Table 3.

Comparative prognostic model performance in a large population cohort (n = 10,139) between the original risk group allocation and a simulated reassignment of risk allocation by applying the observed differences from Table 2 between clinical based characterisation (DRE + systematic sampling only) versus MRI based characterisation (MRI staging and combined MRI targeted and systematic sampling). European Association of Urology (EAU), American Urological Association, Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG). *Death due only to prostate cancer

	Original allocation					Redistributed allocation
Risk model	Alive	Dead*	Hazard ratio (CI)	p value	C-index (CI)	Alive	Dead*	Hazard ratio (CI)	p value	C-index (95% CI)
EAU
Low	1707	33	Reference	–	0.69 (0.68–0.71)	1596	31	Reference	–	0.64 (0.63–0.66)
Intermediate	3560	155	2.7 (1.9–4.1)	< 0.0001		3070	134	2.1 (1.4–3.1)	< 0.0001
High	4083	601	9.0 (6.3–12.8)	< 0.0001		4627	681	6.2 (4.3–8.9)	< 0.0001
AUA
Low	1707	33	Reference		0.71 (0.70–0.72)	1596	31	Reference		0.65 (0.64–0.67)
Favourable Intermediate	2015	63	1.9 (1.2–2.8)	0.004		1700	53	1.55 (1.0–2.4)	0.05
Un-favourable Intermediate	1545	92	3.9 (2.7–5.9)	< 0.0001		1370	81	2.8 (1.8–4.2)	< 0.0001
High	4083	601	9.0 (6.4–12.8)	< 0.0001		4627	681	6.3 (4.4–9.0)	< 0.0001
CPG
1	1707	33	Reference		0.75 (0.74–0.77)	1596	31	Reference		0.70 (0.67–0.71)
2	2015	63	1.9 (1.2–2.9)	0.004		1700	53	1.6 (0.99–2.4)	0.05
3	1545	92	4.90 (2.7–6.0)	< 0.0001		1370	81	2.8 (1.8–4.2)	< 0.0001
4	2784	268	5.6 (3.9–8.1)	< 0.0001		3177	306	4.3 (3.0–6.3)	< 0.0001
5	1299	333	18.4 (12.9–26.4)	< 0.0001		1452	373	9.8 (6.8–14.1)	< 0.0001