385 The ERSPC risk calculator significantly outperforms the PCPT 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer: A multi-institutional study

Observational study comparing the accuracy/variability between the ERSPC and the PCPT risk calculators for the prediction of significant prostate cancer in patients with PSA <10 ng/mL

“…As defined in the methodology, the first measure (ERSPC1 and PCPT1) was the focus of the direct comparison, as this was used as the indication for biopsy. The accuracy of both RCs was similar for SigPCa in our study, showing an accuracy similar to other external validations such as Poyet et al 9 and Foley et al 7 for ESRPC (AUC=0.73 and 0.74, respectively) and a better accuracy for PCPT1 v2.0 when adding free PSA (AUC=0.70 and 0.69, respectively). Still, these results are far from ideal, and thus, additional data from imaging or fluid markers might be included to improve the accuracy of the RCs.…”

“…The two most used RCs are ERSPC-RC and PCPT-RC, which have been modified and adapted 4 5. Few external validations have been conducted, with varying results 7 9 28. Usually, external validations of RCs show worse performance than the original validations,8 a fact that is corroborated by our study.…”

“…To date, limited external validations and comparisons have been performed by different groups 6–9. The two most important recent comparisons of the modified RCs were performed by Foley et al 6 7 and Poyet et al 9.…”

“…To date, limited external validations and comparisons have been performed by different groups 6–9. The two most important recent comparisons of the modified RCs were performed by Foley et al 6 7 and Poyet et al 9. Both found a better discriminative ability for ERSPC-RC versus PCPT v2-RC for the diagnoses of significant PCa (SigPCa) (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) around 0.74 vs 0.69, respectively), but they also included patients with a high PSA of up to 50 ng/mL.…”