Compliance with biopsy recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To assess both urologist and patient compliance with a 'no biopsy' or 'biopsy' recommendation of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Risk Calculator (RC), as well as their reasons for non-compliance. To assess determinants of patient compliance. PATIENTS AND METHODS The ERSPC RC calculates the probability on a positive sextant prostate biopsy (Pposb) using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, outcomes of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography, and ultrasonographically assessed prostate volume. A biopsy was recommended if P posb >= 20%. Between 2008 and 2011, eight urologists from five Dutch hospitals included 443 patients (aged 55-75 years) after a PSA test with no previous biopsy. Urologists calculated the P posb using the RC in the presence of patients and completed a questionnaire about compliance. Patients completed a questionnaire about prostate cancer knowledge, attitude towards prostate biopsy, self-rated health (12-Item Short Form Health Survey), anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory-6, Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer) and decision-making measures (Decisional Conflict Scale). RESULTS Both urologists and patients complied with the RC recommendation in 368 of 443 (83%) cases. If a biopsy was recommended, almost all patients (96%; 257/269) complied, although 63 of the 174 (36%) patients were biopsied against the recommendation of the RC. Compliers with a 'no biopsy' recommendation had a lower mean P posb than non-compliers (9% vs 14%; P < 0.001). Urologists opted for biopsies against the recommendations of the RC because of an elevated PSA level (>= 3 ng/mL) (78%; 49/63) and patients because they wanted certainty (60%; 38/63). CONCLUSIONS Recommendations of the ERSPC RC on prostate biopsy were followed in most patients. The RC hence may be a promising tool for supporting clinical decision-making.
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Pages (from-to)1480-1488
Number of pages9
JournalBJU International
Volume109
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Research programs

  • EMC MM-03-49-01
  • EMC NIHES-02-65-01

Cite this