Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Clinical Research

Adaptation and external validation of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator for the Chinese population



To adapt the well-performing European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator to the Chinese setting and perform an external validation.


The original ERSPC risk calculator 3 (RC3) for prostate cancer (PCa) and high-grade PCa (HGPCa) was applied to a development cohort of 3006 previously unscreened Hong Kong Chinese men with initial transrectal biopsies performed from 1997 to 2015, age 50–80 years, PSA 0.4–50 ng ml−1 and prostate volume 10–150 ml. A simple adaptation to RC3 was performed and externally validated in a cohort of 2214 Chinese men from another Hong Kong hospital. The performance of the models were presented in calibration plots, area under curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) and decision curve analyses.


PCa and HGPCa was diagnosed in 16.7% (503/3006) and 7.8% (234/3006) men in the development cohort, and 20.2% (447/2204) and 9.7% (214/2204) men in the validation cohort, respectively. The AUCs using the original RC3 model in the development cohort were 0.75 and 0.84 for PCa and HGPCa, respectively, but the calibration plots showed considerable overestimation. In the external validation of the recalibrated RC3 model, excellent calibration was observed, and discrimination was good with AUCs of 0.76 and 0.85 for PCa and HGPCa, respectively. Decision curve analyses in the validation cohort showed net clinical benefit of the recalibrated RC3 model over PSA.


A recalibrated ERSPC risk calculator for the Chinese population was developed, and it showed excellent discrimination, calibration and net clinical benefit in an external validation cohort.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Zappa M, Nelen V et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 2014; 384: 2027–2035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW, Kranse R, Wolters T, van den Bergh RC, Bangma CH et al. A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010; 57: 79–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Roobol MJ, van Vugt HA, Loeb S, Zhu X, Bul M, Bangma CH et al. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 577–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ankerst DP, Hoefler J, Bock S, Goodman PJ, Vickers A, Hernandez J et al. The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- versus high-grade prostate cancer. Urology 2014; 83: 1362–1367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nam RK, Toi A, Klotz LH, Trachtenberg J, Jewett MA, Appu S et al. Assessing individual risk for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 3582–3588.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Roobol MJ, Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Jones JS, Kattan MW, Klein EA et al. Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group. World J Urol 2012; 30: 149–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. van Vugt HA, Kranse R, Steyerberg EW, van der Poel HG, Busstra M, Kil P et al. Prospective validation of a risk calculator which calculates the probability of a positive prostate biopsy in a contemporary clinical cohort. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48: 1809–1815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. van Vugt HA, Roobol MJ, Kranse R, Määttänen L, Finne P, Hugosson J et al. Prediction of prostate cancer in unscreened men: external validation of a risk calculator. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47: 903–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nam RK, Kattan MW, Chin JL, Trachtenberg J, Singal R, Rendon R et al. Prospective multi-institutional study evaluating the performance of prostate cancer risk calculators. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2959–2964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Trottier G, Roobol MJ, Lawrentschuk N, Boström PJ, Fernandes KA, Finelli A et al. Comparison of risk calculators from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer in a contemporary Canadian cohort. BJU Int 2011; 108 (Part 2): E237–E244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Poyet C, Nieboer D, Bhindi B, Kulkarni GS, Wiederkehr C, Wettstein MS et al. Prostate cancer risk prediction using the novel versions of the European Randomised Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk calculators: independent validation and comparison in a contemporary European cohort. BJU Int 2016; 117: 401–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Foley RW, Maweni RM, Gorman L, Murphy K, Lundon DJ, Durkan G et al. The ERSPC risk calculators significantly outperform the PCPT 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer; a multi-institutional study. BJU Int 2016; 118: 706–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ankerst DP, Boeck A, Freedland SJ, Jones JS, Cronin AM, Roobol MJ et al. Evaluating the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial High Grade Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in 10 international biopsy cohorts: results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group. World J Urol 2014; 32: 185–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB . Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 2006; 26: 565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Strobl AN, Thompson IM, Vickers AJ, Ankerst DP . The next generation of clinical decision making tools: development of a real-time prediction tool for outcome of prostate biopsy in response to a continuously evolving prostate cancer landscape. J Urol 2015; 194: 58–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Guazzoni G, Nava L, Lazzeri M, Scattoni V, Lughezzani G, Maccagnano C et al. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA significantly improves the prediction of prostate cancer at initial extended prostate biopsies in patients with total PSA between 2.0 and 10 ng/ml: results of a prospective study in a clinical setting. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 214–222.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ng CF, Chiu PK, Lam NY, Lam HC, Lee KW, Hou SS . The prostate health index in predicting initial prostate biopsy outcomes in Asian men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 4-10 ng/mL. Int Urol Nephrol 2014; 46: 711–717.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lughezzani G, Lazzeri M, Haese A, McNicholas T, de la Taille A, Buffi NM et al. Multicenter European external validation of a prostate health index-based nomogram for predicting prostate cancer at extended biopsy. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 906–912.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Roobol MJ, Vedder MM, Nieboer D, Houlgatte A, Vincendeau S, Lazzeri M et al. Comparison of two prostate cancer risk calculators that include the prostate health index. EU Focus 2015; 1: 185–190.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vedder MM, de Bekker-Grob EW, Lilja HG, Vickers AJ, van Leenders GJ, Steyerberg EW et al. The added value of percentage of free to total prostate-specific antigen, PCA3, and a kallikrein panel to the ERSPC risk calculator for prostate cancer in prescreened men. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 1109–1115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Habchi H, Bratan F, Paye A, Pagnoux G, Sanzalone T, Mege-Lechevallier F et al. Value of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for predicting biopsy results in first or repeat biopsy. Clin Radiol 2014; 69: e120–e128.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, Konishi T, Hirai M, Kobayashi Y et al. Combination of PI-RADS score and PSA density predicts biopsy outcome in biopsy naïve patients. BJU Int 2016 (doi:10.1111/bju.13465; e-pub ahead of print).

Download references


We thank Professor Chris H Bangma for a critical review of the manuscript, and Siu-Ying Yip and Wai-Man Lee for the prospective collection of data in the prostate biopsy databases.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding authors

Correspondence to M K Yiu or C F Ng.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chiu, P., Roobol, M., Nieboer, D. et al. Adaptation and external validation of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator for the Chinese population. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20, 99–104 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links