Comparison of risk calculators from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer in a contemporary Canadian cohort
Version of Record online: 20 APR 2011
© 2011 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL
Volume 108, Issue 8b, pages E237–E244, October 2011
How to Cite
Trottier, G., Roobol, M. J., Lawrentschuk, N., Boström, P. J., Fernandes, K. A., Finelli, A., Chadwick, K., Evans, A., van der Kwast, T. H., Toi, A., Zlotta, A. R. and Fleshner, N. E. (2011), Comparison of risk calculators from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer in a contemporary Canadian cohort. BJU International, 108: E237–E244. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10207.x
- Issue online: 10 OCT 2011
- Version of Record online: 20 APR 2011
- Accepted for publication 19 January 2011
- prostate neoplasms;
Study Type – Prognosis (inception cohort)
Level of Evidence 1b
• To compare the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPT-RC) and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ERSPC-RC) in a single-institution Canadian cohort.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
• At Princess Margaret Hospital, 982 consecutive patients with PCPT-RC and ERSPC-RC covariables were prospectively catalogued before prostate biopsy for suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa).
• Receiver–operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for each calculator and prostate-specific antigen (PSA).
• Comparisons by area under the curve (AUC) and calibration plots were performed.
• Predictors of PCa were identified by univariable and multivariable logistic regression.
• PCa was detected in 46% and high-grade (HG) PCa (Gleason ≥4) in 23% of subjects with a median PSA level of 6.02 ng/mL.
• Multivariable analysis identified transrectal ultrasonography nodule, prostate volume and PSA as the most important predictors of PCa and HG PCa.
• ROC curve analysis showed that the ERSPC-RC (AUC = 0.71) outperformed the PCPT-RC (AUC = 0.63) and PSA (AUC = 0.55), for PCa prediction, P < 0.001.
• The PCPT-RC was better calibrated in the higher prediction range (40–100%) than the ERSPC-RC, whereas the ERSPC-RC had better calibration and avoided more biopsies in the lower risk range (0–30%).
• Discrimination of the ERSPC-RC continued to be superior to the PCPT-RC when the cohort was stratified by different clinical variables.
• The ERSPC-RC had better discrimination for predicting PCa compared to the PCPT-RC in this Canadian cohort.
• Calibration would need to be improved to allow routine use of the ERSPC-RC in Canadian practice.
What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add?
The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator (ERSPC-RC) has been validated in a European population and shown to outperform the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator (PCPT-RC) for predicting prostate cancer. However, the ERSPC-RC has not been validated in North America where the PCPT-RC has been extensively validated. This study is the first to compare these calculators in non-European patient cohort showing better performance of the ERSPC-RC, but poor calibration.