Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To externally validate the clinical utility of Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium Risk Calculator (CPCC-RC) and Asian adapted Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator 3 (A-ERSPC-RC3) for prediction prostate cancer (PCa) and high-grade prostate cancer (HGPCa, Gleason Score ≥ 3 + 4) in both Chinese and European populations.

Materials and methods

The Chinese clinical cohort, the European population-based screening cohort, and the European clinical cohort included 2,508, 3,616 and 617 prostate biopsy-naive men, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plot and decision curve analyses were applied in the analysis.

Results

The CPCC-RC’s predictive ability for any PCa (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.75–0.79) was lower than the A-ERSPC-RC3 (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.77–0.81) in the European screening cohort (p < 0.001), but similar for HGPCa (p = 0.24). The CPCC-RC showed lower predictive accuracy for any PCa (AUC 0.65, 95% CI 0.61–0.70), but acceptable predictive accuracy for HGPCa (AUC 0.73, 95% CI 0.69–0.77) in the European clinical cohort. The A-ERSPC-RC3 showed an AUC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72–0.76) in predicting any PCa, and a similar AUC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72–0.76) in predicting HGPCa in Chinese cohort. In the Chinese population, decision curve analysis revealed a higher net benefit for CPCC-RC than A-ERSPC-RC3, while in the European screening and clinical cohorts, the net benefit was higher for A-ERSPC-RC3.

Conclusions

The A-ERSPC-RC3 accurately predict the prostate biopsy in a contemporary Chinese multi-center clinical cohort. The CPCC-RC can predict accurately in a population-based screening cohort, but not in the European clinical cohort.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2015) Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 65:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL et al (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen R, Ren S, Yiu MK et al (2014) Prostate cancer in Asia: a collaborative report. Asian Journal of Urology 1:15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kitagawa Y, Namiki M (2015) Prostate-specific antigen-based population screening for prostate cancer: current status in Japan and future perspective in Asia. Asian J Androl 17:475

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW, Kranse R et al (2010) A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57:79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen R, Sjoberg DD, Huang Y et al (2017) Prostate specific antigen and prostate cancer in Chinese men undergoing initial prostate biopsies compared with western cohorts: data from the PBCG and CPCC. J Urol 197:90–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, van der Kwast T et al (2017) 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 72:45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yoon DK, Park JY, Yoon S et al (2012) Can the prostate risk calculator based on Western population be applied to Asian population? Prostate 72:721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhu Y, Wang JY, Shen YJ et al (2012) 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 14:738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen R, Xie L, Xue W et al (2016) Development and external multicenter validation of Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium prostate cancer risk calculator for initial prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol 34:416 e1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chiu PK, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D et al (2017) Adaptation and external validation of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator for the Chinese population. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20:99

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM (2011) Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw 45:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Roobol MJ, van Vugt HA, Loeb S et al (2012) Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol 61:577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT (1974) Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 111:58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Humphrey PA (2004) Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate. Mod Pathol 17:292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chiu PK, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D et al (2016) Adaptation and external validation of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator for the Chinese population. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20:99–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ankerst DP, Straubinger J, Selig K et al (2018) A Contemporary prostate biopsy risk calculator based on multiple heterogeneous cohorts. Eur Urol 74:197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wu YS, Zhang N, Liu SH et al (2016) 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 18:925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Park JY, Yoon S, Park MS et al (2017) Development and external validation of the Korean Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for High-Grade Prostate Cancer: comparison with two Western Risk Calculators in an Asian Cohort. PLoS ONE 12:e0168917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Park JY, Yoon S, Park MS et al (2011) Initial biopsy outcome prediction in Korean patients-comparison of a noble web-based Korean prostate cancer risk calculator versus prostate-specific antigen testing. J Korean Med Sci 26:85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Suzuki H, Komiya A, Kamiya N et al (2006) Development of a nomogram to predict probability of positive initial prostate biopsy among Japanese patients. Urology 67:131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Loeb S, Bruinsma SM, Nicholson J et al (2015) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur Urol 67:619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vedder MM, de Bekker-Grob EW, Lilja HG et al (2014) The added value of percentage of free to total prostate-specific antigen, PCA3, and a kallikrein panel to the ERSPC risk calculator for prostate cancer in prescreened men. Eur Urol 66:1109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Osses DF, Roobol MJ, Schoots IG (2019) Prediction medicine: biomarkers, risk calculators and magnetic resonance imaging as risk stratification tools in prostate cancer diagnosis. Int J Mol Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20071637

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by National Natural Science Foundation Youth Project (Rui Chen, 81702514). We give our sincere gratitude to Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium, and Prof. Wei Xue (Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine), Prof. Liping Xie (First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou), Prof. Liqun Zhou, (Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing) for collecting the biopsy data.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Rui Chen and Jan F. M. Verbeek contributed equally.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Changhai Road 168, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China

    Rui Chen, Yue Yang, Zijian Song & Yinghao Sun

  2. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Room Na1706, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Jan F. M. Verbeek & Monique J. Roobol

Authors
  1. Rui Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan F. M. Verbeek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yue Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zijian Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yinghao Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Monique J. Roobol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RC: protocol/project development, data collection or management, manuscript writing/editing. JMV: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. YY: data collection or management, manuscript editing. ZS: data collection or management, manuscript editing. YS: protocol/project development. MJR: protocol/project development.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yinghao Sun or Monique J. Roobol.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Research involving human participants

This study is approved by Ethical review board of Changhai Hospital.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, R., Verbeek, J.F.M., Yang, Y. et al. 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 39, 73–80 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03177-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03177-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation