Objective: There are many models to predict extracapsular extension (ECE) in patients with prostate cancer. We aimed to externally validate several models in a Japanese cohort.
Methods: We included patients treated with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The risk of ECE was calculated for each patient in several models (prostate side-specific and non-side-specific). Model performance was assessed by calculating the receiver operating curve and the area under the curve (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analyses.
Results: We identified ECE in 117 (32.9%) of the 356 prostate lobes included. Patients with ECE had a statistically significant higher prostate-specific antigen level, percentage of positive digital rectal examination, percentage of hypoechoic nodes, percentage of magnetic resonance imaging nodes or ECE suggestion, percentage of biopsy positive cores, International Society of Urological Pathology grade group, and percentage of core involvement. Among the side-specific models, the Soeterik, Patel, Sayyid, Martini, and Steuber models presented AUC of 0.81, 0.78, 0.77, 0.75, and 0.73, respectively. Among the non-side-specific models, the memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center web calculator, the Roach formula, the Partin tables of 2016, 2013, and 2007 presented AUC of 0.74, 0.72, 0.64, 0.61, and 0.60, respectively. However, the 95% confidence interval for most of these models overlapped. The side-specific models presented adequate calibration. In the decision curve analyses, most models showed net benefit, but it overlapped among them.
Conclusion: Models predicting ECE were externally validated in Japanese men. The side-specific models predicted better than the non-side-specific models. The Soeterik and Patel models were the most accurate performing models.
Keywords: Extracapsular extension; Nomogram; Prognosis; Prostate cancer.
© 2022 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.