| Title |
Predicting prostate cancer: analysing the clinical efficacy of prostate cancer risk calculators in a referral population
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Irish Journal of Medical Science, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11845-015-1291-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R. W. Foley, D. J. Lundon, K. Murphy, T. B. Murphy, D. J. Galvin, R. W. G. Watson |
| Abstract |
The decision to proceed to biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in clinical practice is a difficult one. Prostate cancer risk calculators allow for a systematic approach to the use of patient information to predict a patient's likelihood of prostate cancer. In this paper, we validate the two leading prostate cancer risk calculators, the prostate cancer prevention trial (PCPT) and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) in an Irish population. Data were collected for 337 men referred to one tertiary referral center in Ireland. Calibration analysis, ROC analysis and decision curve analysis were undertaken to ascertain the performance of the PCPT and the ERSPC risk calculators in this cohort. Of 337 consecutive biopsies, cancer was subsequently diagnosed in 146 men (43 %), 98 (67 %) of which were high grade. The AUC for the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators were 0.68 and 0.66, respectively for the prediction of prostate cancer. Each calculator was sufficiently calibrated in this cohort. Decision curve analysis demonstrated a net benefit via the use of the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators achieve a statistically significant prediction of prostate cancer in this Irish population. This study provides external validation for these calculators, and therefore these tools can be used to aid in clinical decision making. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 35% |
| Mathematics | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 April 2015.
All research outputs
#18,405,265
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from Irish Journal of Medical Science
#973
of 1,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,625
of 264,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Irish Journal of Medical Science
#8
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.