Evaluation of models predicting insignificant prostate cancer to select men for active surveillance of prostate cancer

Abstract

External assessment of models predicting insignificant PCa showed moderate performance at best. Uninformed interpretation may cause undue anxiety or false reassurance and they should be used with caution.

Risk prediction tool for grade re‐classification in men with favourable‐risk prostate cancer on active surveillance

“…The inconsistent findings across studies for factors associated with re‐classification, may be related to differences in composition of the cohorts evaluated, study design, and availability of predictive factors for evaluation. Thus, we believe that our model would only be appropriate at this point for prediction within our cohort of patients, and the performance of our risk tool will need to be verified externally .…”

Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

“…[93][94][95][96] The tables give the probability (95% CI) that a patient with a certain clinical stage, Gleason score, and PSA will have a cancer of each pathologic stage. Nomograms can be used to inform treatment decision-making for men contemplating active surveillance, [97][98][99] radical prostatectomy, 100-103 neurovascular bundle preservation, [104][105][106] or omission of pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy, [107][108][109][110] brachytherapy, 100,111-113 or external beam RT (EBRT). 100,114 Biochemical progression-free survival (PFS) can be reassessed postoperatively using age, diagnostic serum PSA, and pathologic grade and stage.…”

Microfluidics as an Enabling Technology for Personalized Cancer Therapy

“…Despite these potential confounding factors, the authors were able to predict the clinical outcome of low and intermediate‐risk prostate cancer patients with an AUC of 0.9. By comparison, previous attempts at predictive modeling for likelihood of prostate cancer progression achieved AUCs of 0.6–0.7 …”