Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review.
Journal
Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases
ISSN: 1476-5608
Titre abrégé: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815755
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jun 2024
03 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
27
03
2024
accepted:
23
05
2024
revised:
17
05
2024
medline:
4
6
2024
pubmed:
4
6
2024
entrez:
3
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Prostate cancer (PCa) (early) detection poses significant challenges, including unnecessary testing and the risk of potential overdiagnosis. The European Association of Urology therefore suggests an individual risk-adapted approach, incorporating risk calculators (RCs) into the PCa detection pathway. In the context of 'The PRostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union' (PRAISE-U) project ( https://uroweb.org/praise-u ), we aim to provide an overview of the currently available clinical RCs applicable in an early PCa detection algorithm. We performed a systematic review to identify RCs predicting detection of clinically significant PCa at biopsy. A search was performed in the databases Medline ALL, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar for publications between January 2010 and July 2023. We retrieved relevant literature by using the terms "prostate cancer", "screening/diagnosis" and "predictive model". Inclusion criteria included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials. Exclusion criteria applied to studies involving pre-targeted high-risk populations, diagnosed PCa patients, or a sample sizes under 50 men. We identified 6474 articles, of which 140 were included after screening abstracts and full texts. In total, we identified 96 unique RCs. Among these, 45 underwent external validation, with 28 validated in multiple cohorts. Of the externally validated RCs, 17 are based on clinical factors, 19 incorporate clinical factors along with MRI details, 4 were based on blood biomarkers alone or in combination with clinical factors, and 5 included urinary biomarkers. The median AUC of externally validated RCs ranged from 0.63 to 0.93. This systematic review offers an extensive analysis of currently available RCs, their variable utilization, and performance within validation cohorts. RCs have consistently demonstrated their capacity to mitigate the limitations associated with early detection and have been integrated into modern practice and screening trials. Nevertheless, the lack of external validation data raises concerns about numerous RCs, and it is crucial to factor in this omission when evaluating whether a specific RC is applicable to one's target population.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Prostate cancer (PCa) (early) detection poses significant challenges, including unnecessary testing and the risk of potential overdiagnosis. The European Association of Urology therefore suggests an individual risk-adapted approach, incorporating risk calculators (RCs) into the PCa detection pathway. In the context of 'The PRostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union' (PRAISE-U) project ( https://uroweb.org/praise-u ), we aim to provide an overview of the currently available clinical RCs applicable in an early PCa detection algorithm.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed a systematic review to identify RCs predicting detection of clinically significant PCa at biopsy. A search was performed in the databases Medline ALL, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar for publications between January 2010 and July 2023. We retrieved relevant literature by using the terms "prostate cancer", "screening/diagnosis" and "predictive model". Inclusion criteria included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials. Exclusion criteria applied to studies involving pre-targeted high-risk populations, diagnosed PCa patients, or a sample sizes under 50 men.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified 6474 articles, of which 140 were included after screening abstracts and full texts. In total, we identified 96 unique RCs. Among these, 45 underwent external validation, with 28 validated in multiple cohorts. Of the externally validated RCs, 17 are based on clinical factors, 19 incorporate clinical factors along with MRI details, 4 were based on blood biomarkers alone or in combination with clinical factors, and 5 included urinary biomarkers. The median AUC of externally validated RCs ranged from 0.63 to 0.93.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review offers an extensive analysis of currently available RCs, their variable utilization, and performance within validation cohorts. RCs have consistently demonstrated their capacity to mitigate the limitations associated with early detection and have been integrated into modern practice and screening trials. Nevertheless, the lack of external validation data raises concerns about numerous RCs, and it is crucial to factor in this omission when evaluating whether a specific RC is applicable to one's target population.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38830997
doi: 10.1038/s41391-024-00852-w
pii: 10.1038/s41391-024-00852-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49.
pubmed: 33538338
doi: 10.3322/caac.21660
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79:243–62.
pubmed: 33172724
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
de V II, Meertens A, Hogenhout R, Remmers S, Roobol MJ, Group ERS. A Detailed Evaluation of the Effect of Prostate-specific Antigen-based Screening on Morbidity and Mortality of Prostate Cancer: 21-year Follow-up Results of the Rotterdam Section of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2023;84:426–34.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.03.016
Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Månsson M, Tammela TLJ, Zappa M, Nelen V, et al. A 16-yr Follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2019;76:43–51.
pubmed: 30824296
pmcid: 7513694
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.009
Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1320–8.
pubmed: 19297566
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810084
Davik P, Remmers S, Elschot M, Roobol MJ, Bathen TF, Bertilsson H. Reducing prostate biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging with prostate cancer risk stratification. BJUI Compass. 2022;3:344–53.
pubmed: 35950035
pmcid: 9349589
doi: 10.1002/bco2.146
Moons KG, Kengne AP, Grobbee DE, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Altman DG, et al. Risk prediction models: II. External validation, model updating, and impact assessment. Heart. 2012;98:691–8.
pubmed: 22397946
doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2011-301247
Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, Wynants L, Steyerberg EW, Topic Group. ‘Evaluating diagnostic t, et al. Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med. 2019;17:230.
pubmed: 31842878
pmcid: 6912996
doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7
Van Calster B, Nieboer D, Vergouwe Y, De Cock B, Pencina MJ, Steyerberg EW. A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:167–76.
pubmed: 26772608
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.005
Van Calster B, Vickers AJ. Calibration of risk prediction models: impact on decision-analytic performance. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35:162–9.
doi: 10.1177/0272989X14547233
Van Calster B, Wynants L, Verbeek JFM, Verbakel JY, Christodoulou E, Vickers AJ, et al. Reporting and Interpreting Decision Curve Analysis: A Guide for Investigators. Eur Urol. 2018;74:796–804.
pubmed: 30241973
pmcid: 6261531
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.038
Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26:565–74.
doi: 10.1177/0272989X06295361
The Directorate General for Internal Market I, Entrepreneurship and SMEs and is an official website of the European Union. CE marking: European Union; 2024. Available from: https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/labels-markings/ce-marking/index_nl.htm .
Stojadinovic M, Trifunovic T, Jankovic S. Adaptation of the prostate biopsy collaborative group risk calculator in patients with PSA less than 10 ng/ml improves its performance. Int Urol Nephrol. 2020;52:1811–9.
pubmed: 32468165
doi: 10.1007/s11255-020-02517-8
Stojadinovic M, Milicevic B, Jankovic S. Improved predictive performance of prostate biopsy collaborative group risk calculator when based on automated machine learning. Comput Biol Med. 2021;138:104903.
pubmed: 34598066
doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104903
Ankerst DP, Straubinger J, Selig K, Guerrios L, De Hoedt A, Hernandez J, et al. A Contemporary Prostate Biopsy Risk Calculator Based on Multiple Heterogeneous Cohorts. Eur Urol. 2018;74:197–203.
pubmed: 29778349
pmcid: 6082177
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.003
Carbunaru S, Nettey OS, Gogana P, Helenowski IB, Jovanovic B, Ruden M, et al. A comparative effectiveness analysis of the PBCG vs. PCPT risks calculators in a multi-ethnic cohort. BMC Urol. 2019;19:121.
pubmed: 31771578
pmcid: 6880480
doi: 10.1186/s12894-019-0553-6
Chandra Engel J, Palsdottir T, Ankerst D, Remmers S, Mortezavi A, Chellappa V, et al. External Validation of the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group Risk Calculator and the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in a Swedish Population-based Screening Cohort. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;41:1–7.
pubmed: 35813248
pmcid: 9257644
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.04.010
Doan P, Graham P, Lahoud J, Remmers S, Roobol MJ, Kim L, et al. A comparison of prostate cancer prediction models in men undergoing both magnetic resonance imaging and transperineal biopsy: Are the models still relevant? BJU Int. 2021;128:36–44.
pubmed: 34374190
doi: 10.1111/bju.15554
Falagario UG, Silecchia G, Bruno SM, Di Nauta M, Auciello M, Sanguedolce F, et al. Does Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance of Prostate Outperform Risk Calculators in Predicting Prostate Cancer in Biopsy Naive Patients? Front oncol. 2020;10:603384.
pubmed: 33489907
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.603384
Amaya-Fragoso E, Garcia-Perez CM. Improving prostate biopsy decision making in Mexican patients: Still a major public health concern. Urol Oncol. 2021;39:831.e11–.e18.
pubmed: 34193378
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.05.022
Mortezavi A, Palsdottir T, Eklund M, Chellappa V, Murugan SK, Saba K, et al. Head-to-head Comparison of Conventional, and Image- and Biomarker-based Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:546–53.
pubmed: 32451315
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.05.002
Jalali A, Foley RW, Maweni RM, Murphy K, Lundon DJ, Lynch T, et al. A risk calculator to inform the need for a prostate biopsy: a rapid access clinic cohort. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2020;20:148.
doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-01174-2
Rubio-Briones J, Borque-Fernando A, Esteban LM, Mascaros JM, Ramirez-Backhaus M, Casanova J, et al. Validation of a 2-gene mRNA urine test for the detection of >=GG2 prostate cancer in an opportunistic screening population. Prostate. 2020;80:500–7.
pubmed: 32077525
doi: 10.1002/pros.23964
Saba K, Wettstein MS, Lieger L, Hotker AM, Donati OF, Moch H, et al. External Validation and Comparison of Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators Incorporating Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2020;203:719–26.
pubmed: 31651228
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000622
Wei G, Kelly BD, Timm B, Perera M, Lundon DJ, Jack G, et al. Clash of the calculators: External validation of prostate cancer risk calculators in men undergoing mpMRI and transperineal biopsy. BJUI Compass. 2021;2:194–201.
pubmed: 35475133
pmcid: 8988740
doi: 10.1002/bco2.58
Yildizhan M, Balci M, Eroglu U, Asil E, Coser S, Ozercan AY, et al. An analysis of three different prostate cancer risk calculators applied prior to prostate biopsy: A Turkish cohort validation study. Andrologia. 2022;54:e14329.
pubmed: 34837424
doi: 10.1111/and.14329
Engel JC, Palsdottir T, Ankerst D, Remmers S, Mortezavi A, Chellappa V, et al. External Validation of the prostate biopsy Collaborative group risk calculator and the Rotterdam prostate cancer risk calculator in a Swedish population-based screening cohort. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;41:1–7.
Patel HD, Koehne EL, Shea SM, Fang A, Gerena M, Gorbonos A, et al. A prostate biopsy risk calculator based on magnetic resonance imaging: Development, validation, and comparison to the PBCG risk calculator. J Urol. 2021;206:e781.
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002064.01
Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, Schoots IG, Chiu PK, Osses DF, et al. Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer Following Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators. Eur Urol. 2019;75:310–8.
pubmed: 30082150
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.07.031
Lee HJ, Lee A, Yang XY, Law YM, Huang HH, Lau WK, et al. External validation and comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-based predictive models for clinically significant prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2021;39:783.e1–.e10.
pubmed: 33775528
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.03.003
Morote J, Borque-Fernando A, Triquell M, Campistol M, Servian P, Abascal JM, et al. Comparison of Rotterdam and Barcelona Magnetic Resonance Imaging Risk Calculators for Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023;53:46–54.
pubmed: 37441350
pmcid: 10334241
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.013
Petersmann AL, Remmers S, Klein T, Manava P, Huettenbrink C, Pahernik SA, et al. External validation of two MRI-based risk calculators in prostate cancer diagnosis. World J Urol. 2021;39:4109–16.
pubmed: 34169337
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03770-x
Pullen L, Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, Wetter A, et al. External validation of novel magnetic resonance imaging-based models for prostate cancer prediction. BJU Int. 2020;125:407–16.
pubmed: 31758738
doi: 10.1111/bju.14958
De Nunzio C, Lombardo R, Baldassarri V, Cindolo L, Bertolo R, Minervini A, et al. Rotterdam mobile phone app including MRI data for the prediction of prostate cancer: A multicenter external validation. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47:2640–5.
pubmed: 33965292
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.04.033
Hagens MJ, Stelwagen PJ, Veerman H, Rynja SP, Smeenge M, van der Noort V, et al. External validation of the Rotterdam prostate cancer risk calculator within a high-risk Dutch clinical cohort. World J Urol. 2023;41:13–8.
pubmed: 36245015
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04185-y
Davik P, Remmers S, Hogenhout R, Elschot M, Roobol M, Bathen T, et al. Comparing all published MRI prostate cancer risk calculators in a large 2-centre European cohort. Eur Urol. 2023;83:S85–S6.
doi: 10.1016/S0302-2838(23)00116-1
Kelly BD, Ptasznik G, Roberts MJ, Doan P, Stricker P, Thompson J, et al. A Novel Risk Calculator Incorporating Clinical Parameters, Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification Before Transperineal Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023;53:90–7.
pubmed: 37441340
pmcid: 10334234
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.05.002
Pallauf M, Steinkohl F, Zimmermann G, Horetzky M, Rajwa P, Pradere B, et al. External validation of two mpMRI-risk calculators predicting risk of prostate cancer before biopsy. World J Urol. 2022;40:2451–7.
pubmed: 35941246
pmcid: 9512729
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04119-8
Lundon DJ, Kelly BD, Foley R, Loeb S, Fitzpatrick JM, Watson RW, et al. Prostate cancer risk assessment tools in an unscreened population. World J Urol. 2015;33:827–32.
pubmed: 25091862
doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1365-7
Trottier G, Roobol MJ, Lawrentschuk N, Bostrom PJ, Fernandes KA, Finelli A, et al. Comparison of risk calculators from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer in a contemporary Canadian cohort. BJU Int. 2011;108:E237–44.
pubmed: 21507190
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10207.x
Chiu PK, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Teoh JY, Yuen SK, Hou SM, et al. Adaptation and external validation of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator for the Chinese population. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20:99–104.
pubmed: 27897172
doi: 10.1038/pcan.2016.57
Gayet M, Mannaerts CK, Nieboer D, Beerlage HP, Wijkstra H, Mulders PFA, et al. Prediction of Prostate Cancer: External Validation of the ERSPC Risk Calculator in a Contemporary Dutch Clinical Cohort. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4:228–34.
pubmed: 28753781
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.07.007
Zhu Y, Wang JY, Shen YJ, Dai B, Ma CG, Xiao WJ, et al. External validation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculators in a Chinese cohort. Asian J Androl. 2012;14:738–44.
pubmed: 22561907
pmcid: 3734979
doi: 10.1038/aja.2012.28
Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, van der Kwast T, Kummerlin IP, Kweldam CF, van Leenders G. Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for Initial Prostate Biopsy by Incorporating the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading and Cribriform growth. Eur Urol. 2017;72:45–51.
pubmed: 28162815
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.033
Chen R, Verbeek JFM, Yang Y, Song Z, Sun Y, Roobol MJ. Comparing the prediction of prostate biopsy outcome using the Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium (CPCC) Risk Calculator and the Asian adapted Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Risk Calculator in Chinese and European men. World J Urol. 2021;39:73–80.
pubmed: 32279141
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03177-0
Lendinez-Cano G, Ojeda-Claro AV, Gomez-Gomez E, Morales Jimenez P, Flores Martin J, Dominguez JF, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy in the detection of high-grade prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who underwent the Select MDx test. Prostate. 2021;81:857–65.
pubmed: 34184761
doi: 10.1002/pros.24182
Chen IA, Chu CH, Lin JT, Tsai JY, Yu CC, Sridhar AN, et al. Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator Apps in a Taiwanese Population Cohort: Validation Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e16322.
pubmed: 33337340
pmcid: 7775818
doi: 10.2196/16322
Radtke JP, Giganti F, Wiesenfarth M, Stabile A, Marenco J, Orczyk C, et al. Prediction of significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men: Validation of a novel risk model combining MRI and clinical parameters and comparison to an ERSPC risk calculator and PI-RADS. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0221350.
pubmed: 31450235
pmcid: 6710031
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221350
Palsdottir T, Gronberg H, Hilmisson A, Eklund M, Nordstrom T, Vigneswaran HT. External Validation of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator and Comparison with Stockholm3 for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in a Swedish Population-based Screening Cohort. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9:455–62.
pubmed: 36522257
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.11.021
Pereira-Azevedo N, Verbeek JFM, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7:18–26.
pubmed: 29594016
pmcid: 5861294
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.12.21
Palsdottir T, Gronberg H, Hilmisson A, Eklund M, Nordstrom T, Vigneswaran H. External validation of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) and comparison to Stockholm3 for prostate cancer diagnosis in a Swedish population-based screening cohort. Eur Urol. 2023;83:S1293–S4.
doi: 10.1016/S0302-2838(23)00946-6
Gomez-Gomez E, Carrasco-Valiente J, Blanca-Pedregosa A, Barco-Sanchez B, Fernandez-Rueda JL, Molina-Abril H, et al. European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator: External Validation, Variability, and Clinical Significance. Urology. 2017;102:85–91.
pubmed: 27840252
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.11.004
Kowlessur B, Phull M, Patel B, Henry M, Lazarus J. Validating the European randomised study for screening of prostate cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator in a contemporary South African cohort. World J Urol. 2020;38:1711–8.
pubmed: 31522234
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02947-9
Roobol MJ, Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Jones JS, Kattan MW, Klein EA, et al. Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group. World J Urol. 2012;30:149–55.
pubmed: 22203238
doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0804-y
Roobol MJ, van Vugt HA, Loeb S, Zhu X, Bul M, Bangma CH, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol. 2012;61:577–83.
pubmed: 22104592
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.012
Foley RW, Maweni RM, Gorman L, Murphy K, Lundon DJ, Durkan G, et al. European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators significantly outperform the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int. 2016;118:706–13.
pubmed: 26833820
doi: 10.1111/bju.13437
Poyet C, Nieboer D, Bhindi B, Kulkarni GS, Wiederkehr C, Wettstein MS, et al. Prostate cancer risk prediction using the novel versions of the European Randomised Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk calculators: independent validation and comparison in a contemporary European cohort. BJU Int. 2016;117:401–8.
pubmed: 26332503
doi: 10.1111/bju.13314
Verbeek JFM, Bangma CH, Kweldam CF, van der Kwast TH, Kummerlin IP, van Leenders G, et al. Reducing unnecessary biopsies while detecting clinically significant prostate cancer including cribriform growth with the ERSPC Rotterdam risk calculator and 4Kscore. Urol Oncol. 2019;37:138–44.
pubmed: 30528698
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.11.021
He YD, Tao W, He T, Wang BY, Tang XM, Zhang LM, et al. A urine extracellular vesicle circRNA classifier for detection of high-grade prostate cancer in patients with prostate-specific antigen 2-10 ng/mL at initial biopsy. Mol Cancer. 2021;20:96.
pubmed: 34301266
pmcid: 8299620
doi: 10.1186/s12943-021-01388-6
van Leeuwen PJ, Hayen A, Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R, Bohm M, et al. A multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based risk model to determine the risk of significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy. BJU Int. 2017;120:774–81.
pubmed: 28207981
doi: 10.1111/bju.13814
Dockery F, Rajkumar C, Agarwal S, Waxman J, Bulpitt CJ. Androgen deprivation in males is associated with decreased central arterial compliance and reduced central systolic blood pressure. J Hum Hypertens. 2000;14:395–7.
pubmed: 10878703
doi: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001028
Deniffel D, Healy GM, Dong X, Ghai S, Salinas-Miranda E, Fleshner N, et al. Avoiding Unnecessary Biopsy: MRI-based Risk Models versus a PI-RADS and PSA Density Strategy for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Radiology. 2021;300:369–79.
pubmed: 34032510
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021204112
Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C, Freitag MT, Alt CD, Celik K, et al. Combined Clinical Parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Advanced Risk Modeling of Prostate Cancer-Patient-tailored Risk Stratification Can Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies. Eur Urol. 2017;72:888–96.
pubmed: 28400169
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.039
De Nunzio C, Lombardo R, Tema G, Alkhatatbeh H, Gandaglia G, Briganti A, et al. External validation of Chun, PCPT, ERSPC, Kawakami, and Karakiewicz nomograms in the prediction of prostate cancer: A single center cohort-study. Urol Oncol. 2018;36:364.e1–.e7.
pubmed: 29880458
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.05.010
Ankerst DP, Goros M, Tomlins SA, Patil D, Feng Z, Wei JT, et al. Incorporation of Urinary Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 and TMPRSS2:ERG into Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5:54–61.
pubmed: 29422418
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.01.010
Perdona S, Cavadas V, Di Lorenzo G, Damiano R, Chiappetta G, Del Prete P, et al. Prostate cancer detection in the “grey area” of prostate-specific antigen below 10 ng/ml: head-to-head comparison of the updated PCPT calculator and Chun’s nomogram, two risk estimators incorporating prostate cancer antigen 3. Eur Urol. 2011;59:81–7.
pubmed: 20947244
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.09.036
Nguyen CT, Yu C, Moussa A, Kattan MW, Jones JS. Performance of prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator in a contemporary cohort screened for prostate cancer and diagnosed by extended prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2010;183:529–33.
pubmed: 20006887
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.007
Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Rais-Bahrami S, Oto A, Bednarova S, Nix JW, et al. A Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Prediction Model for Prostate Biopsy Risk Stratification. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:678–85.
pubmed: 29470570
pmcid: 5885194
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5667
Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD, Asroff SW, Bailen JL, Cochran JS, et al. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:464–70.
pubmed: 25454615
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.021
Benchikh A, Savage C, Cronin A, Salama G, Villers A, Lilja H, et al. A panel of kallikrein markers can predict outcome of prostate biopsy following clinical work-up: an independent validation study from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer screening, France. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:635.
pubmed: 21092177
pmcid: 2996396
doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-635
Kim EH, Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Sjoberg DD, Assel M, Vickers AJ, et al. Detection of High Grade Prostate Cancer among PLCO Participants Using a Prespecified 4-Kallikrein Marker Panel. J Urol. 2017;197:1041–7.
pubmed: 27810449
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.089
Bryant RJ, Sjoberg DD, Vickers AJ, Robinson MC, Kumar R, Marsden L, et al. Predicting High-Grade Cancer at Ten-Core Prostate Biopsy Using Four Kallikrein Markers Measured in Blood in the ProtecT Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv095.
pubmed: 25863334
pmcid: 4554254
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv095
Assel M, Sjoblom L, Talala K, Kujala P, Stenman UH, Taari K, et al. A four-kallikrein panel in predicting high-grade prostate cancer on biopsy: an independent replication from the finnish section of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2017;197:e752.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.1746
Nordstrom T, Discacciati A, Bergman M, Clements M, Aly M, Annerstedt M, et al. Prostate cancer screening using a combination of risk-prediction, MRI, and targeted prostate biopsies (STHLM3-MRI): a prospective, population-based, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:1240–9.
pubmed: 34391509
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00348-X
Strom P, Nordstrom T, Aly M, Egevad L, Gronberg H, Eklund M. The Stockholm-3 Model for Prostate Cancer Detection: Algorithm Update, Biomarker Contribution, and Reflex Test Potential. Eur Urol. 2018;74:204–10.
pubmed: 29331214
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.12.028
Wu YS, Zhang N, Liu SH, Xu JF, Tong SJ, Cai YH, et al. The Huashan risk calculators performed better in prediction of prostate cancer in Chinese population: a training study followed by a validation study. Asian J Androl. 2016;18:925–9.
pubmed: 27212127
pmcid: 5109890
doi: 10.4103/1008-682X.181192
Remmers S, Nieboer D, Rijstenberg LL, Hansum T, van Leenders G, Roobol MJ. Updating the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator with Invasive Cribriform and/or Intraductal Carcinoma for Men with a Prior Negative Biopsy. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;36:19–22.
pubmed: 34977692
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.11.008
Ding Z, Song D, Wu H, Tian H, Ye X, Liang W, et al. Development and validation of a nomogram based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and elastography-derived data for the stratification of patients with prostate cancer. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2021;11:3252–62.
pubmed: 34249651
pmcid: 8250010
doi: 10.21037/qims-20-978
Sakaguchi K, Hayashida M, Tanaka N, Oka S, Urakami S. A risk model for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer based on bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging in a Japanese cohort. Sci Rep. 2021;11:18829.
pubmed: 34552143
pmcid: 8458280
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-98195-2
Suh J, Yoo S, Park J, Cho SY, Cho MC, Son H, et al. Development and validation of an explainable artificial intelligence-based decision-supporting tool for prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2020;126:694–703.
pubmed: 32455477
doi: 10.1111/bju.15122
Gomez Gomez E, Salamanca Bustos JJ, Carrasco Valiente J, Fernandez Rueda JL, Blanca A, Valero Rosa J, et al. Observational study comparing the accuracy/variability between the ERSPC and the PCPT risk calculators for the prediction of significant prostate cancer in patients with PSA <10 ng/mL. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e031032.
pubmed: 31722940
pmcid: 6858159
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031032
Roobol MJ, Vedder MM, Nieboer D, Houlgatte A, Vincendeau S, Lazzeri M, et al. Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators that Include the Prostate Health Index. Eur Urol Focus. 2015;1:185–90.
pubmed: 28723432
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2015.06.004
Tosoian JJ, Zhang Y, Xiao L, Xie C, Samora NL, Niknafs YS, et al. Development and Validation of MyProstateScore 2.0 to Detect Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. medRxiv. 2023. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.11.23288418v1 .
Kretschmer A, Kajau H, Margolis E, Tutrone R, Grimm T, Trottmann M, et al. Validation of a CE-IVD, urine exosomal RNA expression assay for risk assessment of prostate cancer prior to biopsy. Sci Rep. 2022;12:4777.
pubmed: 35314720
pmcid: 8938406
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08608-z
Margolis E, Brown G, Partin A, Carter B, McKiernan J, Tutrone R, et al. Predicting high-grade prostate cancer at initial biopsy: clinical performance of the ExoDx (EPI) Prostate Intelliscore test in three independent prospective studies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022;25:296–301.
pubmed: 34593984
doi: 10.1038/s41391-021-00456-8
Niu XK, Li J, Das SK, Xiong Y, Yang CB, Peng T. Developing a nomogram based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for forecasting high-grade prostate cancer to reduce unnecessary biopsies within the prostate-specific antigen gray zone. BMC Med Imaging. 2017;17:11.
pubmed: 28143433
pmcid: 5286806
doi: 10.1186/s12880-017-0184-x
Liu Y, Wang S, Xiang LH, Xu G, Dong L, Sun Y, et al. The potential of a nomogram combined PI-RADS v2.1 and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to reduce unnecessary biopsies in prostate cancer diagnostics. Br J Radio. 2022;95:20220209.
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20220209
Lazzeri M, Haese A, De La Taille A, Palou Redorta J, McNicholas T, Lughezzani G, et al. Serum isoform [-2]proPSA derivatives significantly improve prediction of prostate cancer at initial biopsy in a total PSA range of 2-10 ng/ml: a multicentric european study. Eur Urol. 2013;63:986–94.
pubmed: 23375961
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.01.011
Loeb S, Shin SS, Broyles DL, Wei JT, Sanda M, Klee G, et al. Prostate Health Index improves multivariable risk prediction of aggressive prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017;120:61–8.
pubmed: 27743489
doi: 10.1111/bju.13676
Han C, Liu S, Qin XB, Ma S, Zhu LN, Wang XY. MRI combined with PSA density in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with PSA serum levels of 4 similar to 10 ng/mL: Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI. Diagnostic Interventional Imaging. 2020;101:235–44.
pubmed: 32063483
doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2020.01.014
Song SH, Kim H, Kim JK, Lee H, Oh JJ, Lee SC, et al. A smart, practical, deep learning-based clinical decision support tool for patients in the prostate-specific antigen gray zone: model development and validation. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 2022;29:1949–57.
doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocac141
Hu C, Sun J, Xu Z, Zhang Z, Zhou Q, Xu J, et al. Development and external validation of a novel nomogram to predict prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients with PSA <10 ng/ml and PI-RADS v2.1 = 3 lesions. Cancer Med. 2023;12:2560–71.
pubmed: 35920264
doi: 10.1002/cam4.5100
Guo Y, Su K, Lu M, Liu X. Incorporation of trans-rectal color doppler flow imaging and risk-stratification nomogram reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies in suspected prostate cancer patients: a bi-centered retrospective validation study. BMC Urol. 2023;23:81.
pubmed: 37138271
pmcid: 10157911
doi: 10.1186/s12894-023-01245-2
Zaytoun OM, Kattan MW, Moussa AS, Li J, Yu C, Jones JS. Development of improved nomogram for prediction of outcome of initial prostate biopsy using readily available clinical information. Urology. 2011;78:392–8.
pubmed: 21705045
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.04.042
Yu S, Tao J, Dong B, Fan Y, Du H, Deng H, et al. Development and head-to-head comparison of machine-learning models to identify patients requiring prostate biopsy. BMC Urol. 2021;21:80.
pubmed: 33993876
pmcid: 8127331
doi: 10.1186/s12894-021-00849-w
O’connell SP, Frantzi M, Latosinska A, Webb M, Mullen W, Pejchinovski M, et al. A Model to Detect Significant Prostate Cancer Integrating Urinary Peptide and Extracellular Vesicle RNA Data. Cancers. 2022;14:1995.
pubmed: 35454901
pmcid: 9027643
doi: 10.3390/cancers14081995
Vickers AJ. Incorporating Clinical Considerations into Statistical Analyses of Markers: A Quiet Revolution in How We Think About Data. Clin Chem. 2016;62:671–2.
pubmed: 26988582
doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2016.254268
Strobl AN, Vickers AJ, Van Calster B, Steyerberg E, Leach RJ, Thompson IM, et al. Improving patient prostate cancer risk assessment: Moving from static, globally-applied to dynamic, practice-specific risk calculators. J Biomed Inf. 2015;56:87–93.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2015.05.001
Labra A, Gonzalez F, Silva C, Franz G, Pinochet R, Gupta RT. MRI/TRUS fusion vs. systematic biopsy: intra-patient comparison of diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer using PI-RADS v2. Abdom Radio. 2020;45:2235–43.
doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02481-y
Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Egevad L, Samaratunga H, Yaxley J, Evans AJ. One is the new six: The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) patient-focused approach to Gleason grading. Can Urol Assoc J. 2016;10:339–41.
pubmed: 27800056
pmcid: 5085914
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.4146
Mottet PCN, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Eberli D, De Meerleer G, De Santis M, et al. Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. EAU; 2023. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer .
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40.
pubmed: 26427566
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
Li MJ, Chen T, Zhao WL, Wei CG, Li XB, Duan SF, et al. Radiomics prediction model for the improved diagnosis o clinically significant prostate cancer on biparametric MRI. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2020;10:368–+.
pubmed: 32190563
pmcid: 7063275
doi: 10.21037/qims.2019.12.06
Janssen KJ, Siccama I, Vergouwe Y, Koffijberg H, Debray TP, Keijzer M, et al. Development and validation of clinical prediction models: marginal differences between logistic regression, penalized maximum likelihood estimation, and genetic programming. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:404–12.
pubmed: 22214734
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.011
Janssen KJ, Moons KG, Kalkman CJ, Grobbee DE, Vergouwe Y. Updating methods improved the performance of a clinical prediction model in new patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:76–86.
pubmed: 18083464
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.018
Debray TP, Vergouwe Y, Koffijberg H, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Moons KG. A new framework to enhance the interpretation of external validation studies of clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:279–89.
pubmed: 25179855
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.018
Presti JC, Alexeeff S, Horton B, Prausnitz S, Avins AL. Prospective validation of the Kaiser Permanente prostate cancer risk calculator in a contemporary, racially diverse, referral population. Urol Oncol. 2021;39:783.e11–.e19.
pubmed: 33962850
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.03.023
Presti J Jr., Alexeeff S, Horton B, Prausnitz S, Avins AL. Prospective development of a prostate cancer risk calculator in a racially diverse population: The Kaiser Permanente Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator. Urol Oncol. 2020;38:847.e1–.e8.
pubmed: 32536468
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.05.011
Nam RK, Satkunavisam R, Chin JL, Izawa J, Trachtenberg J, Rendon R, et al. Next-generation prostate cancer risk calculator for primary care physicians. Can Urol Assoc J. 2018;12:E64–E70.
pubmed: 29381462
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.4696
Li X, Li C, Chen M. Patients With “Gray Zone” PSA Levels: Application of Prostate MRI and MRS in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2023;57:992–1010.
pubmed: 36326563
doi: 10.1002/jmri.28505
Aladwani M, Lophatananon A, Ollier W, Muir K. Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e034661.
pubmed: 32690501
pmcid: 7371149
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034661
Hogenhout R, Osses DF, Alberts AR, Buizer-Rijksen HG, Remmers S, Roobol MJ. Shifting risk-stratified early prostate cancer detection to a primary healthcare setting. BJU Int. 2023;131:596–601.
pubmed: 36408660
doi: 10.1111/bju.15933
Benard A, Duroux T, Robert G. Cost-utility analysis of focal high-intensity focussed ultrasound vs active surveillance for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer using a Markov multi-state model. BJU Int. 2019;124:962–71.
pubmed: 31298775
doi: 10.1111/bju.14867
Bajeot AS, Covin B, Meyrignac O, Pericart S, Aziza R, Portalez D, et al. Managing Discordant Findings Between Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Prostate Biopsy-The Key Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Transperineal Biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022;5:296–303.
pubmed: 34154979
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.06.001
Bauer JJ, Zeng J, Weir J, Zhang W, Sesterhenn IA, Connelly RR, et al. Three-dimensional computer-simulated prostate models: lateral prostate biopsies increase the detection rate of prostate cancer. Urology. 1999;53:961–7.
pubmed: 10223490
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00068-0
Clark R, Kenk M, McAlpine K, Thain E, Farncombe KM, Pritchard CC, et al. The evolving role of germline genetic testing and management in prostate cancer: Report from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre international retreat. Can Urol Assoc J. 2021;15:E623–E9.
pubmed: 34171218
pmcid: 8631832
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.7383
Wang NN, Zhou SR, Chen L, Tibshirani R, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, et al. The stanford prostate cancer calculator: Development and external validation of online nomograms incorporating PIRADS scores to predict clinically significant prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2021;39:831.e19–.e27.
pubmed: 34247909
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.06.004
Parekh S, Ratnani P, Falagario U, Lundon D, Kewlani D, Nasri J, et al. The Mount Sinai Prebiopsy Risk Calculator for Predicting any Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Development of a Risk Predictive Tool and Validation with Advanced Neural Networking, Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Outcome Database, and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;41:45–54.
pubmed: 35813258
pmcid: 9257660
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.04.017
Jalali A, Kitching M, Martin K, Richardson C, Murphy TB, FitzGerald SP, et al. Integrating inflammatory serum biomarkers into a risk calculator for prostate cancer detection. Sci rep. 2021;11:2525.
pubmed: 33510263
pmcid: 7844261
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-81965-3
Wagaskar VG, Levy M, Ratnani P, Moody K, Garcia M, Pedraza AM, et al. Clinical Utility of Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021;28:9–16.
pubmed: 34337520
pmcid: 8317880
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.03.008
Wagaskar VG, Lantz A, Sobotka S, Ratnani P, Parekh S, Falagario UG, et al. Development and External Validation of a Prediction Model to Identify Candidates for Prostate Biopsy. Urol J. 2022;19:379–85.
pubmed: 34978065
Morote J, Borque-Fernando A, Triquell M, Celma A, Regis L, Escobar M, et al. The Barcelona Predictive Model of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Cancers. 2022;14:1589.
pubmed: 35326740
pmcid: 8946272
doi: 10.3390/cancers14061589
Ma Z, Wang X, Zhang W, Gao K, Wang L, Qian L, et al. Developing a predictive model for clinically significant prostate cancer by combining age, PSA density, and mpMRI. World J Surg Oncol. 2023;21:83.
pubmed: 36882854
pmcid: 9990202
doi: 10.1186/s12957-023-02959-1
Bjurlin MA, Rosenkrantz AB, Sarkar S, Lepor H, Huang WC, Huang R, et al. Prediction of Prostate Cancer Risk Among Men Undergoing Combined MRI-targeted and Systematic Biopsy Using Novel Pre-biopsy Nomograms That Incorporate MRI Findings. Urology. 2018;112:112–20.
pubmed: 29155186
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.09.035
Ankerst DP, Boeck A, Freedland SJ, Jones JS, Cronin AM, Roobol MJ, et al. Evaluating the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial High Grade Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in 10 international biopsy cohorts: results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group. World J Urol. 2014;32:185–91.
pubmed: 22527674
doi: 10.1007/s00345-012-0869-2
Ankerst DP, Hoefler J, Bock S, Goodman PJ, Vickers A, Hernandez J, et al. Prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- vs high-grade prostate cancer. Urology. 2014;83:1362–7.
pubmed: 24862395
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.035
Poyet C, Wettstein MS, Lundon DJ, Bhindi B, Kulkarni GS, Saba K, et al. External Evaluation of a Novel Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ProstateCheck) Based on Data from the Swiss Arm of the ERSPC. J Urol. 2016;196:1402–7.
pubmed: 27188476
pmcid: 5576554
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.081
Peters M, Eldred-Evans D, Kurver P, Falagario UG. Predicting the need for biopsy to detect clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with a magnetic resonance imaging–detected prostate imaging reporting and data system/likert ≥3 lesion: development and multinational external validation of the imperial rapid access to prostate imaging and diagnosis risk score. Eur Urol. 2022;82:559–68.
Zhang Y, Zhu G, Zhao W, Wei C, Chen T, Ma Q, et al. A PI-RADS-based new nomogram for predicting clinically significant prostate cancer: A Cohort study. Cancer Manag Res. 2020;12:3631–41.
pubmed: 32547200
pmcid: 7245434
doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S250633
Zhang Y, Zeng N, Zhu YC, Huang YXR, Guo Q, Tian Y. Development and internal validation of PI-RADs v2-based model for clinically significant prostate cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2018;16:102.
pubmed: 29859119
pmcid: 5984817
doi: 10.1186/s12957-018-1367-9
Chen IHA, Chu CH, Lin JT, Tsai J, Yu CC, Sridhar AN, et al. Comparing a new risk prediction model with prostate cancer risk calculator apps in a Taiwanese population. World J Urol. 2021;39:797–802.
pubmed: 32436074
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03256-2
Perez IM, Jambor I, Kauko T, Verho J, Ettala O, Falagario U, et al. Qualitative and Quantitative Reporting of a Unique Biparametric MRI: Towards Biparametric MRI-Based Nomograms for Prediction of Prostate Biopsy Outcome in Men With a Clinical Suspicion of Prostate Cancer (IMPROD and MULTI-IMPROD Trials). J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;51:1556–67.
pubmed: 31750988
doi: 10.1002/jmri.26975
Morote J, Borque-Fernando A, Triquell M, Celma A, Regis L, Mast R, et al. Comparative Analysis of PSA Density and an MRI-Based Predictive Model to Improve the Selection of Candidates for Prostate Biopsy. Cancers. 2022;14:2374.
pubmed: 35625978
pmcid: 9139805
doi: 10.3390/cancers14102374
Palsdottir T, Nordstrom T, Aly M, Jaderling F, Clements M, Gronberg H, et al. A Unified Prostate Cancer Risk Prediction Model Combining the Stockholm3 Test and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2:490–6.
pubmed: 31412016
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.008
Chen R, Xie L, Xue W, Ye Z, Ma L, Gao X, et al. Development and external multicenter validation of Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium prostate cancer risk calculator for initial prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol. 2016;34:416.e1–7.
pubmed: 27185342
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.04.004