Prospective validation of a risk calculator which calculates the probability of a positive prostate biopsy in a contemporary clinical cohort

Heidi Vugt, M Kranse, Ewout Steyerberg, HG van der Poel, M.B. Busstra, P Kil, EH Oomens, IJ de Jong, CH Bangma VERVALLEN, Monique Roobol - Bouts

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

34 Citations (Scopus)


Background: Prediction models need validation to assess their value outside the development setting. Objective: To assess the external validity of the European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Risk Calculator (RC) in a contemporary clinical cohort. Methods: The RC calculates the probability of a positive sextant prostate biopsy (P(posb)) using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), results of digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and ultrasound assessed prostate volume. We prospectively validated the RC in 320 biopsied men (55-75 years), with no previous prostate biopsy, included in five Dutch hospitals in 2008-2011. If the P(posb) was >= 20% a biopsy was recommended. The performance of the RC was tested by comparing th Results: Compared to the screening cohort, men in the clinical cohort differed. They had higher PSA levels (median 6.8 versus 4.3 ng/ml, p < 0.01), less TRUS-lesions (27% versus 34%, p = 0.01) and more prostate cancer (PCa) at biopsy (43% versus 25%, p < 0.01). Mainly eight biopsy cores were taken. Despite the differences between these cohorts, the mean observed probability agreed with the mean predicted probability (43% versus 40%). The RC predicted P(posb) better than a model with PSA and digi Conclusions: The ERSPC RC performs well in a Dutch clinical cohort in men with previous PSA tests and contemporary biopsy schemes, and outperforms a PSA and DRE-based approach in the decision to perform a biopsy. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Pages (from-to)1809-1815
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Journal of Cancer
Issue number12
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Cite this