Podium Abstract
Eposter Presentation
 
Accept format: PDF. The file size should not be more than 5MB
 
Accept format: PNG/JPG/WEBP. The file size should not be more than 2MB
 
Submitted
Abstract
EXTERNAL VALIDATION OF THE PROSTATE BIOPSY COLLABORATIVE GROUP AND EUROPEAN RANDOMIZED STUDY OF SCREENING FOR PROSTATE CANCER RISK CALCULATORS IN MULTI-ETHNIC MALAYSIA
Podium Abstract
Clinical Research
Oncology: Prostate
Author's Information
3
No more than 10 authors can be listed (as per the Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines).
Please ensure the authors are listed in the right order.
Malaysia
Yiie Huern Seo yiiehuernseo@gmail.com Hospital Kuala Lumpur Urology Kuala Lumpur Malaysia *
Yeon Wee Ooi raymond_ooi92@hotmail.com Hospital Pulau Pinang Urology Pulau Pinang Malaysia -
Charis Kalogirou Kalogirou_C@ukw.de University Hospital Wurzburg Urology Wurzburg Germany -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract Content
Prostate cancer detection rates for PSA ≤10.0 ng/ml in Malaysia (14.3%) are lower than in Western populations (33.7%). This raises concerns about the applicability of Western-developed risk calculators (RCs) in Asian cohorts. We assessed the performance of the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group Risk Calculator (PBCG-RC) and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC-RC3) in a multi-ethnic Malaysian cohort.
A retrospective analysis of men who underwent prostate biopsy in Penang Hospital, Malaysia between January 2019 to August 2024 was performed. Requirement criteria are age (50-80 years), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (3.0 - 50 ng/ml), abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) or suspicious lesions on prostate imaging. Predicted probabilities for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, Gleason ≥7) were compared with histopathology results. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 22 (IBM, USA). Evaluation was performed by calibration, discrimination, and clinical utility using calibration plots, area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), and decision curve analyses (DCAs), respectively.
995 prostate biopsies were eligible for final analysis. 250 men (25.2%) had csPCa. PBCG-RC (AUC: 0.78, 95% CI 0.74-0.81) and ERSPC-RC3 (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.85) shows strong discrimination and predictive accuracy. Median risk of csPCa was 49% (interquartile Range [IQR] 33-65%) for PBCG-RC and 13% (IQR 4-36%) for ERSPC-RC3. Both PBCG-RC (Calibration slope: 0.91 [95% CI 0.79 - 1.0]) and ERSPC-RC3 (Calibration slope: 0.88 [95% CI 0.79 - 0.97]) underestimated the risk of csPCa. Decision curve analysis (DCA) showed clinical net benefit for risk thresholds ≥5%, with PBCG-RC performing better across a wider range (5–30%) than ERSPC-RC3 (5–25%). Re-calibration improved the clinical benefits of both models.
PBCG-RC and ERSPC-RC3 risk calculators exhibit good discrimination for detection of csPCa in a Malaysian cohort. Use of risk calculators improve diagnostic accuracy for predicting prostate biopsy outcome as compared to PSA-only or PSA-DRE strategy. However, regional re-calibration is needed to enhance predictive accuracy.
Prostate cancer, risk calculators, PBCG, ERSPC, Malaysia
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2224
 
Presentation Details
Free Paper Podium(12): Oncology Prostate (C)
Aug. 15 (Fri.)
16:30 - 16:36
11