Evaluating the PCPT risk calculator in ten international biopsy cohorts: Results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group

World Journal of Urology

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 181-187

  Ankerst, Donna P ^a,b   Boeck, Andreas ^b   Freedland, Stephen J ^c   Thompson, Ian M ^a   Cronin, Angel M ^d   Roobol, Monique J ^e   Hugosson, Jonas ^f   Jones, J Stephen ^g   Kattan, Michael W ^g   Klein, Eric A ^g   Hamdy, Freddie ^h   Neal, David ⁱ   Donovan, Jenny ^j   Parekh, Dipen J ^a   Klocker, Helmut ^k   Horninger, Wolfgang ^k   Benchikh, Amine ^l   Salama, Gilles ^m   Villers, Arnauld ⁿ   Moreira, Daniel M ^c   Schröder, Fritz H ^e   Lilja, Hans ^d   Vickers, Andrew J ^d   more..

^a Mays Cancer Center at UT Health San Antonio   (United States)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c DURHAM VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^f SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^g LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^j UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^k INNSBRUCK MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

^l BICHAT HOSPITAL   (France)

^m Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal Castres Mazamet   (France)

ⁿ LILLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

more..

Author keywords

Calibration; Net benefit; Receiver operating characteristic curve; Risk, prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

AGED; ARTICLE; BLOOD; COHORT ANALYSIS; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; VALIDATION STUDY;

AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; COHORT STUDIES; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; ROC CURVE;

EID: 84859441040     PISSN: 07244983     EISSN: 14338726     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-011-0818-5     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Feng Z, Parnes HL, Coltman CA Jr (2006) Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 529-534.
2. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Roobol MJ, Hugosson J, Jones JS, Kattan MW, Klein E, Hamdy F, Neal D, Donovan J, Parekh DJ, Ankerst D, Bartsch G, Klocker H, Horninger W, Benchikh A, Salama G, Villers A, Freedland SJ, Moreira DM, Schroeder FH, Lilja H (2010) The relationship between prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer risk: the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group. Clin Cancer Res 16: 4374-4381.
3. van Buuren S (2007) Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Stat Methods Med Res 16: 219-242.
4. Janssen KJM, Donders ART, Harrell FE Jr, Vergouwe Y, Chen Q, Grobbee DE, Moons KGM (2010) Missing covariate data in medical research: to impute is better than to ignore. J Clin Epidemiol 63: 721-727.
5. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44: 837-845.
6. Steyerberg EW (2010) Clinical prediction models. Springer, New York, pp 270-271.
7. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB (2006) Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 26: 565-574.
8. Cavadas V, Osório L, Sabell F, Teves F, Branco F, Silva-Ramos M (2010) Prostate cancer prevention trial and European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators: a performance comparison in a contemporary screened cohort. Eur Urol 58: 551-558.
9. Eyre SJ, Ankerst DP, Wei JT, Nair PV, Regan MM, Bueti G, Tang J, Rubin MA, Kearney M, Thompson IM, Sanda MG (2009) Validation in a multiple urology practice setting of the prostate cancer prevention trial calculator for predicting prostate cancer detection. J Urol 182: 2653-2658.
10. Hernandez DJ, Han M, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Taneja SS, Childs SJ, Bartsch G, Partin AW (2009) Predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy: comparison of a novel logistic regression-based model, the prostate cancer risk calculator, and prostate-specific antigen level alone. BJU Int 103: 609-614.
11. Nguyen CT, Yu C, Moussa A, Kattan MW, Jones JS (2010) Performance of prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator in a contemporary cohort screened for prostate cancer and diagnosed by extended prostate biopsy. J Urol 183: 529-533.
12. Oliveira M, Marques V, Carvalho AP, Santos A (2011) Head-to-head comparison of two online nomograms for prostate biopsy outcome prediction. BJU Int 107: 1780-1783.
13. Parekh DJ, Ankerst DP, Higgins BA, Hernandez J, Canby-Hagino E, Brand T, Troyer DA, Leach RJ, Thompson IM (2006) External validation of the prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator in a screened population. Urology 68: 1153-1155.
14. van den Bergh RC, Roobol MJ, Wolters T, van Leeuwen PJ, Schroder FH (2008) The prostate cancer prevention trial and European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators indicating a positive prostate biopsy: a comparison. BJU Int 102: 1068-1073.
15. Ankerst DP, Groskopf J, Day JR, Blase A, Rittenhouse H, Pollock BH, Tangen C, Parekh D, Leach RJ, Thompson I (2008) Predicting prostate cancer risk through incorporation of prostate cancer gene 3. J Urol 180: 1303-1308.
16. Prior C, Guillen-Grima F, Robles JE, Rosell D, Fernandez-Montero JM, Agirre X, Catena R, Calvo A (2010) Use of a combination of biomarkers in serum and urine to improve detection of prostate cancer. World J Urol 28: 681-686.
17. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM (2010) Everything you always wanted to know about evaluating prediction models (but were too afraid to ask). Urology 76: 1298-1301.
18. Kattan MW (2011) Factors affecting the accuracy of prediction models limit the comparison of rival prediction models when applied to separate data sets. Eur Urol 59: 566-567.