Can Western Based Online Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators Be Used to Predict Prostate Cancer after Prostate Biopsy for the Korean Population?.
10.3349/ymj.2013.54.3.665
- Author:
Dong Hoon LEE
1
;
Ha Bum JUNG
;
Jae Won PARK
;
Kyu Hyun KIM
;
Jongchan KIM
;
Seung Hwan LEE
;
Byung Ha CHUNG
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. chung646@yuhs.ac
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Validation Studies
- Keywords:
Korean;
prostate cancer;
biopsy;
nomogram;
validation study
- MeSH:
Asian Continental Ancestry Group;
Biopsy;
*Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted;
Early Detection of Cancer/*methods;
Humans;
Logistic Models;
Male;
Predictive Value of Tests;
Prostatic Neoplasms/*diagnosis/ethnology/pathology;
Republic of Korea/ethnology;
Retrospective Studies;
Risk Assessment/*methods
- From:Yonsei Medical Journal
2013;54(3):665-671
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To access the predictive value of the European Randomized Screening of Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ERSPC-RC) and the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPT-RC) in the Korean population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 517 men who underwent transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy between January 2008 and November 2010. Simple and multiple logistic regression analysis were performed to compare the result of prostate biopsy. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUC-ROC) and calibration plots were prepared for further analysis to compare the risk calculators and other clinical variables. RESULTS: Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 125 (24.1%) men. For prostate cancer prediction, the area under curve (AUC) of the ERSPC-RC was 77.4%. This result was significantly greater than the AUCs of the PCPT-RC and the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (64.5% and 64.1%, respectively, p<0.01), but not significantly different from the AUC of the PSA density (PSAD) (76.1%, p=0.540). When the results of the calibration plots were compared, the ERSPC-RC plot was more constant than that of PSAD. CONCLUSION: The ERSPC-RC was better than PCPT-RC and PSA in predicting prostate cancer risk in the present study. However, the difference in performance between the ERSPC-RC and PSAD was not significant. Therefore, the Western based prostate cancer risk calculators are not useful for urologists in predicting prostate cancer in the Korean population.
