Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27188476›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of urology2016

External Evaluation of a Novel Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ProstateCheck) Based on Data from the Swiss Arm of the ERSPC.

Cédric Poyet, Marian S Wettstein, Dara J Lundon, Bimal Bhindi, Girish S Kulkarni, Karim Saba, Tullio Sulser, A J Vickers, Thomas Hermanns

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Cédric PoyetDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Marian S WettsteinDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Dara J LundonDepartment of Urology, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Bimal BhindiDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Girish S KulkarniDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Karim SabaDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Tullio SulserDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
A J VickersDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Thomas HermannsDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: thomas.hermanns@usz.ch.
University Hospital of Zurich · CHUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity of Zurich · CHMater Misericordiae University Hospital · IEMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe externally validated a novel prostate cancer risk calculator based on data from the Swiss arm of the ERSPC and assessed whether the risk calculator (ProstateCheck) is superior to the PCPT-RC and SWOP-RC in an independent Swiss cohort. MATERIALS AND

methodsData from all men who underwent prostate biopsy at an academic tertiary care center between 2004 and 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. The probability of having any prostate cancer or high grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 7 or greater) on prostate biopsy was calculated using the ProstateCheck. Risk calculator performance was assessed using calibration and discrimination, and additionally compared with the PCPT-RC and SWOP-RC by decision curve analyses.

resultsOf 1,615 men 401 (25%) were diagnosed with any prostate cancer and 196 (12%) with high grade prostate cancer. Our analyses of the ProstateCheck-RC revealed good calibration in the low risk range (0 to 0.4) and moderate overestimation in the higher risk range (0.4 to 1) for any and high grade prostate cancer. The AUC for the discrimination of any prostate cancer and high grade prostate cancer was 0.69 and 0.72, respectively, which was slightly but significantly higher compared to the PCPT-RC (0.66 and 0.69, respectively) and SWOP-RC (0.64 and 0.70, respectively). Decision analysis, taking into account the harms of transrectal ultrasound measurement of prostate volume, showed little benefit for ProstateCheck-RC, with properties inferior to those of the PCPT-RC and SWOP-RC.

conclusionsOur independent external evaluation revealed moderate performance of the ProstateCheck-RC. Its clinical benefit is limited, and inferior to that of the PCPT-RC and SWOP-RC.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentAgedBiopsyHumansMaleMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesSwitzerlandbiopsydecision support techniquesnomogramsprostate-specific antigenprostatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27188476
PMCPMC5576554
OpenAlexW2377729868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.