Feasibility and accuracy of prostate cancer risk calculators in prediction of prostate cancer, extraprostatic extension as well as the risk of lymph nodes metastasis.

Introduction: The aim of this article was to evaluate the accuracy of European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC 4) and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT 2.0) risk calculator on predicting high-grade prostate cancer (HGPCa) and accuracy of Partin and Briganti nomograms on organ confined (OC) or extraprostatic cancer (EXP), seminal vesicles invasion (SVI) and risk of lymph nodes metastasis. Material and methods: A cohort of 269 men aged between 44-84 years, who underwent radical prostatectomy was retrospectively analysed. Based on estimated calculator risk, patients were divided into risk groups: low (LR), medium (MR) and high (HR). Results obtained with calculators were compared to post-surgical final pathology outcome. Results: In ERPSC4, the average risk for HGPC was LR = 5%, MR = 21%, and HR = 64%. In PCPT 2.0, the average risk for HG was: LR - 8%, MR - 14%, and HR - 30%. In the final results, HGPC was observed in: LR = 29%, MR = 67%, and HR = 81%. In Partin, LNI was estimated to occur in: LR = 1%, MR = 2%, and HR = 7.5% and in Briganti: LR = 1.8%, MR = 11.4%, and HR = 44.2% while finally it was found in: LR = 1.3%, MR = 0%, and HR = 11.6%. Conclusions: ERPSC 4 and PCPT 2.0 corresponded well with each other as well as Partin and Briganti. ERPSC 4 was more accurate in predicting HGPC than PCPT 2.0. Partin was more accurate as for LNI than Briganti. In this study group a large underestimation was observed in reference to Gleason grade.