Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35098168›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2022

Reducing Biopsies and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scans During the Diagnostic Pathway of Prostate Cancer: Applying the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator to the PRECISION Trial Data.

Sebastiaan Remmers, Veeru Kasivisvanathan, Jan F M Verbeek, Caroline M Moore, Monique J Roobol, ERSPC Rotterdam Study Group PRECISION Investigators Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Validation of the Barcelona-MRI predictive model when PI-RADS v2.1 is used with trans-perineal prostate biopsies.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sebastiaan RemmersDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Veeru KasivisvanathanDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Jan F M VerbeekDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Caroline M MooreDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Monique J RoobolDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
ERSPC Rotterdam Study Group PRECISION Investigators Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk stratification in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer (PCa) can be used to reduce biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, while maintaining the detection of clinically significant PCa (csPCa). The use of highly discriminating and well-calibrated models will generate better clinical outcomes if context-dependent thresholds are used.

objectiveTo retrospectively assess the effect of the upfront use of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) developed in a screening cohort and the RPCRC-MRI developed in a clinical cohort while exploring the need to adapt thresholds in biopsy-naïve men in the PRECISION (Prostate Evaluation for Clinically Important Disease: Sampling Using Image Guidance or Not?) trial. DESIGN SETTING AND

participantsIn the transrectal ultrasonography arm, we evaluated 188 men; in the MRI arm, we evaluated 206 (for the reduction of MRI scans) and 137 (for the reduction of targeted biopsies) men. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Performance was assessed by discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The performance of the RPCRC was good. However, intercept adjustment was warranted. Net benefit was observed from a recalibrated probability of 32% for any PCa and 10% for csPCa. After recalibration and applying a threshold of 20% for any PCa or 10% for csPCa, 28% of all biopsies could have been reduced, missing five cases of csPCa. The uncalibrated RPCRC could reduce 35% of all MRI scans, with a threshold of 20% for any PCa or 4% for csPCa. In the MRI arm, performance was good without stressing recalibration. Net benefit was observed from a probability of 22% for any PCa and 7% for csPCa. With a threshold of 20% for any PCa or 4% for csPCa, 9% of all targeted biopsies could be reduced, missing one grade group 2 PCa.

conclusionsThe performance of the RPCRC and RPCRC-MRI in men included in the PRECISION trial was good, but recalibration and adaptation of the risk threshold of the RPCRC are indicated to reach optimal performance. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we show that risk stratification with the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator has added value in reducing harm, but adjustment to reflect the characteristics of the patient cohort is indicated.

Indexed as

Clinical decision-makingMagnetic resonance imagingNomogramsProbabilityProstatic neoplasmsRisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID35098168
PMCPMC8783039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.