The prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator 2.0 performs equally for standard biopsy and MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy

Improving prostate biopsy decision making in Mexican patients: Still a major public health concern

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer screening has reduced its mortality in 21%. However, this has also led to an increased number of biopsies in order to establish the diagnosis, many of them unnecessary. Current screening guidelines prioritize use of prostatic magnetic resonance and new biomarkers to reduce unnecessary biopsies, however, their implementation in developing countries screening programs is mainly limited by its costs.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate Prostate Biopsy Risk Collaborative Group (PBCG) and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPTRC) 2.0 predictions accuracy in Mexican patients in order to guide prostate biopsy decision making and reduce unnecessary biopsies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients between 55 and 90 years old who underwent prostate biopsy in a high-volume center in Mexico between January 2017 and June 2020. Clinical utility of PBCG and PCPTRC 2.0 to predict high-grade prostate cancer (HGPCa) biopsy outcomes was evaluated using decision curve analysis and compared to actual biopsy decision making. Receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (AUC) was used to measure discrimination and external validation.

RESULTS

From 687 patients eligible for prostate biopsy, 433 met selections criteria. One hundred and thirty-five (31.17%) patients were diagnosed with HGPCa, 63 (14.54%) with low-grade disease and 235 (54.27%) had a negative biopsy. PCPTRC 2.0 ≥15% threshold got a standardized net benefit (sNB) of 0.70, while PBCG ≥30% and ≥35% had a sNB of 0.27 and 0.15, respectively. Use of both models for guiding prostate biopsy decision resulted in no statistical difference for HGCPa detection rates, while achieved a significant difference in reducing total and unnecessary biopsies. However, this difference was lower (better) for PCPTRC 2.0, being statistically significative when compared against PBCG thresholds. Both models were well calibrated (AUC 0.79) and achieved external validation compared with international cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to effectively validate both PCPTRC 2.0 and PBCG predictions for the Mexican population, proving that their use in daily practice improves biopsy decision making by accurately predicting HGPCa and limit unnecessary biopsies without representing additional costs to screening programs.