A new predictor is comparable to the updated nomogram in predicting the intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer but outperforms nomogram in reducing the overtreatment for the low-risk Pca

References

• Huynh MA, Chen MH, Wu J, Braccioforte MH, Moran BJ, D’Amico AV. Gleason score 3+5 or 5+3 versus 4+4 prostate cancer: the risk of death. Eur Urol. 2016;69(6):976–979. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.05426388503
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa160622027626136
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dall MA, Bangma C, Carroll PR, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012;62(6):976–983. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.07222698574
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes JH, Ollendorf DA, Pearson SD, et al. Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. Eur Urol. 2011;59(5):882–883. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.01521524728
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schra FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2014;384(9959):2027–2035. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-025108889
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen W, Zheng R, Zeng H, Zhang S, He J. Annual report on status of cancer in China, 2011. Chin J Cancer Res. 2015;27(1):2–12. doi:10.3978/j.issn.1000-9604.2015.01.0625717220
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2013;189(1):S12–S8. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.11.01523234616
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park SY, Jung DC, Taik YT, et al. Prostate cancer: PI-RADS version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers. Radiology. 2016;280(1):106–116. doi:10.1148/radiol.16151133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karakiewicz PI, Benayoun S, Kattan MW, et al. Development and validation of a nomogram predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy based on patient age, digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2005;173(6):1930–1934. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000158039.94467.5d15879784
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roobol MJ, Kattan MW. Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol. 2007;177(1):107–112. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.06817162015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Presti JCP, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, et al. The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol. 2000;163(1):163–167. 10604337
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferro M, Musi G, Serino A, et al. Neutrophil, platelets, and eosinophil to lymphocyte ratios predict gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer patients. Urol Int. 2019;102(1):43–50. doi:10.1159/00049425930408799
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobelli O, Terracciano D, Tagliabue E, et al. Body mass index was associated with upstaging and upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer who met the inclusion criteria for active surveillance. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(5):201.e1–201.e8. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.02.004
   Google Scholar
• Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML. Mayo Clinic validation of the D‘amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179:1354–1361. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.11.06118289596
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Elkin EB, Gonen M. Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8(1):53. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-8-5319036144
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grivas N, Wit E, Tillier C, et al. Validation and head-to-head comparison of three nomograms predicting probability of lymph node invasion of prostate cancer in patients undergoing extended and/or sentinel lymph node dissection. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(13):2213–2226. doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3788-z28780722
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niu XK, He WF, Zhang Y, et al. Developing a new PI-RADS v2-based nomogram for forecasting high-grade prostate cancer. Clin Radiol. 2017;72(6):S0009926016305086. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2016.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene DJ, Elshafei A, Nyame YA, et al. External validation of a PCA‐3‐based nomogram for predicting prostate cancer and high‐grade cancer on initial prostate biopsy. Prostate. 2016;76(11):1019–1023. doi:10.1002/pros.2319727197726
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iremashvili V, Soloway MS, Pelaez L, Rosenberg DL, Manoharan M. Comparative validation of nomograms predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer. Urology. 2013;81(6):1202–1208. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.06223561706
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foley RW, Maweni RM, Gorman L, et al. The ERSPC risk calculators significantly outperform the PCPT 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int. 2016;15(3):706–713. doi:10.1111/bju.13437
   Google Scholar
• Rui C, Xie L, Wei X, et al. Development and external multicenter validation of Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium prostate cancer risk calculator for initial prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol. 2016;34(9):416.e1-.e7. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seo JW, Shin SJ, Taik Y, et al. PI-RADS Version 2: detection of clinically significant cancer in patients with biopsy gleason score 6 prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(1):W1–W9. doi:10.2214/AJR.16.1698128418690
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, et al. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI‐RADS) score and prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naive patients. BJU Int. 2016;119(2):225–233. doi:10.1111/bju.1346526935594
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helfand BT, Loeb S, Kan D, Catalona WJ. Number of prostate cancer risk alleles may identify possibly ‘insignificant’ disease. BJU Int. 2010;106(11):1602–1606. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09440.x20590552
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyake H, Sakai I, Harada KI, Hara I, Eto H. Prediction of potentially insignificant prostate cancer in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically organ-confined disease. Int J Urol. 2005;12(3):270–274. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2042.2005.01041.x15828954
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar