ArticleThe Journal of urology2015
The Next Generation of Clinical Decision Making Tools: Development of a Real-Time Prediction Tool for Outcome of Prostate Biopsy in Response to a Continuously Evolving Prostate Cancer Landscape.
Article in The Journal of urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precision Medicine in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Development of the Canary-Early Detection Research Network Active Surveillance Biopsy Risk Calculator.European urology · 2015Trial
- A risk calculator to inform the need for a prostate biopsy: a rapid access clinic cohort.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Multi-cohort modeling strategies for scalable globally accessible prostate cancer risk tools.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Next-generation prostate cancer risk calculator for primary care physicians.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2018Article
- Adaptation and external validation of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator for the Chinese population.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2017Article
- Integration of magnetic resonance imaging into prostate cancer nomograms.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe evaluate whether annual updating of the PCPT Risk Calculator would improve institutional validation compared to static use of the PCPT Risk Calculator alone. MATERIALS AND
methodsData from 5 international cohorts including SABOR, Cleveland Clinic, ProtecT, Tyrol and Durham VA, comprising 18,400 biopsies, were used to evaluate an institution specific annual recalibration of the PCPT Risk Calculator. Using all prior years as a training set and the current year as the test set, annual recalibrations of the PCPT Risk Calculator were compared to static use of the PCPT Risk Calculator in terms of AUC and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit statistic.
resultsFor predicting high grade disease the median AUC (higher is better) of the recalibrated PCPT Risk Calculator (static PCPT Risk Calculator) across all test years for the 5 cohorts was 67.3 (67.5), 65.0 (60.4), 73.4 (73.4), 73.9 (74.1) and 69.6 (67.2), respectively, and median Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit statistics indicated better fit for recalibration compared to the static PCPT Risk Calculator for Cleveland Clinic, ProtecT and the Durham VA but not for SABOR and Tyrol. For predicting overall cancer median AUC was 63.5 (62.7), 61.0 (57.3), 62.1 (62.5), 66.9 (67.3) and 68.5 (65.5), respectively, and median Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit statistics indicated a better fit for recalibration in all cohorts except for Tyrol.
conclusionsA simple method has been provided to tailor the PCPT Risk Calculator to individual hospitals to optimize its accuracy for the patient population at hand.
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.