ArticleWorld journal of urology2015
Prostate cancer risk assessment tools in an unscreened population.
Article in World journal of urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Pooled it
- The prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator 2.0 performs equally for standard biopsy and MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2017Trial
- BioPrev-C - development and validation of a contemporary prostate cancer risk calculator.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- A Novel Risk Calculator Incorporating Clinical Parameters, Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification Before Transperineal Prostate Biopsy.European urology open science · 2023Article
- Review
- Clash of the calculators: External validation of prostate cancer risk calculators in men undergoing mpMRI and transperineal biopsy.BJUI compass · 2021Article
- The Evolving Clinical Management of Genitourinary Cancers Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- A COVID-19 Test Triage Tool, Predicting Negative Results and Reducing the Testing Burden on Healthcare Systems During a Pandemic.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- A Decision Aide for the Risk Stratification of GU Cancer Patients at Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection, COVID-19 Related Hospitalization, Intubation, and Mortality.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Observational
- Prediction of Low Birth Weight Delivery by Maternal Status and Its Validation: Decision Curve Analysis.International journal of preventive medicine · 2017Article
- Risk stratification of prostate cancer: integrating multiparametric MRI, nomograms and biomarkers.Future oncology (London, England) · 2016Review
- External Evaluation of a Novel Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ProstateCheck) Based on Data from the Swiss Arm of the ERSPC.The Journal of urology · 2016Article
- Predicting prostate cancer: analysing the clinical efficacy of prostate cancer risk calculators in a referral population.Irish journal of medical science · 2015Article
- John Fitzpatrick: an appreciation.The oncologist · 2015Article
- External validation of extended prostate biopsy nomogram.Central European journal of urology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator (PCPT-RC) and European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator (ERSPC-RC) in a unique unscreened population from the West of Ireland. PATIENTS AND
methodsData was prospectively recorded for all 556 consecutive men who underwent prostate biopsy at our institution as part of the Rapid Access Prostate Assessment Clinic program in Ireland. The estimated probabilities of detecting prostate cancer and high-grade disease were calculated using the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators. For each calculator the discriminative ability, calibration and clinical utility was assessed.
resultsProstate cancer was detected in 49% and high-grade prostate cancer in 34% of men. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that the PCPT-RCs outperformed the ERSPC-RCs for the prediction of prostate cancer areas underneath the ROC curve (AUC 0.628 vs. 0.588, p = 0.0034) and for the prediction of high-grade prostate cancer (AUC 0.792 vs. 0.690, p = 0.0029). Both risk calculators generally over-predicted the risk of prostate cancer and high-grade disease across a wide range of predicted probabilities. Decision curve analysis suggested greater net benefit using the PCPT-RCs in this population.
conclusionsMultivariable nomograms can further aid patient counselling for early prostate cancer detection. In unscreened men from Western Ireland, the PCPT-RCs provided better discrimination for overall prostate cancer and high-grade disease compared to the ERSPC-RC. However, both tools overpredicted the risk of cancer detection on biopsy, and it is possible that a different set of predictive variables may be more useful in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.