ArticleBMC urology2019
A comparative effectiveness analysis of the PBCG vs. PCPT risks calculators in a multi-ethnic cohort.
Article in BMC urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part I: Prostate Cancer Screening.The Journal of urology · 2023Guideline
- Recent advances in discriminating prostate cancer from benign prostatic diseases in the pre-biopsy population.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2026Review
- Does inclusion of neighborhood variables improve clinical risk prediction for advanced prostate cancer in Black and White men?Urologic oncology · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of a Prostate Biopsy Risk Calculator in Black Men.The Journal of urology · 2024Article
- Inhibition of the B7-H3 immune checkpoint limits hepatocellular carcinoma progression by enhancing T lymphocyte-mediated immune cytotoxicity in vitro and in vivo.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2023Article
- Accommodating heterogeneous missing data patterns for prostate cancer risk prediction.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Predicting the diagnosis of prostate cancer with a scoring system based on novel biomarkers.BMC urology · 2022Article
- Review
- Clash of the calculators: External validation of prostate cancer risk calculators in men undergoing mpMRI and transperineal biopsy.BJUI compass · 2021Article
- 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPredictive models that take race into account like the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 (PCPT RC) and the new Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) RC have been developed to equitably mitigate the overdiagnosis of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening. Few studies have compared the performance of both calculators across racial groups.
methodsFrom 1485 prospectively recruited participants, 954 men were identified undergoing initial prostate biopsy for abnormal PSA or digital rectal examination in five Chicago hospitals between 2009 and 2014. Discrimination, calibration, and frequency of avoided biopsies were calculated to assess the performance of both risk calculators.
resultsOf 954 participants, 463 (48.5%) were Black, 355 (37.2%) were White, and 136 (14.2%) identified as Other. Biopsy results were as follows: 310 (32.5%) exhibited no cancer, 323 (33.9%) indolent prostate cancer, and 321 (33.6%) clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Differences in area under the curve (AUC)s for the detection of csPCa between PCPT and PBCG were not statistically different across all racial groups. PBCG did not improve calibration plots in Blacks and Others, as it showed higher levels of overprediction at most risk thresholds. PCPT led to an increased number of avoidable biopsies in minorities compared to PBCG at the 30% threshold (68% vs. 28% of all patients) with roughly similar rates of missed csPCa (23% vs. 20%).
conclusionSignificant improvements were noticed in PBCG's calibrations and net benefits in Whites compared to PCPT. Since PBCG's improvements in Blacks are disputable and potentially biases a greater number of low risk Black and Other men towards unnecessary biopsies, PCPT may lead to better biopsy decisions in racial minority groups. Further comparisons of commonly used risk calculators across racial groups is warranted to minimize excessive biopsies and overdiagnosis in ethnic minorities.
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.