The value of different screening tests in predicting prostate biopsy outcome in screening for prostate cancer data from a multicenter study (ERSPC)
BACKGROUND. Although serum PSA testing is widely used as a screening test for prostate cancer (PC), it is known that it is not specific for PC. The study described here focuses on the value of screening tests next to PSA in identifying men with an elevated risk of having PC and the differences between three centers of the European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). METHODS. The study population consists of 2,483 men with a PSA ≥4.0 ng/ml, all biopsied. We assessed data on age, serum PSA level at initial and repeat screening, prostate volume, number of positive DRE and TRUS findings, number of previous negative biopsies, and PPV of the three centers and overall. Using logistic regression analysis, predictors for biopsy outcome at repeat screening in men with a PSA value ≥4.0 ng/ml were determined on the complete dataset and per center. RESULTS. In 2,483 men biopsied, 665 cancers were detected (PPV = 26.8%). Data show that all predictors except prostate volume loose their predictive value in men previously biopsied. In men not previously biopsied, the predictive value of DRE and TRUS vary considerably among the three centers. CONCLUSIONS. Looking at the differences in the predictive value of screening tests in three "comparable" centers, generasibility is not as straightforward as it seems. Using a nomogram for predictive purposes developed elsewhere will require a thorough knowledge of the patient population of which it is derived, and one should interpret its results with a critical mind.
|Keywords||Multicenter, Prostate cancer, Screening|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1002/pros.20545, hdl.handle.net/1765/35968|
Roobol-Bouts, M.J, Zappa, M, Määttänen, L, & Ciatto, S. (2007). The value of different screening tests in predicting prostate biopsy outcome in screening for prostate cancer data from a multicenter study (ERSPC). The Prostate, 67(4), 439–446. doi:10.1002/pros.20545