Objectives: To perform the first validation study of the finasteride-adjusted Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (finPCPTRC) in a contemporary referral population in Mexico. Methods: 837 patients referred to the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico City, Mexico, between 2005 and 2009 were used to validate the finPCPTRC by examining various measures of discrimination and calibration. Net benefit curve analysis was used to gain insight into the use of the finPCPTRC for clinical decisions. Results: Prostate cancer (PCa) incidence (72.8%) was high in this Mexican referral cohort and 45.7% of men who were diagnosed with PCa had high-grade lesions (HGPCa, Gleason score >6). 1.3% of the patients were taking finasteride. The finPCPTRC was a superior diagnostic tool compared to prostate-specific antigen alone when discriminating patients with PCa from those without PCa (AUC = 0.784 vs. AUC = 0.687, p < 0.001) and when discriminating patients with HGPCa from those without HGPCa (AUC = 0.768 vs. AUC = 0.739, p < 0.001). The finPCPTRC underestimated the risk of PCa but overestimated the risk of HGPCa (both p < 0.001). Compared with other strategies to opt for biopsy, the net benefit would be larger with utilization of the finPCPTRC for patients accepting higher risks of HGPCa. Conclusions: Rates of biopsy-detectable PCa and HGPCa were high and 1.3% of this referral cohort in Mexico was taking finasteride. The risks of PCa or HGPCa calculated by the finPCPTRC were not well calibrated for this referral Mexican population and new clinical diagnostic tools are needed.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Prostate-specific antigen, Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator, Finasteride, Mexico
1.
Thompson IM, et al: Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:529–534.
2.
Redman MW, et al: Finasteride does not increase the risk of high-grade prostate cancer: a bias-adjusted modeling approach. Cancer Prev Res 2008;1:174–181.
3.
Thompson IM, et al: Effect of finasteride on the sensitivity of PSA for detecting prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:1128–1133.
4.
Guess HA, Heyse JF, Gormley GJ: The effect of finasteride on prostate-specific antigen in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prostate 1993;22:31–37.
5.
Thompson IM, et al: Prediction of prostate cancer for patients receiving finasteride: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3076–3081.
6.
Thompson IM, et al: It’s time to abandon an upper limit of normal for prostate specific antigen: assessing the risk of prostate cancer. J Urol 2008;180:1219–1222.
7.
Wolf AMD, et al: American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:70–98.
8.
Parekh DJ, et al: External validation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator in a screened population. Urology 2006;68:1152–1155.
9.
Eyre SJ, et al: Validation in a multiple urology practice cohort of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial calculator for predicting prostate cancer detection. J Urol 2009;182:2653–2658.
10.
Ngo TC, et al: The prostate cancer risk calculator from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial underestimates the risk of high grade cancer in contemporary referral patients. J Urol 2011;185:483–488.
11.
Gomez-Guerra LS, et al: Population based prostate cancer screening in north Mexico reveals a high prevalence of aggressive tumors in detected cases. BMC Cancer 2009;9:91.
12.
Miller ME, Hui SL, Tierney WM: Validation techniques for logistic regression models. Stat Med 1991;10:1213–1226.
13.
Cox DR: Two further applications of a model for binary regression. Biometrika 1958;45:562–565.
14.
Kunert J, Martin RJ, Eccleston J: Optimal block designs comparing treatments with a control when the errors are correlated. J Stat Plann Infer 2010;140:2719–2738.
15.
Vickers AJ: Decision analysis for the evaluation of diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers. Am Stat 2008;62:314–320.
16.
Tovar-Guzman V, et al: Prostate cancer mortality trends in Mexico, 1980–1995. Prostate 1999;39:23–27.
17.
Stone SN, et al: Family history, Hispanic ethnicity, and prostate cancer risk. Ethn Dis 2003;13:233–239.
18.
Strom SS, et al: Prostate cancer in Mexican-Americans: identification of risk factors. Prostate 2008;68:563–570.
19.
Liang Y, et al: Population-based screening for prostate cancer: improved outcomes in African American men. Ann Urol 2011;1:1–8.
20.
Chun FK, et al: Prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3): development and internal validation of a novel biopsy nomogram. Eur Urol 2009;56:659–668.
21.
Roobol MJ, et al: A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010;57:79–85.
22.
Nam RK, et al: Assessing individual risk for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3582–3588.
23.
Ankerst DP, et al: Predicting prostate cancer risk through incorporation of prostate cancer gene 3. J Urol 2008;180:1303–1308.
24.
Cao D-L, et al: A multiplex model of combining gene-based, protein-based, and metabolite-based with positive and negative markers in urine for the early diagnosis of prostate cancer. Prostate 2011;71:700–710.
25.
Ankerst DP, et al: Updating risk prediction tools: a case study in prostate cancer. Biom J 2012;54:127–142.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.