ArticleThe Journal of urology2024
Development and Validation of a Prostate Biopsy Risk Calculator in Black Men.
Article in The Journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- An overview of utilizing artificial intelligence in localized prostate cancer imaging.Expert review of medical devices · 2025Review
- Use of fibrin sealant in vein anastomosis in renal transplantation and its effect in preventing blood loss and postoperative peri-graft collection.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe sought to develop and validate a prostate biopsy risk calculator for Black men and compare it with the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial version 2.0, Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group, and Kaiser Permanente Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators for the detection of Gleason Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2 prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe prospectively recruited 2 cohorts of men undergoing prostate biopsy from 5 facilities in Chicago. The first cohort was split into development (70%) and internal validation (30%) groups. The second was used for external validation. Iterative logistic regression was used to develop 3 models for predicting GG ≥ 2 PCa. Models were compared for discrimination using the C statistics, calibration curves, and net benefit curves. The frequency of unnecessary biopsies and missed PCas was compared at 10% and 30% risk thresholds.
resultsThe 2 cohorts included 393 and 292 Black men, respectively. Our first model, Mistry-Sun 1, used serum PSA and prior negative biopsy. Mistry-Sun 2 added abnormal digital rectal exam (DRE) and an interaction term with abnormal DRE and PSA to Mistry-Sun 1. Mistry-Sun 3 added prostate volume, abnormal DRE, and age to Mistry-Sun 1. The C statistics were 0.74, 0.74, and 0.78, respectively, and were similar to or higher than established calculators. At the 10% and 30% risk thresholds our models had the fewest unnecessary biopsies and an appropriate proportion of missed GG ≥ 2 PCas.
conclusionsTailoring a risk calculator to detect clinically significant PCa in Black men may improve biopsy decision-making and outcomes compared to tools developed in non-Black populations.
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.