ArticleWorld journal of urology2020
Validating the European randomised study for screening of prostate cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator in a contemporary South African cohort.
Article in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Risk Calculator Strategy Before Magnetic Resonance Imaging Stratification for Biopsy-naïve Men with Suspicion for Prostate Cancer: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.European urology open science · 2024Article
- miR-20b-5p is a novel biomarker for detecting prostate cancer.Oncology letters · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNumerous prostate cancer predictive tools have been developed to help with decision-making in men needing prostate biopsy. However, they have been modelled and validated almost exclusively in Caucasian cohorts, hence limiting their use in other population groups. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the ERSPC risk calculator in a South African cohort.
methodsPatients who have had a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy at Groote Schuur Hospital from January 2008 to August 2017 were reviewed. Predictor variables were entered into the ERSPC risk calculator and results were compared with prostate biopsy pathology results. Predictive accuracy of the ERSPC risk calculator for these patients was derived using receiver operator characteristics (ROC) Area under the curve and is expressed as a percentage.
results516 prostate biopsy sessions in 475 different men were analysed. The predictive accuracy of the ERSPC risk calculator was better than a PSA/DRE strategy for the presence of cancer-0.738 (95% CI 0.695-0.781) vs 0.686 (95% CI 0.639-0.732), and for significant PCa-0.833 (95% CI 0.789-0.876) vs 0.793 (95% CI 0.741-0.846). This translated into 50 less biopsies when compared to a PSA > 4/abnormal DRE strategy. Use of the ERSPC RC would have missed eight non-significant cancers [Significant cancer being defined as having a tumour stage T2b (> 1/2 lobe involved with prostate cancer) and/or a Gleason Score equal to or greater than 7].
conclusionOur results confirm the validity of the ERSPC RC in a South African cohort. Application of this calculator to the wider South African population would allow better selection of patients for prostate biopsy and spare a significant number its adverse consequences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31522234What 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.