P.M. Orbe Villota , J.A. Leiva Centeno , J. Lugones , P.G. Minuzzi , S.M. Varea
{"title":"欧洲癌症筛查随机研究(ERSPC)与前列腺活检协作组(PBCG)风险计算器的比较:阿根廷患者队列中具有临床意义的癌症风险预测。","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":"48 3","pages":"Pages 210-217"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"48 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 210-217\"},\"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}","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}
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
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.