Gleason score = 6), and no cancer. Predictive discrimination was quantified using the c-statistic. Results: Complete data were available for 2,967 patients. Cancer was found in 50% of patients: of these, 58% were Gleason score = 7 and 42% were low grade. Compared to Caucasians, African Americans were at a higher risk while Asians and Hispanics were at a lower risk for overall and high-grade cancer detection. The number of prior negative biopsies was also protective for these outcomes. The c-statistics for Model 1, 2, and 3 to predict high-grade disease vs. low-grade or no cancer were 0.76, 0.79, and 0.85, respectively. The c-statistics for Model 1, 2, and 3 to predict any CaP vs. no cancer were 0.69, 0.70, and 0.79, respectively. All models were well calibrated for all outcomes. Conclusions: In men with elevated PSA levels, our calculator provides useful information that may enhance the shared decision-making process regarding the need for biopsy. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:847.e1 / 847.e8
页数:8
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] A Contemporary Prostate Biopsy Risk Calculator Based on Multiple Heterogeneous Cohorts
    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.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2018, 74 (02) : 197 - 203
  • [2] Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 for the Prediction of Low- vs High-grade Prostate Cancer
    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.
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2014, 83 (06) : 1362 - 1367
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2019, Cancer Facts and Figures
  • [4] Collins GS, 2015, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V68, P112, DOI [10.7326/M14-0697, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.010, 10.7326/M14-0698, 10.1186/s12916-014-0241-z, 10.1038/bjc.2014.639, 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.025, 10.1002/bjs.9736, 10.1136/bmj.g7594]
  • [5] DENIS LJ, 1995, CANCER, V75, P1187, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19950301)75:5<1187::AID-CNCR2820750521>3.0.CO
  • [6] 2-G
  • [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
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    Egevad, Lars
    Amin, Mahul B.
    Delahunt, Brett
    Srigley, John R.
    Humphrey, Peter A.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2016, 40 (02) : 244 - 252
  • [8] A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    Zelefsky, Michael J.
    Sjoberg, Daniel D.
    Nelson, Joel B.
    Egevad, Lars
    Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina
    Vickers, Andrew J.
    Parwani, Anil V.
    Reuter, Victor E.
    Fine, Samson W.
    Eastham, James A.
    Wiklund, Peter
    Han, Misop
    Reddy, Chandana A.
    Ciezki, Jay P.
    Nyberg, Tommy
    Klein, Eric A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (03) : 428 - 435
  • [9] Screening for Prostate Cancer US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
    Grossman, David C.
    Curry, Susan J.
    Owens, Douglas K.
    Bibbins-Domingo, Kirsten
    Caughey, Aaron B.
    Davidson, Karina W.
    Doubeni, Chyke A.
    Ebel, Mark
    Epling, John W., Jr.
    Kemper, Alex R.
    Krist, Alex H.
    Kubik, Martha
    Landefeld, C. Seth
    Mangione, Carol M.
    Silverstein, Michael
    Simon, Melissa A.
    Siu, Albert L.
    Tseng, Chien-Wen
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2018, 319 (18): : 1901 - 1913
  • [10] Hosmer DW, 1997, STAT MED, V16, P965