Development and validation of risk score for predicting positive repeat prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy in a UK population

被引:18
作者
Rochester M.A. [1 ]
Pashayan N. [3 ]
Matthews F. [4 ]
Doble A. [1 ]
McLoughlin J. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Department of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge
[2] Department of Urology, West Suffolk Hospital, Bury St Edmunds
[3] Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge
[4] Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Risk Score; Prostate Biopsy; Repeat Biopsy; Prostate Cancer Diagnosis; High Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2490-9-7
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background. Little evidence is available to determine which patients should undergo repeat biopsy after initial benign extended core biopsy (ECB). Attempts have been made to reduce the frequency of negative repeat biopsies using PSA kinetics, density, free-to-total ratios and Kattan's nomogram, to identify men more likely to harbour cancer but no single tool accurately predicts biopsy outcome. The objective of this study was to develop a predictive nomogram to identify men more likely to have a cancer diagnosed on repeat prostate biopsy. Methods. Patients with previous benign ECB undergoing repeat biopsy were identified from a database. Association between age, volume, stage, previous histology, PSA kinetics and positive repeat biopsy was analysed. Variables were entered stepwise into logistic regression models. A risk score giving the probability of positive repeat biopsy was estimated. The performance of this score was assessed using receiver characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results. 110 repeat biopsies were performed in this period. Cancer was detected in 31% of repeat biopsies at Hospital (1) and 30% at Hospital (2). The most accurate predictive model combined age, PSA, PSA velocity, free-to-total PSA ratio, prostate volume and digital rectal examination (DRE) findings. The risk model performed well in an independent sample, area under the curve (AUCROC) was 0.818 (95% CI 0.707 to 0.929) for the risk model and 0.696 (95% CI 0.472 to 0.921) for the validation model. It was calculated that using a threshold risk score of > 0.2 to identify high risk individuals would reduce repeat biopsies by 39% while identifying 90% of the men with prostate cancer. Conclusion. An accurate multi-variable predictive tool to determine the risk of positive repeat prostate biopsy is presented. This can be used by urologists in an outpatient setting to aid decision-making for men with prior benign histology for whom a repeat biopsy is being considered. © 2009 Rochester et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]  
Cancer Research U.K., UK Prostate Cancer Incidence Statistics
[2]  
Djavan B., Margreiter M., Biopsy standards for detection of prostate cancer, World J Urol, 25, 1, pp. 11-7, (2007)
[3]  
Rodriguez L.V., Terris M.K., Risks and complications of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy: A prospective study and review of the literature, J Urol, 160, 6 PART 1, pp. 2115-20, (1998)
[4]  
Graham J., Baker M., MacBeth F., Titshall V., Diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: Summary of NICE guidance, Bmj, 336, 7644, pp. 610-2, (2008)
[5]  
Djavan B., Zlotta A., Remzi M., Ghawidel K., Basharkhah A., Schulman C.C., Marberger M., Optimal predictors of prostate cancer on repeat prostate biopsy: A prospective study of 1,051 men, J Urol, 163, 4, pp. 1144-8, (2000)
[6]  
Eggener S.E., Roehl K.A., Catalona W.J., Predictors of subsequent prostate cancer in men with a prostate specific antigen of 2.6 to 4.0 ng/ml and an initially negative biopsy, Journal of Urology, 174, 2, pp. 500-504, (2005)
[7]  
Bigler S.A., Miles D., Yalkut D.A., Predictors of first repeat biopsy cancer detection with suspected local stage prostate cancer, J Urol, 163, 3, pp. 813-8, (2000)
[8]  
Singh H., Canto E.I., Shariat S.F., Kadmon D., Miles B.J., Wheeler T.M., Slawin K.M., Predictors of prostate cancer after initial negative systematic 12 core biopsy, Journal of Urology, 171, 5, pp. 1850-1854, (2004)
[9]  
Montironi R., Scattoni V., Mazzucchelli R., Lopez-Beltran A., Bostwick D.G., Montorsi F., Atypical Foci Suspicious but not Diagnostic of Malignancy in Prostate Needle Biopsies. (Also Referred to as "Atypical Small Acinar Proliferation Suspicious for but not Diagnostic of Malignancy"), European Urology, 50, 4, pp. 666-674, (2006)
[10]  
Kattan M.W., Scardino P.T., Evidence for the usefulness of nomograms, Nature Clinical Practice Urology, 4, 12, pp. 638-639, (2007)