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

International Journal of Urology

Volumn 24, Issue 12, 2017, Pages 826-832

  Pereira Azevedo, Nuno ^a,b   Braga, Isaac ^b,c   Verbeek, Jan FM ^a   Osório, Luís ^b   Cavadas, Vítor ^b   Fraga, Avelino ^b   Carrasquinho, Eduardo ^d   Cardoso de Oliveira, Eduardo ^d   Nieboer, Daan ^a   Roobol, Monique J ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Institute of Biomedical Sciences Abel Salazar   (Portugal)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINHO   (Portugal)

^d Hospital do Espirito Santo   (Portugal)

Author keywords

biopsy; decision curve analysis; digital rectal examination; prostate cancer; risk calculator

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE VOLUME; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; URINE VOLUME; UROLOGIST; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BIOPSY; BLOOD; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; ECHOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PORTUGAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

AGED; AREA UNDER CURVE; BIOPSY; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PORTUGAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; ROC CURVE; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 85029393180     PISSN: 09198172     EISSN: 14422042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/iju.13442     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur. Urol. 2017; 71: 618–29.
2. Loeb S. Guideline of guidelines: prostate cancer screening. BJU Int. 2014; 114: 323–5.
3. Roobol MJ, Schröder FH, Hugosson J et al. Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group. World J. Urol. 2012; 30: 149–55.
4. Roobol MJ, van Vugt HA, Loeb S et al. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur. Urol. 2012; 61: 577–83.
5. Louie KS, Seigneurin A, Cathcart P, Sasieni P. Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening? A meta-analysis. Ann. Oncol. 2015; 26: 848–64.
6. Bleeker SE, Moll HA, Steyerberg EW et al. External validation is necessary in prediction research: a clinical example. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2003; 56: 826–32.
7. Roehrborn CG, Girman CJ, Rhodes T et al. Correlation between prostate size estimated by digital rectal examination and measured by transrectal ultrasound. Urology 1997; 49: 548–57.
8. Bosch JL, Bohnen AM, Groeneveld FP. Validity of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the estimation of prostate volume in community-based men aged 50 to 78 years: the Krimpen Study. Eur. Urol. 2004; 46: 753–9.
9. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med. Decis. Making 2006; 26: 565–74.
10. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 2010; 21: 128–38.
11. Vickers AJ, Van Calster B, Steyerberg EW. Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests. BMJ 2016; 25: i6.
12. Mistry K, Cable G. Meta-analysis of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination as screening tests for prostate carcinoma. J. Am. Board Fam. Pract. 2003; 16: 95–101.
13. Hattangadi JA, Chen MH, D'Amico AV. Early detection of high-grade prostate cancer using digital rectal examination (DRE) in men with a prostate-specific antigen level of <2.5 ng/mL and the risk of death. BJU Int. 2012; 110: 1636–41.
14. Gosselaar C, Kranse R, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Schröder FH. The interobserver variability of digital rectal examination in a large randomized trial for the screening of prostate cancer. Prostate 2008; 68: 985–93.
15. Varenhorst E, Berglund K, Lofman O, Pedersen K. Inter-observer variation in assessment of the prostate by digital rectal examination. Br. J. Urol. 1993; 72: 173–6.
16. Ahmad S, Manecksha RP, Cullen IM et al. Estimation of clinically significant prostate volumes by digital rectal examination: a comparative prospective study. Can. J. Urol. 2011; 18: 6025–30.
17. Cavadas V, Osório L, Sabell F, Teves F, Branco F, Silva-Ramos M. 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. 2010; 58: 551–8.
18. Trottier G, Roobol MJ, Lawrentschuk N et al. 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 Int. 2011; 108(8 Pt 2): E237–44.
19. van Vugt HA, Roobol MJ, Kranse R et al. Prediction of prostate cancer in unscreened men: external validation of a risk calculator. Eur. J. Cancer 2011; 47: 903–9.
20. Yoon DK, Park JY, Yoon S et al. Can the prostate risk calculator based on Western population be applied to Asian population? Prostate 2012; 15: 721–9.
21. Alberts AR, Schoots IG, Bokhorst LP, van Leenders GJ, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Risk-based patient selection for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound-guided random biopsy avoids unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging scans. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69: 1129–34.
22. Kerr KF, Brown MD, Zhu K, Janes H. Assessing the clinical impact of risk prediction models with decision curves: guidance for correct interpretation and appropriate use. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016; 34: 2534–40.
23. Carter HB, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline. [Cited 31 Aug 2016.] Available from URL: https://www.auanet.org/education/guidelines/prostate-cancer-detection.cfm
24. Carvalhal G, Smith DS, Mager DE, Ramos C, Catalona WJ. Digital rectal examination for detecting prostate cancer at prostate specific antigen levels of 4 ng/ml or less. J. Urol. 1999; 161: 835–9.