Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator Apps in a Taiwanese Population Cohort: Validation Study

• Published in: Journal of medical Internet research 2020-12, Vol.22 (12), p.e16322-e16322
• Main Authors: Chen, I-Hsuan Alan, Chu, Chi-Hsiang, Lin, Jen-Tai, Tsai, Jeng-Yu, Yu, Chia-Cheng, Sridhar, Ashwin Narasimha, Sooriakumaran, Prasanna, Loureiro, Rui C V, Chand, Manish
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Cohort Studies; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mobile Applications - standards; Original Paper; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis; Retrospective Studies; Risk Assessment - methods; Taiwan
• ISSN: 1438-8871; 1439-4456; 1438-8871
• DOI: 10.2196/16322

Mobile health apps have emerged as useful tools for patients and clinicians alike, sharing health information or assisting in clinical decision-making. Prostate cancer (PCa) risk calculator mobile apps have been introduced to assess risks of PCa and high-grade PCa (Gleason score ≥7). The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator and Coral-Prostate Cancer Nomogram Calculator apps were developed from the 2 most-studied PCa risk calculators, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the North American Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk calculators, respectively. A systematic review has indicated that the Rotterdam and Coral apps perform best during the prebiopsy stage. However, the epidemiology of PCa varies among different populations, and therefore, the applicability of these apps in a Taiwanese population needs to be evaluated. This study is the first to validate the PCa risk calculator apps with both biopsy and prostatectomy cohorts in Taiwan. The study's objective is to validate the PCa risk calculator apps using a Taiwanese cohort of patients. Additionally, we aim to utilize postprostatectomy pathology outcomes to assess the accuracy of both apps with regard to high-grade PCa. All male patients who had undergone transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsies in a single Taiwanese tertiary medical center from 2012 to 2018 were identified retrospectively. The probabilities of PCa and high-grade PCa were calculated utilizing the Rotterdam and Coral apps, and compared with biopsy and prostatectomy results. Calibration was graphically evaluated with the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Discrimination was analyzed utilizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Decision curve analysis was performed for clinical utility. Of 1134 patients, 246 (21.7%) were diagnosed with PCa; of these 246 patients, 155 (63%) had high-grade PCa, according to the biopsy results. After confirmation with prostatectomy pathological outcomes, 47.2% (25/53) of patients were upgraded to high-grade PCa, and 1.2% (1/84) of patients were downgraded to low-grade PCa. Only the Rotterdam app demonstrated good calibration for detecting high-grade PCa in the biopsy cohort. The discriminative ability for both PCa (AUC: 0.779 vs 0.687; DeLong's method: P