Prospective multi-institutional study evaluating the performance of prostate cancer risk calculators.

Research paper by Robert K RK Nam, Michael W MW Kattan, Joseph L JL Chin, John J Trachtenberg, Rajiv R Singal, Ricardo R Rendon, Laurence H LH Klotz, Linda L Sugar, Christopher C Sherman, Jonathan J Izawa, David D Bell, Aleksandra A Stanimirovic, Vasundara V Venkateswaran, Eleftherios P EP Diamandis, Changhong C Yu, et al.

Indexed on: 22 Jun '11Published on: 22 Jun '11Published in: Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology


Prostate cancer risk calculators incorporate many factors to evaluate an individual's risk for prostate cancer. We validated two common North American-based, prostate cancer risk calculators.We conducted a prospective, multi-institutional study of 2,130 patients who underwent a prostate biopsy for prostate cancer detection from five centers. We evaluated the performance of the Sunnybrook nomogram-based prostate cancer risk calculator (SRC) and the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) -based risk calculator (PRC) to predict the presence of any cancer and high-grade cancer. We examined discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis techniques to evaluate the prediction models.Of the 2,130 patients, 867 men (40.7%) were found to have cancer, and 1,263 (59.3%) did not have cancer. Of the patients with cancer, 403 (46.5%) had a Gleason score of 7 or more. The area under the [concentration-time] curve (AUC) for the SRC was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.69); the AUC for the PRC was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.64). The AUC was higher for predicting aggressive disease from the SRC (0.72; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.75) compared with that from the PRC (0.67; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.70). Decision curve analyses showed that the SRC performed better than the PRC for risk thresholds of more than 30% for any cancer and more than 15% for aggressive cancer.The SRC performed better than the PRC, but neither one added clinical benefit for risk thresholds of less than 30%. Further research is needed to improve the AUCs of the risk calculators, particularly for higher-grade cancer.