Comparison between the European Randomized Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) risk calculators: Prediction of clinically significant Prostate Cancer risk in a cohort of patients from Argentina
P.M. Orbe Villota , J.A. Leiva Centeno , J. Lugones , P.G. Minuzzi , S.M. Varea
{"title":"Comparison between the European Randomized Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) risk calculators: Prediction of clinically significant Prostate Cancer risk in a cohort of patients from Argentina","authors":"P.M. Orbe Villota , J.A. Leiva Centeno , J. Lugones , P.G. Minuzzi , S.M. Varea","doi":"10.1016/j.acuroe.2023.10.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p><span>To compare the performance of the risk calculators of the European Randomized Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the </span>Prostate Biopsy<span> Collaborative Group (PBCG) in predicting the risk of presenting clinically significant prostate cancer.</span></p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>Retrospectively, patients who underwent prostate biopsy at Sanatorio Allende Cerro, Ciudad de Córdoba, Argentina, were identified from January 2018 to December 2021. The probability of having prostate cancer was calculated with the two calculators separately and then the results were compared to establish which of the two performed better. For this, areas under the curve (AUC) were analyzed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>250 patients were included, 140 (56%) presented prostate cancer, of which 92 (65.71%) had clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥7). The patients who presented cancer were older, had a higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value, and had a smaller prostate size. The AUC to predict the probability of having clinically significant prostate cancer was 0.79 and 0.73 for PBCG-RC and ERSPC-RC respectively (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.0084).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In this cohort of patients, both prostate cancer risk calculators performed well in predicting clinically significant prostate cancer risk, although the PBCG-RC showed better accuracy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94291,"journal":{"name":"Actas urologicas espanolas","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Actas urologicas espanolas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173578623001130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
To compare the performance of the risk calculators of the European Randomized Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) in predicting the risk of presenting clinically significant prostate cancer.
Material and methods
Retrospectively, patients who underwent prostate biopsy at Sanatorio Allende Cerro, Ciudad de Córdoba, Argentina, were identified from January 2018 to December 2021. The probability of having prostate cancer was calculated with the two calculators separately and then the results were compared to establish which of the two performed better. For this, areas under the curve (AUC) were analyzed.
Results
250 patients were included, 140 (56%) presented prostate cancer, of which 92 (65.71%) had clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥7). The patients who presented cancer were older, had a higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value, and had a smaller prostate size. The AUC to predict the probability of having clinically significant prostate cancer was 0.79 and 0.73 for PBCG-RC and ERSPC-RC respectively (P = 0.0084).
Conclusion
In this cohort of patients, both prostate cancer risk calculators performed well in predicting clinically significant prostate cancer risk, although the PBCG-RC showed better accuracy.