Prospective evaluation on the effect of interobserver variability of digital rectal examination on the performance of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (12) ◽  
pp. 826-832 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuno Pereira-Azevedo ◽  
Isaac Braga ◽  
Jan FM Verbeek ◽  
Luís Osório ◽  
Vítor Cavadas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Interobserver Variability ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Prostate Cancer Risk ◽  
Risk Calculator ◽  
Prospective Evaluation ◽  
Rectal Examination

scholarly journals PROSTATE CANCER RISK CALCULATOR COMPARISON: IPCRC vs KPCRC vs PCPT-RC vs ERSPC-RC IN PREDICTING PROSTATE CANCER AT HASAN SADIKIN HOSPITAL

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christiano Tansol ◽  
Ferry Safriadi
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Prostate Cancer Risk ◽  
Risk Calculator ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Chi Square Analysis

Objective: To compare the validated calculators of Indonesian Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator  (IPCRC) vs Korean Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (KPCRC) vs Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPT-RC) vs European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ERSPC-RC) in predicting prostate cancer in our patients at Hasan Sadikin Hospital Bandung. Material & methods: This study is a prospective study conducted from August 2014 – December 2015 at Urology Clinic at Hasan Sadikin Hospital that included all patients with BPH or suspected PCa who have been undergoing prostate biopsy. Variables such as age, PSA level, prostate volume (transabdominal or transrectal ultrasound) and digital rectal examination (DRE) finding were recorded. Risk calculation was generated using each risk calculator. Data were analyzed using Chi-square analysis, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, and finally receiver operating characterisitic (ROC) curve. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 20.  Results: There were 89 BPH and 43 PCa patients between August 2014 – December 2015. The mean age, PSA and prostate volume are 65.78 ± 8.33 years; 121.16 ± 375.76ng/ml; 55.86 ± 31.9ml respectively. Abnormal DRE was found in 27 PCas and 4 BPHs. Receiver operator curve analysis of IPCRC showed AUC 0.861 vs KPCRC (AUC=0.779) vs ERSPC-RC (AUC=0.745) vs PCPT-RC (AUC=0.794) vs PSA (AUC 0.794), sensitivity 81.4% and specificity 71.9% with cut-off point 19.67 for the IPCRC in predicting the prostate cancer in our center. Conclusion: IPCRC is better than KPCRC, PCPT-RC and ERSPC-RC in predicting prostate cancer in our center.

Prediction of Prostate Cancer Risk: The Role of Prostate Volume and Digital Rectal Examination in the ERSPC Risk Calculators

2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 577-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monique J. Roobol ◽  
Heidi A. van Vugt ◽  
Stacy Loeb ◽  
Xiaoye Zhu ◽  
Meelan Bul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Prostate Cancer Risk ◽  
Rectal Examination

scholarly journals Next-generation prostate cancer risk calculator for primary care physicians

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. E64-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert K. Nam ◽  
Raj Satkunasivam ◽  
Joseph L. Chin ◽  
Jonathan Izawa ◽  
John Trachtenberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Prostate Cancer Risk ◽  
Concordance Index ◽  
Risk Calculator ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Term Survival

Introduction: Current prostate cancer risk calculators are limited in impact because only a probability of having prostate cancer is provided. We developed the next generation of prostate cancer risk calculator that incorporates life expectancy in order to better evaluate prostate cancer risk in context to a patient’s age and comorbidity.Methods: We combined two cohorts to develop the new risk calculator. The first was 5638 subjects who all underwent a prostate biopsy for prostate cancer detection. The second was 979 men diagnosed with prostate cancer with long-term survival data. Two regression models were used to create multivariable nomograms and an online prostate cancer risk calculator was developed.Results: Of the 5638 patients who underwent a prostate biopsy, 629 (11%) were diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason Score 7[4+3] or more). Of the 979 patients who underwent treatment for prostate cancer, the 10-year overall survival (OS) was 49.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.6‒52.9). The first multivariable nomogram for cancer risk had a concordance index of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72, 0.76), and the second nomogram to predict survival had a concordance index of 0.71 (95% CI 0.69‒0.72). The nextgeneration prostate cancer risk calculator was developed online and is available at: http://riskcalc.org/ProstateCA_Screen_Tool.Conclusions: We have developed the next-generation prostate cancer risk calculator that incorporates a patient’s life expectancy based on age and comorbidity. This approach will better evaluate prostate cancer risk. Future studies examining other populations will be needed for validation.

Prostate cancer risk calculators for healthy population: A systematic review (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Bandala-Jacques ◽  
Kevin Daniel Castellanos Esquivel ◽  
Fernanda Pérez-Hurtado ◽  
Cristobal Hernández-Silva ◽  
Nancy Reynoso-Noverón
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Prostate Cancer Risk ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
Healthy Population ◽  
Risk Of Cancer ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND Screening for prostate cancer has long been a debated, complex topic. The use of risk calculators for prostate cancer is recommended for determining patients’ individual risk of cancer and the subsequent need for a prostate biopsy. These tools could lead to a better discrimination of patients in need of invasive diagnostic procedures and for optimized allocation of healthcare resources OBJECTIVE To systematically review available literature on current prostate cancer risk calculators’ performance in healthy population, by comparing the impact factor of individual items on different cohorts, and the models’ overall performance. METHODS We performed a systematic review of available prostate cancer risk calculators targeted at healthy population. We included studies published from January 2000 to March 2021 in English, Spanish, French, Portuguese or German. Two reviewers independently decided for or against inclusion based on abstracts. A third reviewer intervened in case of disagreements. From the selected titles, we extracted information regarding the purpose of the manuscript, the analyzed calculators, the population for which it was calibrated, the included risk factors, and the model’s overall accuracy. RESULTS We included a total of 18 calculators across 53 different manuscripts. The most commonly analyzed ones were they PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators, developed from North American and European cohorts, respectively. Both calculators provided high precision for the diagnosis of aggressive prostate cancer (AUC as high as 0.798 for PCPT and 0.91 for ERSPC). We found 9 calculators developed from scratch for specific populations, which reached diagnostic precisions as high as 0.938. The most commonly included risk factors in the calculators were age, PSA levels and digital rectal examination findings. Additional calculators included race and detailed personal and family history CONCLUSIONS Both the PCPR and the ERSPC risk calculators have been successfully adapted for cohorts other than the ones they were originally created for with no loss of diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, designing calculators from scratch considering each population’s sociocultural differences has resulted in risk tools that can be well adapted to be valid in more patients. The best risk calculator for prostate cancer will be that which was has been calibrated for its intended population and can be easily reproduced and implemented CLINICALTRIAL CRD42021242110

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document