Search

ObjectivesTo develop a novel biopsy prostate cancer (PCa) prevention calculator (BioPrev-C) using data from a prospective cohort all undergoing mpMRI targeted and transperineal template saturation biopsy.Materials and methodsData of all men who underwent prostate biopsy in our academic tertiary care center between 11/2016 and 10/2019 was prospectively collected. We developed a clinical prediction model for the detection of high-grade PCa (Gleason score ≥7) based on a multivariable logistic regression model incorporating age, PSA, prostate volume, digital rectal examination, family history, previous negative biopsy, 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor use and MRI PI-RADS score. BioPrev-C performance was externally validated in another prospective Swiss cohort and compared with two other PCa risk-calculators (SWOP-RC and PBCG-RC).ResultsOf 391 men in the development cohort, 157 (40.2%) were diagnosed with high-grade PCa. Validation of the BioPrev C revealed good discrimination with an area under the curve for high-grade PCa of 0.88 (95% Confidence Interval 0.82-0.93), which was higher compared to the other two risk calculators (0.71 for PBCG and 0.84 for SWOP). The BioPrev-C revealed good calibration in the low-risk range (0 - 0.25) and moderate overestimation in the intermediate risk range (0.25 - 0.75). The PBCG-RC showed good calibration and the SWOP-RC constant underestimation of high-grade PCa over the whole prediction range. Decision curve analyses revealed a clinical net benefit for the BioPrev-C at a clinical meaningful threshold probability range (≥4%), whereas PBCG and SWOP calculators only showed clinical net benefit above a 30% threshold probability.ConclusionBiopPrev-C is a novel contemporary risk calculator for the prediction of high-grade PCa. External validation of the BioPrev-C revealed relevant clinical benefit, which was superior compared to other well-known risk calculators. The BioPrev-C has the potential to significantly and safely reduce the number of men who should undergo a prostate biopsy.

BackgroundAcknowledgment of all serious limitations to research evidence is important for patient care and scientific progress. Formal research on how biomedical authors acknowledge limitations is scarce.ObjectivesTo assess the extent to which limitations are acknowledged in biomedical publications explicitly, and implicitly by investigating the use of phrases that express uncertainty, so-called hedges; to assess the association between industry support and the extent of hedging.DesignWe analyzed reporting of limitations and use of hedges in 300 biomedical publications published in 30 high and medium -ranked journals in 2007. Hedges were assessed using linguistic software that assigned weights between 1 and 5 to each expression of uncertainty.ResultsTwenty-seven percent of publications (81/300) did not mention any limitations, while 73% acknowledged a median of 3 (range 1-8) limitations. Five percent mentioned a limitation in the abstract. After controlling for confounders, publications on industry-supported studies used significantly fewer hedges than publications not so supported (p = 0.028).LimitationsDetection and classification of limitations was--to some extent--subjective. The weighting scheme used by the hedging detection software has subjective elements.ConclusionsReporting of limitations in biomedical publications is probably very incomplete. Transparent reporting of limitations may protect clinicians and guideline committees against overly confident beliefs and decisions and support scientific progress through better design, conduct or analysis of new studies.

BACKGROUND: Overactive bladder (OAB) affects the lives of millions of people worldwide and antimuscarinics are the pharmacological treatment of choice. Meta-analyses of all currently used antimuscarinics for treating OAB found similar efficacy, making the choice dependent on their adverse event profiles. However, conventional meta-analyses often fail to quantify and compare adverse events across different drugs, dosages, formulations, and routes of administration. In addition, the assessment of the broad variety of adverse events is dissatisfying. Our aim was to compare adverse events of antimuscarinics using a network meta-analytic approach that overcomes shortcomings of conventional analyses. METHODS: Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialized Trials Register, previous systematic reviews, conference abstracts, book chapters, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing at least one antimuscarinic for treating OAB with placebo or with another antimuscarinic, and adverse events as outcome measures. Two authors independently extracted data. A network meta-analytic approach was applied allowing for joint assessment of all adverse events of all currently used antimuscarinics while fully maintaining randomization. RESULTS: 69 trials enrolling 26'229 patients were included. Similar overall adverse event profiles were found for darifenacin, fesoterodine, transdermal oxybutynin, propiverine, solifenacin, tolterodine, and trospium chloride but not for oxybutynin orally administered when currently used starting dosages were compared. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed generally applicable transparent network meta-analytic approach summarizes adverse events in an easy to grasp way allowing straightforward benchmarking of antimuscarinics for treating OAB in clinical practice. Most currently used antimuscarinics seem to be equivalent first choice drugs to start the treatment of OAB except for oral oxybutynin dosages of ≥ 10 mg/d which may have more unfavorable adverse event profiles.