Adaptation and external validation of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator for the Chinese population

Chiu, Peter Ka Fung; Roobol, Monique J.; Nieboer, Daan; Teoh, Jeremy Yuen‐Chun; Yuen, Sze-Kit; Hou, See‐Ming; Yiu, MK; Ng, Chi‐Fai

doi:10.1038/pcan.2016.57

Cited by 19 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The A-ERSPC-RC3 which originated from the original ERSPC-RC can accurately predict the outcome of prostate biopsy in a contemporary Chinese multi-center clinical cohort [11]. However, the calibration plots showed an underestimation of the probability of detecting PCa on biopsy in the Chinese external validation cohort used in the current analyses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…This RC showed good predictive performance after external validation [10]. Recently, the ERSPC-RC3 was adapted to the Asian setting, showing excellent discrimination and calibration in Hong Kong-based development and external validation cohorts [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Highgrade (HG) PCa was defined as Gleason score ≥ 7, other prostate cancers were defined as low-grade prostate cancer (LGPCa) [15]. The A-ERSPC-RC3 was adjusted for the Asian setting by changing the intercept of the constant and was validated in more than 2000 Chinese men [16]. The A-ERSPC-RC3 includes PSA, TRUS measured prostate volume, DRE and TRUS abnormality.…”

Section: Outcome Measurements and Prediction Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparing the prediction of prostate biopsy outcome using the Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium (CPCC) Risk Calculator and the Asian adapted Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Risk Calculator in Chinese and European men

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To externally validate the clinical utility of Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium Risk Calculator (CPCC-RC) and Asian adapted Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator 3 (A-ERSPC-RC3) for prediction prostate cancer (PCa) and high-grade prostate cancer (HGPCa, Gleason Score ≥ 3 + 4) in both Chinese and European populations. Materials and methods The Chinese clinical cohort, the European population-based screening cohort, and the European clinical cohort included 2,508, 3,616 and 617 prostate biopsy-naive men, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plot and decision curve analyses were applied in the analysis. ResultsThe CPCC-RC's predictive ability for any PCa (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.75-0.79) was lower than the A-ERSPC-RC3 (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.81) in the European screening cohort (p < 0.001), but similar for HGPCa (p = 0.24). The CPCC-RC showed lower predictive accuracy for any PCa (AUC 0.65, 95% CI 0.61-0.70), but acceptable predictive accuracy for HGPCa (AUC 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.77) in the European clinical cohort. The A-ERSPC-RC3 showed an AUC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72-0.76) in predicting any PCa, and a similar AUC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72-0.76) in predicting HGPCa in Chinese cohort. In the Chinese population, decision curve analysis revealed a higher net benefit for CPCC-RC than A-ERSPC-RC3, while in the European screening and clinical cohorts, the net benefit was higher for A-ERSPC-RC3. Conclusions The A-ERSPC-RC3 accurately predict the prostate biopsy in a contemporary Chinese multi-center clinical cohort. The CPCC-RC can predict accurately in a population-based screening cohort, but not in the European clinical cohort.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Outcome Measurements and Prediction Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing the prediction of prostate biopsy outcome using the Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium (CPCC) Risk Calculator and the Asian adapted Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Risk Calculator in Chinese and European men

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another issue that might be of interest was the difference of performance between PSA-AV and logistic regression models combining independent predictors (e.g., PSA, age, PV, DRE, and TRUS findings). 34 In order to illustrate this issue, we divided our cohort into two parts (one with 1067 and another with 1066 patients) and built a logistic model based on PSA, age, and PV in 1067 patients. Then, we validated this logistic model in the other 1066 patients and showed an AUC of 0.855 in predicting PCa in the validation cohort (while PSA-AV had an AUC of 0.851, P AUC compare = 0.78).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of PSA-age volume score in predicting prostate cancer in Chinese population

Zhang

et al. 2018

Asian J Androl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was performed to evaluate prostate-specific antigen-age volume (PSA-AV) scores in predicting prostate cancer (PCa) in a Chinese biopsy population. A total of 2355 men who underwent initial prostate biopsy from January 2006 to November 2015 in Huashan Hospital were recruited in the current study. The PSA-AV scores were calculated and assessed together with PSA and PSA density (PSAD) retrospectively. Among 2133 patients included in the analysis, 947 (44.4%) were diagnosed with PCa. The mean age, PSA, and positive rates of digital rectal examination result and transrectal ultrasound result were statistically higher in men diagnosed with PCa (all P < 0.05). The values of area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of PSAD and PSA-AV were 0.864 and 0.851, respectively, in predicting PCa in the entire population, both performed better than PSA (AUC = 0.805; P < 0.05). The superiority of PSAD and PSA-AV was more obvious in subgroup with PSA ranging from 2.0 ng ml−1 to 20.0 ng ml−1. A PSA-AV score of 400 had a sensitivity and specificity of 93.7% and 40.0%, respectively. In conclusion, the PSA-AV score performed equally with PSAD and was better than PSA in predicting PCa. This indicated that PSA-AV score could be a useful tool for predicting PCa in Chinese population.

show abstract

“…New biomarkers replacing lower-performing ones may be included when available, thus continuously improving the performance of those calculators. Several complex scoring models for risk assessment of PCa GS ≥ 7 have been developed, including population adaption: the Stockholm model 3 (STHLM3) [45], the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) [102], the Indonesian prostate cancer risk calculator (IPCRC) [103], a Chinese (Hong Kong) adaptation of the ERSPC risk calculator [104], the Huashan risk calculator [105], and the Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium Risk Calculator (CPCC-RC) [106].…”

Section: Integrative Scoring Systems/risk Calculatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Liquid Biopsy Potential Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer

Neuhaus

Yang

2018

Diagnostics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer in men worldwide with an incidence of 14.8% and a mortality of 6.6%. Shortcomings in comprehensive medical check-ups in low- and middle-income countries lead to delayed detection of PCa and are causative of high numbers of advanced PCa cases at first diagnosis. The performance of available biomarkers is still insufficient and limited applicability, including logistical and financial burdens, impedes comprehensive implementation into health care systems. There is broad agreement on the need of new biomarkers to improve (i) early detection of PCa, (ii) risk stratification, (iii) prognosis, and (iv) treatment monitoring. This review focuses on liquid biopsy tests distinguishing high-grade significant (Gleason score (GS) ≥ 7) from low-grade indolent PCa. Available biomarkers still lack performance in risk stratification of biopsy naïve patients. However, biomarkers with highly negative predictive values may help to reduce unnecessary biopsies. Risk calculators using integrative scoring systems clearly improve decision-making for invasive prostate biopsy. Emerging biomarkers have the potential to substitute PSA and improve the overall performance of risk calculators. Until then, PSA should be used and may be replaced whenever enough evidence has accumulated for better performance of a new biomarker.

show abstract

Adaptation and external validation of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator for the Chinese population

Abstract: A recalibrated ERSPC risk calculator for the Chinese population was developed, and it showed excellent discrimination, calibration and net clinical benefit in an external validation cohort.

Cited by 19 publications

References 20 publications

Comparing the prediction of prostate biopsy outcome using the Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium (CPCC) Risk Calculator and the Asian adapted Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Risk Calculator in Chinese and European men

Comparing the prediction of prostate biopsy outcome using the Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium (CPCC) Risk Calculator and the Asian adapted Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Risk Calculator in Chinese and European men

Evaluation of PSA-age volume score in predicting prostate cancer in Chinese population

Liquid Biopsy Potential Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About