Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 3;147(11):2977–2987. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33045

TABLE 1.

Summary of key results of various decision‐making approaches

Risk stratification tools (cut‐off) Setting References Reduced biopsies (%) Reduced indolent PCa diagnosis (%) Missed csPCa (%)
Univariable
PSA test (≥3.0 ng/mL) a Population based screening 5, 9, 12, 15, 16 N/A N/A N/A
MRI in triage setting (≥PI‐RADS 3) Clinical suspicion 50‐52 27‐29 20 3‐7
Multivariable
RPCRC (compared to PSA ≥3.0 ng/mL) Clinical suspicion + biopsy naive 41 33 14 7
RPCRC (compared to PSA ≥3.0 ng/mL) Clinical suspicion + prior negative biopsy 41 37 16 9
RPCRC (≥4%) Clinical suspicion 47 32 25 5
PCPTRC 2.0 (≥4%) Clinical suspicion 47 16 15 3
RPCRC + MRI (≥5%) Clinical suspicion + biopsy naive 65 2 10 15
RPCRC + MRI (≥5%) Clinical suspicion + prior negative biopsy 65 27 14 3
PHI (90% sensitivity) Clinical suspicion 75, 81 30‐56 31‐33 5–11
4K score (≥20%) Clinical suspicion + biopsy naive 90 74 38 26
4K score (≥20%) Clinical suspicion + prior negative biopsy 90 41 73 2
STHLM3 risk‐based model (≥10%) Clinical suspicion 108, 110 32‐53 17‐76 0

Note: Head to head comparisons cannot be made based on the data in this table and performance of risk stratification tools should be confirmed in an external validation.

a

In the population‐based screening studies there were no biopsies performed if the PSA was lower than 3.0 ng/mL. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the missed cancers following this strategy.