Observational studyBMJ open2019
Observational study comparing the accuracy/variability between the ERSPC and the PCPT risk calculators for the prediction of significant prostate cancer in patients with PSA <10 ng/mL.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Pooled it
- A prostate biopsy risk calculator based on MRI: development and comparison of the Prospective Loyola University multiparametric MRI (PLUM) and Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) risk calculators.BJU international · 2023Article
- PSA Based Biomarkers, Imagistic Techniques and Combined Tests for a Better Diagnostic of Localized Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Adaptation of the prostate biopsy collaborative group risk calculator in patients with PSA less than 10 ng/ml improves its performance.International urology and nephrology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRisk calculators (RCs) are easy-to-use tools considering available clinical variables that could help to select those patients with risk of prostate cancer (PCa) who should undergo a prostate biopsy.
objectiveTo perform a comparison for the prediction of significant PCa (SigPCa) between the European Randomised Study of Screening for PCa (ERSPC) and the PCa Prevention Trial (PCPT) RCs in patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) between 3 and 10 ng/mL through an evaluation of the accuracy/variability between two consecutive PSA values.
settingAn observational study in a major university hospital in the south of Spain. METHODS AND
participantsAn observational study was performed in patients who underwent a prostate biopsy. SigPCa probabilities were calculated with the two PSA measures using ERSPC3/4+digital rectal examination and PCPT v2+free PSA RCs. The prediction of SigPCa was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration, discrimination and decision curve analysis were studied. The variability between both RCs' agreement was compared using Cohen's kappa coefficient.
results510 patients were analysed (87 diagnosed with SigPCa). The median PSA values were 5.3 and 5 ng/mL for PSA1 and PSA2, respectively. Both RCs overestimated the risk in the case of high-risk probabilities. Discriminative ability for SigPCa was similar between models with an AUC=0.73 (0.68-0.79) for ERSPC-RC versus 0.73 (0.67-0.79) for PCPT-RC. ERSPC-RC showed less variability than PCPT-RC, with a constant agreement (k=0.7-0.8) for usual range of clinical decision-making. Remarkably, a higher number of biopsies would be avoided using the ERSPC-RC, but more SigPCa would be missed along all the risk probabilities.
conclusionsBoth RCs performed similar in the prediction of SigPCa. However, ERSPC-RC seems to be more stable for intraindividual PSA variations.
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.