Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators that Include the Prostate Health Index

Monique J. Roobol, Moniek M. Vedder, Daan Nieboer, Alain Houlgatte, Sébastien Vincendeau, Massimo Lazzeri, Giorgio Guazzoni, Carsten Stephan, Axel Semjonow, Alexander Haese, Markus Graefen, Ewout W. Steyerberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) have become important tools in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies. The Prostate Health Index (PHI) may increase the predictive accuracy of such models. Objectives: To compare two PCa risk calculators (RCs) that include PHI. Design, setting, and participants: We evaluated the predictive performance of a previously developed PHI-based nomogram and updated versions of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) RCs based on digital rectal examination (DRE): RC3 (no prior biopsy) and RC4 (prior biopsy). For the ERSPC updates, the original RCs were recalibrated and PHI was added as a predictor. The PHI-updated ERSPC RCs were compared with the Lughezzani nomogram in 1185 men from four European sites. Outcomes were biopsy-detectable PC and potentially advanced or aggressive PCa, defined as clinical stage >T2b and/or a Gleason score ≥7 (clinically relevant PCa). Results and limitations: The PHI-updated ERSPC models had a combined area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) of 0.72 for all PCa and 0.68 for clinically relevant PCa. For the Lughezzani PHI-based nomogram, AUCs were 0.75 for all PCa and 0.69 for clinically relevant PCa. For men without a prior biopsy, PHI-updated RC3 resulted in AUCs of 0.73 for PCa and 0.66 for clinically relevant PCa. Decision curves confirmed these patterns, although the number of clinically relevant cancers was low. Conclusion: Differences between RCs that include PHI are small. Addition of PHI to an RC leads to further reductions in the rate of unnecessary biopsies when compared to a strategy based on prostate-specific antigen measurement. Patient summary: Risk prediction models for prostate cancer have become important tools in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies. We compared two risk prediction models for prostate cancer that include the Prostate Health Index. We found that these models are equivalent to each other, and both perform better than the prostate-specific antigen test alone in predicting cancer. Prostate-specific antigen screening reduces prostate cancer mortality but leads to many unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdiagnosis. Inclusion of the Prostate Health Index results in an equivalent increase in predictive ability for both the Lughezzani and the updated European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer models.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)185-190
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Urology Focus
Volume1
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 1 2015

Fingerprint

Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms
Health
Biopsy
Nomograms
Area Under Curve
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Digital Rectal Examination
Neoplasm Grading
ROC Curve
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer
  • Lughezzani nomogram
  • Prostate biopsy
  • Prostate cancer
  • Prostate cancer risk calculator
  • Prostate Health Index
  • Validation
  • [-2]Pro-prostate-specific antigen

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Roobol, M. J., Vedder, M. M., Nieboer, D., Houlgatte, A., Vincendeau, S., Lazzeri, M., ... Steyerberg, E. W. (2015). Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators that Include the Prostate Health Index. European Urology Focus, 1(2), 185-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2015.06.004

Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators that Include the Prostate Health Index. / Roobol, Monique J.; Vedder, Moniek M.; Nieboer, Daan; Houlgatte, Alain; Vincendeau, Sébastien; Lazzeri, Massimo; Guazzoni, Giorgio; Stephan, Carsten; Semjonow, Axel; Haese, Alexander; Graefen, Markus; Steyerberg, Ewout W.

In: European Urology Focus, Vol. 1, No. 2, 01.09.2015, p. 185-190.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Roobol, MJ, Vedder, MM, Nieboer, D, Houlgatte, A, Vincendeau, S, Lazzeri, M, Guazzoni, G, Stephan, C, Semjonow, A, Haese, A, Graefen, M & Steyerberg, EW 2015, 'Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators that Include the Prostate Health Index', European Urology Focus, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 185-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2015.06.004
Roobol, Monique J. ; Vedder, Moniek M. ; Nieboer, Daan ; Houlgatte, Alain ; Vincendeau, Sébastien ; Lazzeri, Massimo ; Guazzoni, Giorgio ; Stephan, Carsten ; Semjonow, Axel ; Haese, Alexander ; Graefen, Markus ; Steyerberg, Ewout W. / Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators that Include the Prostate Health Index. In: European Urology Focus. 2015 ; Vol. 1, No. 2. pp. 185-190.
@article{3a486e1da9644051b82e019cc7ab2014,
title = "Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators that Include the Prostate Health Index",
abstract = "Background: Risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) have become important tools in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies. The Prostate Health Index (PHI) may increase the predictive accuracy of such models. Objectives: To compare two PCa risk calculators (RCs) that include PHI. Design, setting, and participants: We evaluated the predictive performance of a previously developed PHI-based nomogram and updated versions of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) RCs based on digital rectal examination (DRE): RC3 (no prior biopsy) and RC4 (prior biopsy). For the ERSPC updates, the original RCs were recalibrated and PHI was added as a predictor. The PHI-updated ERSPC RCs were compared with the Lughezzani nomogram in 1185 men from four European sites. Outcomes were biopsy-detectable PC and potentially advanced or aggressive PCa, defined as clinical stage >T2b and/or a Gleason score ≥7 (clinically relevant PCa). Results and limitations: The PHI-updated ERSPC models had a combined area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) of 0.72 for all PCa and 0.68 for clinically relevant PCa. For the Lughezzani PHI-based nomogram, AUCs were 0.75 for all PCa and 0.69 for clinically relevant PCa. For men without a prior biopsy, PHI-updated RC3 resulted in AUCs of 0.73 for PCa and 0.66 for clinically relevant PCa. Decision curves confirmed these patterns, although the number of clinically relevant cancers was low. Conclusion: Differences between RCs that include PHI are small. Addition of PHI to an RC leads to further reductions in the rate of unnecessary biopsies when compared to a strategy based on prostate-specific antigen measurement. Patient summary: Risk prediction models for prostate cancer have become important tools in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies. We compared two risk prediction models for prostate cancer that include the Prostate Health Index. We found that these models are equivalent to each other, and both perform better than the prostate-specific antigen test alone in predicting cancer. Prostate-specific antigen screening reduces prostate cancer mortality but leads to many unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdiagnosis. Inclusion of the Prostate Health Index results in an equivalent increase in predictive ability for both the Lughezzani and the updated European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer models.",
keywords = "European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Lughezzani nomogram, Prostate biopsy, Prostate cancer, Prostate cancer risk calculator, Prostate Health Index, Validation, [-2]Pro-prostate-specific antigen",
author = "Roobol, {Monique J.} and Vedder, {Moniek M.} and Daan Nieboer and Alain Houlgatte and S{\'e}bastien Vincendeau and Massimo Lazzeri and Giorgio Guazzoni and Carsten Stephan and Axel Semjonow and Alexander Haese and Markus Graefen and Steyerberg, {Ewout W.}",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.euf.2015.06.004",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "185--190",
journal = "European Urology Focus",
issn = "2405-4569",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators that Include the Prostate Health Index

AU - Roobol, Monique J.

AU - Vedder, Moniek M.

AU - Nieboer, Daan

AU - Houlgatte, Alain

AU - Vincendeau, Sébastien

AU - Lazzeri, Massimo

AU - Guazzoni, Giorgio

AU - Stephan, Carsten

AU - Semjonow, Axel

AU - Haese, Alexander

AU - Graefen, Markus

AU - Steyerberg, Ewout W.

PY - 2015/9/1

Y1 - 2015/9/1

N2 - Background: Risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) have become important tools in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies. The Prostate Health Index (PHI) may increase the predictive accuracy of such models. Objectives: To compare two PCa risk calculators (RCs) that include PHI. Design, setting, and participants: We evaluated the predictive performance of a previously developed PHI-based nomogram and updated versions of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) RCs based on digital rectal examination (DRE): RC3 (no prior biopsy) and RC4 (prior biopsy). For the ERSPC updates, the original RCs were recalibrated and PHI was added as a predictor. The PHI-updated ERSPC RCs were compared with the Lughezzani nomogram in 1185 men from four European sites. Outcomes were biopsy-detectable PC and potentially advanced or aggressive PCa, defined as clinical stage >T2b and/or a Gleason score ≥7 (clinically relevant PCa). Results and limitations: The PHI-updated ERSPC models had a combined area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) of 0.72 for all PCa and 0.68 for clinically relevant PCa. For the Lughezzani PHI-based nomogram, AUCs were 0.75 for all PCa and 0.69 for clinically relevant PCa. For men without a prior biopsy, PHI-updated RC3 resulted in AUCs of 0.73 for PCa and 0.66 for clinically relevant PCa. Decision curves confirmed these patterns, although the number of clinically relevant cancers was low. Conclusion: Differences between RCs that include PHI are small. Addition of PHI to an RC leads to further reductions in the rate of unnecessary biopsies when compared to a strategy based on prostate-specific antigen measurement. Patient summary: Risk prediction models for prostate cancer have become important tools in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies. We compared two risk prediction models for prostate cancer that include the Prostate Health Index. We found that these models are equivalent to each other, and both perform better than the prostate-specific antigen test alone in predicting cancer. Prostate-specific antigen screening reduces prostate cancer mortality but leads to many unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdiagnosis. Inclusion of the Prostate Health Index results in an equivalent increase in predictive ability for both the Lughezzani and the updated European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer models.

AB - Background: Risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) have become important tools in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies. The Prostate Health Index (PHI) may increase the predictive accuracy of such models. Objectives: To compare two PCa risk calculators (RCs) that include PHI. Design, setting, and participants: We evaluated the predictive performance of a previously developed PHI-based nomogram and updated versions of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) RCs based on digital rectal examination (DRE): RC3 (no prior biopsy) and RC4 (prior biopsy). For the ERSPC updates, the original RCs were recalibrated and PHI was added as a predictor. The PHI-updated ERSPC RCs were compared with the Lughezzani nomogram in 1185 men from four European sites. Outcomes were biopsy-detectable PC and potentially advanced or aggressive PCa, defined as clinical stage >T2b and/or a Gleason score ≥7 (clinically relevant PCa). Results and limitations: The PHI-updated ERSPC models had a combined area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) of 0.72 for all PCa and 0.68 for clinically relevant PCa. For the Lughezzani PHI-based nomogram, AUCs were 0.75 for all PCa and 0.69 for clinically relevant PCa. For men without a prior biopsy, PHI-updated RC3 resulted in AUCs of 0.73 for PCa and 0.66 for clinically relevant PCa. Decision curves confirmed these patterns, although the number of clinically relevant cancers was low. Conclusion: Differences between RCs that include PHI are small. Addition of PHI to an RC leads to further reductions in the rate of unnecessary biopsies when compared to a strategy based on prostate-specific antigen measurement. Patient summary: Risk prediction models for prostate cancer have become important tools in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies. We compared two risk prediction models for prostate cancer that include the Prostate Health Index. We found that these models are equivalent to each other, and both perform better than the prostate-specific antigen test alone in predicting cancer. Prostate-specific antigen screening reduces prostate cancer mortality but leads to many unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdiagnosis. Inclusion of the Prostate Health Index results in an equivalent increase in predictive ability for both the Lughezzani and the updated European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer models.

KW - European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

KW - Lughezzani nomogram

KW - Prostate biopsy

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Prostate cancer risk calculator

KW - Prostate Health Index

KW - Validation

KW - [-2]Pro-prostate-specific antigen

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960408512&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84960408512&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.euf.2015.06.004

DO - 10.1016/j.euf.2015.06.004

M3 - Article

VL - 1

SP - 185

EP - 190

JO - European Urology Focus

JF - European Urology Focus

SN - 2405-4569

IS - 2

ER -