Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2012 Apr;30(2):149-55.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0804-y. Epub 2011 Dec 28.

Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group

Monique J Roobol et al. World J Urol. 2012 Apr.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the predictive performance and potential clinical usefulness of risk calculators of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC RC) with and without information on prostate volume.

Methods: We studied 6 cohorts (5 European and 1 US) with a total of 15,300 men, all biopsied and with pre-biopsy TRUS measurements of prostate volume. Volume was categorized into 3 categories (25, 40, and 60 cc), to reflect use of digital rectal examination (DRE) for volume assessment. Risks of prostate cancer were calculated according to a ERSPC DRE-based RC (including PSA, DRE, prior biopsy, and prostate volume) and a PSA + DRE model (including PSA, DRE, and prior biopsy). Missing data on prostate volume were completed by single imputation. Risk predictions were evaluated with respect to calibration (graphically), discrimination (AUC curve), and clinical usefulness (net benefit, graphically assessed in decision curves).

Results: The AUCs of the ERSPC DRE-based RC ranged from 0.61 to 0.77 and were substantially larger than the AUCs of a model based on only PSA + DRE (ranging from 0.56 to 0.72) in each of the 6 cohorts. The ERSPC DRE-based RC provided net benefit over performing a prostate biopsy on the basis of PSA and DRE outcome in five of the six cohorts.

Conclusions: Identifying men at increased risk for having a biopsy detectable prostate cancer should consider multiple factors, including an estimate of prostate volume.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Calibration plots for the DRE-based ERSPC RC
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Net benefit curves for the DRE-based ERSPC RC (large dashed black) versus the screening strategies of referring no men to biopsy (horizontal line at 0), referring all men to biopsy (solid black) and referring men on the basis of PSA + DRE (small dashed black)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL, III, Buys SS, Chia D, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1310–1319. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810696. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1320–1328. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810084. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, Bergdahl S, Khatami A, et al. Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:725–732. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70146-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Lucia MS, Goodman PJ, Crowley JJ, Parnes HL, Coltman CA., Jr Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/ml or lower. JAMA. 2005;294(1):66–70. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.1.66. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schröder F, Kattan MW (2008) The comparability of models for predicting the risk of a positive prostate biopsy with prostate-specific antigen alone: a systematic review. Eur Urol 54(2):274–290. (Epub 2008 May 22. Review) - PubMed

Publication types

Substances