Prostate Cancer Predictive Simulation Modelling, Assessing the Risk Technique (PCP-SMART): Introduction and Initial Clinical Efficacy Evaluation Data Presentation of a Simple Novel Mathematical Simulation Modelling Method, Devised to Predict the Outcome of Prostate Biopsy on an Individual Basis



      We developed a mathematical “prostate cancer (PCa) conditions simulating” predictive model (PCP-SMART), from which we derived a novel PCa predictor (prostate cancer risk determinator [PCRD] index) and a PCa risk equation. We used these to estimate the probability of finding PCa on prostate biopsy, on an individual basis.

      Materials and Methods

      A total of 371 men who had undergone transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy were enrolled in the present study. Given that PCa risk relates to the total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) level, age, prostate volume, free PSA (fPSA), fPSA/tPSA ratio, and PSA density and that tPSA ≥ 50 ng/mL has a 98.5% positive predictive value for a PCa diagnosis, we hypothesized that correlating 2 variables composed of 3 ratios (1, tPSA/age; 2, tPSA/prostate volume; and 3, fPSA/tPSA; 1 variable including the patient’s tPSA and the other, a tPSA value of 50 ng/mL) could operate as a PCa conditions imitating/simulating model. Linear regression analysis was used to derive the coefficient of determination (R2), termed the PCRD index. To estimate the PCRD index's predictive validity, we used the χ2 test, multiple logistic regression analysis with PCa risk equation formation, calculation of test performance characteristics, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis using SPSS, version 22 (P < .05).


      The biopsy findings were positive for PCa in 167 patients (45.1%) and negative in 164 (44.2%). The PCRD index was positively signed in 89.82% positive PCa cases and negative in 91.46% negative PCa cases (χ2 test; P < .001; relative risk, 8.98). The sensitivity was 89.8%, specificity was 91.5%, positive predictive value was 91.5%, negative predictive value was 89.8%, positive likelihood ratio was 10.5, negative likelihood ratio was 0.11, and accuracy was 90.6%. Multiple logistic regression revealed the PCRD index as an independent PCa predictor, and the formulated risk equation was 91% accurate in predicting the probability of finding PCa. On the receiver operating characteristic analysis, the PCRD index (area under the curve, 0.926) significantly (P < .001) outperformed other, established PCa predictors.


      The PCRD index effectively predicted the prostate biopsy outcome, correctly identifying 9 of 10 men who were eventually diagnosed with PCa and correctly ruling out PCa for 9 of 10 men who did not have PCa. Its predictive power significantly outperformed established PCa predictors, and the formulated risk equation accurately calculated the probability of finding cancer on biopsy, on an individual patient basis.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Magheli A.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • Trock J.B.
        • et al.
        Prostate specific antigen versus prostate specific antigen density as a prognosticator of pathological characteristics and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy.
        J Urol. 2008; 179: 1780-1784
        • Vickers J.A.
        • Cronin M.A.
        • Roobol J.M.
        • et al.
        The relationship between prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer risk: the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2010; 16: 4374-4381
        • Zhu X.
        • Albertsen C.P.
        • Andriole L.G.
        • et al.
        Risk-based prostate cancer screening.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 61: 652-661
        • Gerstenbluth E.R.
        • Seftel D.A.
        • Hampel N.
        • et al.
        The accuracy of the increased prostate specific antigen level (greater than or equal to 20 ng/ml) in predicting prostate cancer: is biopsy always required?.
        J Urol. 2002; 168: 1990-1993
        • Leyten G.
        • Hessels D.
        • Jannink A.S.
        • et al.
        Prospective multicentre evaluation of PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusions as diagnostic and prognostic urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 534-542
        • Sonn A.G.
        • Chang E.
        • Natarajan S.
        • et al.
        Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 809-815
        • Tomlins A.S.
        Urine PCA3 and TMPRSS2: ERG using cancer-specific markers to detect cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 543-545
        • Scattoni V.
        • Lazzeri M.
        • Lughezzani G.
        • et al.
        Head-to-head comparison of prostate health index and urinary PCA3 for predicting cancer at initial or repeat biopsy.
        J Urol. 2013; 190: 496-501
        • Greene L.K.
        • Albertsen C.P.
        • Babaian J.R.
        • et al.
        Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update.
        J Urol. 2013; 189: S2-S11
        • Schroder F.
        • Kattan W.M.
        The comparability of models for predicting the risk of a positive prostate biopsy with prostate-specific antigen alone: a systematic review.
        Eur Urol. 2008; 54: 274-290
        • Quentin M.
        • Blondin D.
        • Arsov C.H.
        • et al.
        Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naive men with elevated prostate specific antigen.
        J Urol. 2014; 192: 1374-1379
        • Shariat F.S.
        • Scardino T.P.
        • Lilja H.
        Screening for prostate cancer: an update.
        Can J Urol. 2008; 15: 4363-4374
        • Gretzer B.M.
        • Partin W.A.
        PSA markers in prostate cancer detection.
        Urol Clin North Am. 2003; 30: 677-686
        • Hernandez J.D.
        • Han M.
        • Humphreys B.E.
        • et al.
        Predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy: comparison of a novel logistic regression-based model, the prostate cancer risk calculator and prostate-specific antigen level alone.
        BJU Int. 2008; 103: 609-614
        • Yuasa T.
        • Tsuchiya N.
        • Kumazawa T.
        • et al.
        Characterization of prostate cancer detected at repeat biopsy.
        BMC Urol. 2008; 8: 14
        • Roobol J.M.
        • Schroder H.F.
        • Hugosson J.
        • et al.
        Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group.
        World J Urol. 2012; 30: 149-155
        • Hansen J.
        • Auprich M.
        • Sascha A.
        • et al.
        Initial prostate biopsy: development and internal validation of a biopsy-specific nomogram based on the prostate cancer antigen 3 assay.
        Eur Urol. 2013; 63: 201-209
        • Karakiewicz I.P.
        • Benayoun S.
        • Kattan M.
        • 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: 1930-1934
        • Djavan B.
        • Remzi M.
        • Marberger M.
        When to biopsy and when to stop biopsying.
        Urol Clin North Am. 2003; 30: 253-262
        • Gann H.P.
        • Fought A.
        • Deaton R.
        • et al.
        Risk factors for prostate cancer detection after a negative biopsy: a novel multivariable longitudinal approach.
        J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 1714-1720
        • Benecchi L.
        • Pieri A.-M.
        • Melissari M.
        • et al.
        A novel nomogram to predict the probability of prostate cancer on repeat biopsy.
        J Urol. 2008; 180: 146-149
        • Shariat F.S.
        • Karakiewicz I.P.
        • Roehrborn G.C.
        • Kattan W.M.
        An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools.
        Cancer. 2008; 113: 3075-3099
        • Shariat F.S.
        • Kattan W.M.
        • Vickers J.A.
        • et al.
        Critical review of prostate cancer predictive tools.
        Future Oncol. 2009; 5: 1555-1584
        • Vollmer T.R.
        Predictive probability of serum prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer: an approach using Bayes rule.
        Am J Clin Pathol. 2006; 125: 336-342
        • Chung F.H.
        • de Vries S.H.
        • Raaijmakers R.
        • et al.
        Ultrasonography of the prostate volume: the influence of transabdominal versus transrectal approach, device type and operator.
        Eur Urol. 2004; 46: 352-356
        • Scattoni V.
        • Zlotta A.
        • Montironi R.
        • et al.
        Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature.
        Eur Urol. 2007; 52: 1309-1322
        • Valdagni R.
        • Scardino T.P.
        • Denis L.
        • Catan W.M.
        Predictive modeling in prostate cancer: a conference summary.
        Eur Urol. 2009; 55: 300-302
        • Grimes A.D.
        • Schulz F.K.
        Epidemiology-3: refining clinical diagnosis with likelihood ratios.
        Lancet. 2005; 365: 1500-1505
        • Loeb S.
        • Catalona J.W.
        The Prostate Health Index: a new test for the detection of prostate cancer.
        Ther Adv Urol. 2014; 6: 74-77
        • Radtke P.J.
        • Kuru H.T.
        • Boxler S.
        • et al.
        Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance.
        J Urol. 2015; 193: 87-94