Skip to main content
. 2019 Mar 13;38(3):517–529. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02707-9

Table 4.

Performance measures related to clinical usefulness of baseline model, MRI-model, and net differences between both models, in biopsy-naive, prior negative biopsy, and combined setting

Study Test threshold Baseline-model MRI-model Comparison MRI- and baseline-model
Performance measures related to clinical usefulness Performance measures related to clinical usefulness Performance measures related to clinical usefulness
Avoided Biopsy Avoided cisPCa True positive rate (TPR) Sensitivity False positive rate (FPR) 1-Specificity Net benefit (NB) Avoided Biopsy Avoided cisPCa True positive rate (TPR) Sensitivity False positive rate (FPR) 1-Specificity Net benefit (NB) Avoided Biopsy Avoided cisPCa True positive rate (TPR) Sensitivity False positive rate (FPR) 1-Specificity Net benefit (NB)
Biopsy-naive setting
 Alberts et al. [20] 0% 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5% 0.002 0.000 1.000 0.997 0.393 0.020 0.012 0.993 0.971 0.391 1.8% 1.2% − 0.7% − 2.6% − 0.2%
10% 0.006 0.000 0.995 0.993 0.357 0.143 0.112 0.967 0.776 0.359 13.7% 11.2% − 2.8% − 21.7% 0.2%
15% 0.054 0.050 0.972 0.927 0.317 0.238 0.161 0.953 0.622 0.340 18.4% 11.2% -1.9% -30.5% 2.3%
20% 0.157 0.099 0.948 0.766 0.291 0.325 0.323 0.920 0.496 0.318 16.8% 22.4% − 2.8% − 27.0% 2.7%
 Fang et al. [23] 0% 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5%
10% 0.099 0.995 0.871 0.170 0.098 1.000 0.870 0.171 − 0.1% 0.5% − 0.1% 0.1%
15%
20% 0.198 0.972 0.747 0.096 0.198 0.986 0.743 0.100 0.0% 1.4% − 0.4% 0.4%
 Mehralivand et al. [22] 0% 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5%
10% 0 1.000 1.000 0.313 0.172 0.970 0.739 0.320 17.2% − 3.0% − 26.1% 0.7%
15% 0.019 1.000 0.969 0.276 0.250 0.960 0.620 0.299 23.1% − 4.0% − 34.9% 2.3%
20% 0.053 0.990 0.921 0.236 0.376 0.890 0.460 0.269 32.3% − 10.0% − 46.1% 3.3%
 Radtke et al. [21] 0% 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5% 0.025 0.980 0.970 0.421 0.011 1.000 0.980 0.430 − 1.4% 2.0% 0.9% 0.9%
10% 0.053 0.980 0.919 0.394 0.101 0.980 0.830 0.399 4.8% 0.0% − 8.9% 0.5%
15%
20% 0.179 0.941 0.720 0.334 0.281 0.919 0.550 0.347 10.2% − 2.2% − 17.0% 1.3%
Prior negative biopsy setting
 Alberts et al. [20] 0% 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5% 0.003 0.000 1.000 0.996 0.252 0.265 0.261 0.976 0.637 0.258 26.2% 26.1% − 2.4% − 35.9% 0.6%
10% 0.099 0.141 0.969 0.873 0.211 0.361 0.387 0.948 0.513 0.233 26.2% 24.6% − 2.1% − 36.0% 2.2%
15% 0.28 0.211 0.924 0.637 0.187 0.414 0.401 0.924 0.449 0.211 13.4% 19.0% 0.0% − 18.8% 2.4%
20% 0.398 0.408 0.827 0.511 0.148 0.475 0.465 0.886 0.378 0.189 7.7% 5.6% 5.9% − 13.2% 4.1%
 Radtke et al. [21] 0% 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5% 0.020 0.980 0.980 0.359 0.024 1.000 0.960 0.368 0.4% 2.0% − 2.0% 0.9%
10% 0.064 0.960 0.920 0.320 0.108 0.970 0.841 0.330 4.4% 1.0% − 8.0% 0.9%
15%
20% 0.194 0.920 0.731 0.256 0.313 0.879 0.560 0.266 11.9% − 4.0% − 17.1% 1.0%
Combined biopsy-naive and prior negative biopsy setting
 Lee et al. [28] 0% 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5% 0.044 0.038 0.996 0.931 0.353
10% 0.106 0.113 0.992 0.833 0.325
15% 0.180 0.213 0.987 0.714 0.303
20% 0.259 0.288 0.983 0.590 0.288
 Van Leeuwen et al. [29] 0% 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5% 0.074 0.022 0.995 0.884 0.348 0.186 0.066 1.000 0.700 0.356 11.2% 4.3% 0.5% − 18.4% 0.8%
10% 0.155 0.057 0.987 0.758 0.322 0.282 0.128 0.974 0.562 0.330 12.7% 7.1% − 1.3% − 19.6% 0.9%
15% 0.254 0.125 0.960 0.615 0.297 0.379 0.199 0.926 0.435 0.303 12.5% 7.4% − 3.4% − 18.0% 0.7%
20%