Cargando…

A comparative effectiveness analysis of the PBCG vs. PCPT risks calculators in a multi-ethnic cohort

BACKGROUND: Predictive models that take race into account like the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 (PCPT RC) and the new Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) RC have been developed to equitably mitigate the overdiagnosis of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening. Few st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carbunaru, Samuel, Nettey, Oluwarotimi S., Gogana, Pooja, Helenowski, Irene B., Jovanovic, Borko, Ruden, Maria, Hollowell, Courtney M. P., Sharifi, Roohollah, Kittles, Rick A., Schaeffer, Edward, Gann, Peter, Murphy, Adam B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6880480/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31771578
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0553-6
_version_ 1783473766537363456
author Carbunaru, Samuel
Nettey, Oluwarotimi S.
Gogana, Pooja
Helenowski, Irene B.
Jovanovic, Borko
Ruden, Maria
Hollowell, Courtney M. P.
Sharifi, Roohollah
Kittles, Rick A.
Schaeffer, Edward
Gann, Peter
Murphy, Adam B.
author_facet Carbunaru, Samuel
Nettey, Oluwarotimi S.
Gogana, Pooja
Helenowski, Irene B.
Jovanovic, Borko
Ruden, Maria
Hollowell, Courtney M. P.
Sharifi, Roohollah
Kittles, Rick A.
Schaeffer, Edward
Gann, Peter
Murphy, Adam B.
author_sort Carbunaru, Samuel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Predictive models that take race into account like the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 (PCPT RC) and the new Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) RC have been developed to equitably mitigate the overdiagnosis of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening. Few studies have compared the performance of both calculators across racial groups. METHODS: From 1485 prospectively recruited participants, 954 men were identified undergoing initial prostate biopsy for abnormal PSA or digital rectal examination in five Chicago hospitals between 2009 and 2014. Discrimination, calibration, and frequency of avoided biopsies were calculated to assess the performance of both risk calculators. RESULTS: Of 954 participants, 463 (48.5%) were Black, 355 (37.2%) were White, and 136 (14.2%) identified as Other. Biopsy results were as follows: 310 (32.5%) exhibited no cancer, 323 (33.9%) indolent prostate cancer, and 321 (33.6%) clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Differences in area under the curve (AUC)s for the detection of csPCa between PCPT and PBCG were not statistically different across all racial groups. PBCG did not improve calibration plots in Blacks and Others, as it showed higher levels of overprediction at most risk thresholds. PCPT led to an increased number of avoidable biopsies in minorities compared to PBCG at the 30% threshold (68% vs. 28% of all patients) with roughly similar rates of missed csPCa (23% vs. 20%). CONCLUSION: Significant improvements were noticed in PBCG’s calibrations and net benefits in Whites compared to PCPT. Since PBCG’s improvements in Blacks are disputable and potentially biases a greater number of low risk Black and Other men towards unnecessary biopsies, PCPT may lead to better biopsy decisions in racial minority groups. Further comparisons of commonly used risk calculators across racial groups is warranted to minimize excessive biopsies and overdiagnosis in ethnic minorities.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6880480
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68804802019-11-29 A comparative effectiveness analysis of the PBCG vs. PCPT risks calculators in a multi-ethnic cohort Carbunaru, Samuel Nettey, Oluwarotimi S. Gogana, Pooja Helenowski, Irene B. Jovanovic, Borko Ruden, Maria Hollowell, Courtney M. P. Sharifi, Roohollah Kittles, Rick A. Schaeffer, Edward Gann, Peter Murphy, Adam B. BMC Urol Research Article BACKGROUND: Predictive models that take race into account like the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 (PCPT RC) and the new Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) RC have been developed to equitably mitigate the overdiagnosis of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening. Few studies have compared the performance of both calculators across racial groups. METHODS: From 1485 prospectively recruited participants, 954 men were identified undergoing initial prostate biopsy for abnormal PSA or digital rectal examination in five Chicago hospitals between 2009 and 2014. Discrimination, calibration, and frequency of avoided biopsies were calculated to assess the performance of both risk calculators. RESULTS: Of 954 participants, 463 (48.5%) were Black, 355 (37.2%) were White, and 136 (14.2%) identified as Other. Biopsy results were as follows: 310 (32.5%) exhibited no cancer, 323 (33.9%) indolent prostate cancer, and 321 (33.6%) clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Differences in area under the curve (AUC)s for the detection of csPCa between PCPT and PBCG were not statistically different across all racial groups. PBCG did not improve calibration plots in Blacks and Others, as it showed higher levels of overprediction at most risk thresholds. PCPT led to an increased number of avoidable biopsies in minorities compared to PBCG at the 30% threshold (68% vs. 28% of all patients) with roughly similar rates of missed csPCa (23% vs. 20%). CONCLUSION: Significant improvements were noticed in PBCG’s calibrations and net benefits in Whites compared to PCPT. Since PBCG’s improvements in Blacks are disputable and potentially biases a greater number of low risk Black and Other men towards unnecessary biopsies, PCPT may lead to better biopsy decisions in racial minority groups. Further comparisons of commonly used risk calculators across racial groups is warranted to minimize excessive biopsies and overdiagnosis in ethnic minorities. BioMed Central 2019-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6880480/ /pubmed/31771578 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0553-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Carbunaru, Samuel
Nettey, Oluwarotimi S.
Gogana, Pooja
Helenowski, Irene B.
Jovanovic, Borko
Ruden, Maria
Hollowell, Courtney M. P.
Sharifi, Roohollah
Kittles, Rick A.
Schaeffer, Edward
Gann, Peter
Murphy, Adam B.
A comparative effectiveness analysis of the PBCG vs. PCPT risks calculators in a multi-ethnic cohort
title A comparative effectiveness analysis of the PBCG vs. PCPT risks calculators in a multi-ethnic cohort
title_full A comparative effectiveness analysis of the PBCG vs. PCPT risks calculators in a multi-ethnic cohort
title_fullStr A comparative effectiveness analysis of the PBCG vs. PCPT risks calculators in a multi-ethnic cohort
title_full_unstemmed A comparative effectiveness analysis of the PBCG vs. PCPT risks calculators in a multi-ethnic cohort
title_short A comparative effectiveness analysis of the PBCG vs. PCPT risks calculators in a multi-ethnic cohort
title_sort comparative effectiveness analysis of the pbcg vs. pcpt risks calculators in a multi-ethnic cohort
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6880480/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31771578
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0553-6
work_keys_str_mv AT carbunarusamuel acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT netteyoluwarotimis acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT goganapooja acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT helenowskiireneb acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT jovanovicborko acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT rudenmaria acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT hollowellcourtneymp acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT sharifiroohollah acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT kittlesricka acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT schaefferedward acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT gannpeter acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT murphyadamb acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT carbunarusamuel comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT netteyoluwarotimis comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT goganapooja comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT helenowskiireneb comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT jovanovicborko comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT rudenmaria comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT hollowellcourtneymp comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT sharifiroohollah comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT kittlesricka comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT schaefferedward comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT gannpeter comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort
AT murphyadamb comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthepbcgvspcptriskscalculatorsinamultiethniccohort