Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparing a new risk prediction model with prostate cancer risk calculator apps in a Taiwanese population
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparing a new risk prediction model with prostate cancer risk calculator apps in a Taiwanese population
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparing a new risk prediction model with prostate cancer risk calculator apps in a Taiwanese population
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparing a new risk prediction model with prostate cancer risk calculator apps in a Taiwanese population
2021
Overview
PurposeTo develop a novel Taiwanese prostate cancer (PCa) risk model for predicting PCa, comparing its predictive performance with that of two well-established PCa risk calculator apps.Methods1545 men undergoing prostate biopsies in a Taiwanese tertiary medical center between 2012 and 2019 were identified retrospectively. A five-fold cross-validated logistic regression risk model was created to calculate the probabilities of PCa and high-grade PCa (Gleason score ≧ 7), to compare those of the Rotterdam and Coral apps. Discrimination was analyzed using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration was graphically evaluated with the goodness-of-fit test. Decision-curve analysis was performed for clinical utility. At different risk thresholds to biopsy, the proportion of biopsies saved versus low- and high-grade PCa missed were presented.ResultsOverall, 278/1309 (21.2%) patients were diagnosed with PCa, and 181 out of 278 (65.1%) patients had high-grade PCa. Both our model and the Rotterdam app demonstrated better discriminative ability than the Coral app for detection of PCa (AUC: 0.795 vs 0.792 vs 0.697, DeLong’s method: P < 0.001) and high-grade PCa (AUC: 0.869 vs 0.873 vs 0.767, P < 0.001). Using a ≥ 10% risk threshold for high-grade PCa to biopsy, our model could save 67.2% of total biopsies; among these saved biopsies, only 3.4% high-grade PCa would be missed.ConclusionOur new logistic regression model, similar to the Rotterdam app, outperformed the Coral app in the prediction of PCa and high-grade PCa. Additionally, our model could save unnecessary biopsies and avoid missing clinically significant PCa in the Taiwanese population.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
