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
. 2023 Jan;41(1):13-18.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04185-y. Epub 2022 Oct 16.

External validation of the Rotterdam prostate cancer risk calculator within a high-risk Dutch clinical cohort

Marinus J Hagens  1   2   3 , Piter J Stelwagen  4   5 , Hans Veerman  4   6   7 , Sybren P Rynja  6   8 , Martijn Smeenge  6   9 , Vincent van der Noort  10 , Ton A Roeleveld  6   5 , Jolien van Kesteren  4   6 , Sebastiaan Remmers  11 , Monique J Roobol  11 , Pim J van Leeuwen  4   6 , Henk G van der Poel  4   6   7
Affiliations

External validation of the Rotterdam prostate cancer risk calculator within a high-risk Dutch clinical cohort

Marinus J Hagens et al. World J Urol. 2023 Jan.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to externally validate the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC)-3/4 and RPCRC-MRI within a Dutch clinical cohort.

Methods: Men subjected to prostate biopsies, between 2018 and 2021, due to a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) were retrospectively included. The performance of the RPCRC-3/4 and RPCRC-MRI was analyzed in terms of discrimination, calibration and net benefit. In addition, the need for recalibration and adjustment of risk thresholds for referral was investigated. Clinically significant (cs) PCa was defined as Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4.

Results: A total of 1575 men were included in the analysis. PCa was diagnosed in 63.2% (996/1575) of men and csPCa in 41.7% (656/1575) of men. Use of the RPCRC-3/4 could have prevented 37.3% (587/1575) of all MRIs within this cohort, thereby missing 18.3% (120/656) of csPCa diagnoses. After recalibration and adjustment of risk thresholds to 20% for PCa and 10% for csPCa, use of the recalibrated RPCRC-3/4 could have prevented 15.1% (238/1575) of all MRIs, resulting in 5.3% (35/656) of csPCa diagnoses being missed. The performance of the RPCRC-MRI was good; use of this risk calculator could have prevented 10.7% (169/1575) of all biopsies, resulting in 1.2% (8/656) of csPCa diagnoses being missed.

Conclusion: The RPCRC-3/4 underestimates the probability of having csPCa within this Dutch clinical cohort, resulting in significant numbers of csPCa diagnoses being missed. For optimal performance of a risk calculator in a specific cohort, evaluation of its performance within the population under study is essential.

Keywords: MRI; Prostate biopsies; Prostate cancer; Risk stratification.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Petersmann AL, Remmers S, Klein T et al (2021) External validation of two MRI-based risk calculators in prostate cancer diagnosis. World J Urol 39(11):4109–4116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03770-x - DOI
    1. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 79(2):243–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042 - DOI
    1. Van Poppel H, Hogenhout R, Albers P et al (2021) Early detection of prostate cancer in 2020 and beyond: facts and recommendations for the European Union and the European Commission. Eur Urol 79(3):327–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.12.010 - DOI
    1. Van Poppel H, Hogenhout R, Albers P et al (2021) A European Model for an organised risk-stratified early detection programme for prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 4(5):731–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2021.06.006 - DOI
    1. Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW, Kranse R et al (2010) A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57(1):79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.08.025 - DOI

Substances

LinkOut - more resources