Variance inflation in sequential calculations of body surface area, plasma volume, and prostate‐specific antigen mass

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To assess the magnitude of variability among 11 formulae for human body surface area (BSA) and then among eight for plasma volume (PV), as used to represent physiological indices for body metabolism, drug dosages and body fluid management, and to evaluate the potential cumulative effect of variance inflation with prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) mass as an endpoint. PATIENTS AND METHODS In 3020 men undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy (RRP) at the Vattikuti Urology Institute between 2001 and 2008, the variation in BSA and PV formulae was calculated, as well as PSA mass, using analysis of variance (anova), Bland‐Altman plots, linear regression, and correlation analyses. RESULTS For estimating BSA, anova indicated significant variance among the 11 formulae used (P < 0.001) with a between‐groups variance of 5.45. Bland‐Altman plots reported bias when the Dubois formula was compared to other BSA formulae. Furthermore the anova for PV, with BSA as a predictor, indicated significant variance among the eight formulae used (P < 0.001), with a mean between‐group variance of 444.4 and a mean inflation factor of 81.5. Scatter plots between one PV formula (Boer) and others had a good linear fit. For PSA mass, anova indicated significant variance (P < 0.001) using PV as a predictor, with a mean between‐group variance of 16 799.6 and a mean variance inflation factor of 37.8. CONCLUSIONS There is significant variation in the BSA calculated by commonly used formulae. This variation is carried over and further magnified in the sequential calculation of PV and PSA mass. Hence arbitrary selection of BSA and PV formulae is likely to affect inferences.

Correlation of High Body Mass Index With More Advanced Localized Prostate Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy Is Not Reflected in PSA Level and PSA Density but Is Seen in PSA Mass

“…[18][19][20] PSA mass is not routinely used clinically for triage of patients at screening or those with biopsy-proven prostate cancer. While other formulas for estimating PSA mass than the one we selected for this study can cause the variability of results in the literature, 36 this particular selection does not interfere with the comparison of the groups that we performed, but it will be relevant when comparing our data with other studies. In this study, PSA mass helped us demonstrate a higher amount of PSA produced by higher-volume prostate cancers and larger prostates in obese and overweight American men.…”

Should Prostate Specific Antigen be Adjusted for Body Mass Index? Data From the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging

“…Although prior studies have estimated plasma volume based upon the body surface area, these methods of calculation may not be accurate particularly in obese men. 19 As an alternate indicator of volume status, we also used models including hematocrit. Nevertheless, similar to others we could not directly address the true relationship between PSA and plasma volume directly.…”

Budget Impact of Enzalutamide for Chemotherapy-Naïve Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

“…For dosing purposes, average patient weight and body surface area were assumed to be 88 kg and 2.1 m 2 , respectively. 17 Only grade 3 and 4 adverse events were included in the analysis. It was assumed that grade 3 and 4 events would require hospitalization based on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 18 : grade 3, severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated, disabling, limiting self-care activities of daily living; and grade 4, life-threatening consequences, urgent intervention indicated.…”