ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Incorporating PHI in decision making: external validation of the Rotterdam risk calculators for detection of prostate cancer.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeExternal validation of existing risk calculators (RC) to assess the individualized risk of detecting prostate cancer (PCa) in prostate biopsies is needed to determine their clinical usefulness. The objective was to externally validate the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer RCs 3 and 4 (RPCRC-3/4) and that incorporating PHI (RPCRC-PHI) in a contemporary Spanish cohort.
methodsMulticenter prospective study that included patients suspicious of harboring PCa. Men who attended the urology consultation were tested for PHI before prostate biopsy. To evaluate the performance of the prediction models: discrimination (receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves), calibration and net benefit [decision curve analysis (DCA)] were calculated. These analyses were carried out for detection of any PCa and clinically significant (cs)PCa, defined as ISUP grade ≥ 2.
resultsAmong the 559 men included, 337 (60.28%) and 194 (34.7%) were diagnosed of PCa and csPCa, respectively. RPCRC-PHI had the best discrimination ability for detection of PCa and csPCa with AUCs of 0.85 (95%CI 0.82-0.88) and 0.82 (95%CI 0.78-0.85), respectively. Calibration plots showed that RPCRC-3/4 underestimates the risk of detecting PCa showing the need for recalibration. In DCA, RPCRC-PHI shows the highest net benefit compared to biopsy all men.
conclusionsThe RPCRC-PHI performed properly in a contemporary clinical setting, especially for prediction of csPCa.
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.