Table 3. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of selection tools in identifying patients bearing insignificant PC defined in three different ways.
| |
Insignificant cancer, classical definition |
Insignificant cancer, ERSPC definition |
Organ-confined low-grade cancer |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approach | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV |
| Tosoian |
0.17 |
0.9 |
0.07 |
0.96 |
0.18 |
0.91 |
0.39 |
0.78 |
0.16 |
0.93 |
0.64 |
0.59 |
| Adamy |
0.5 |
0.65 |
0.06 |
0.97 |
0.46 |
0.68 |
0.31 |
0.8 |
0.45 |
0.72 |
0.56 |
0.63 |
| Van den Bergh |
0.17 |
0.85 |
0.05 |
0.96 |
0.23 |
0.87 |
0.35 |
0.78 |
0.22 |
0.9 |
0.62 |
0.6 |
| Whitson |
0.5 |
0.59 |
0.05 |
0.96 |
0.49 |
0.61 |
0.28 |
0.79 |
0.49 |
0.65 |
0.52 |
0.62 |
| Soloway |
0.44 |
0.75 |
0.08 |
0.97 |
0.37 |
0.78 |
0.34 |
0.8 |
0.32 |
0.79 |
0.54 |
0.6 |
| Selvadurai |
0.67 |
0.25 |
0.04 |
0.94 |
0.68 |
0.23 |
0.22 |
0.7 |
0.75 |
0.26 |
0.44 |
0.57 |
| D'Amico |
0.61 |
0.36 |
0.04 |
0.95 |
0.67 |
0.37 |
0.25 |
0.79 |
0.69 |
0.4 |
0.47 |
0.62 |
| Any criteria |
0.67 |
0.17 |
0.04 |
0.92 |
0.75 |
0.15 |
0.22 |
0.66 |
0.82 |
0.17 |
0.43 |
0.55 |
| All criteria |
0.17 |
0.9 |
0.07 |
0.96 |
0.17 |
0.91 |
0.37 |
0.78 |
0.15 |
0.93 |
0.63 |
0.59 |
| Cancer cores ⩽2 |
0.5 |
0.63 |
0.06 |
0.97 |
0.46 |
0.65 |
0.29 |
0.8 |
0.44 |
0.67 |
0.51 |
0.61 |
| Very low riska | 0.44 | 0.72 | 0.07 | 0.97 | 0.42 | 0.75 | 0.35 | 0.81 | 0.38 | 0.78 | 0.58 | 0.62 |
Abbreviations: NPV=negative predictive value; PC=prostate cancer; PPV=positive predictive value.
a
Very low risk=D'Amico low risk with two or fewer biopsy cores containing cancer.