nach oben

World Journal of Urology

Erschienen in:

08.12.2017 | Original Article

‘Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator’ mobile applications (Apps): a systematic review and scoring using the validated user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS)

verfasst von: Ahmed Adam, Julian C. Hellig, Marlon Perera, Damien Bolton, Nathan Lawrentschuk

Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology | Ausgabe 4/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The use of mobile phone applications (Apps) has modernised the conventional practice of medicine. The diagnostic ability of the current Apps in prostate specific antigen monitoring, and its diagnostic ability within prostate cancer (PCa) risk calculators have not yet been appraised. We aimed to review, rate and assess the everyday functionality, and utility of all the currently available PCa risk calculator Apps.

Methods

A systematic search on iTunes, Google Play Store, Blackberry World and Windows Apps Store, was performed on 23/11/2017, using the search term ‘prostate cancer risk calculator’. After applying the exclusion criteria, each App was individually assessed and rated using pre-set criteria and grading was performed using the validated uMARS scale.

Results

In total, 83 Apps were retrieved. After applying our exclusion criteria, only 9 Apps were relevant, with 2 duplicated, and the remaining 7 were suitable for critical review. Data sizes ranged from 414 kb to 10.1 Mb. The cost of the Apps ranged from South African rand (ZAR) 0.00 to ZAR 29.99. The overall mean category uMARS scores ranged from 2.8/5 to 4.5/5. Apps such as Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator, Coral—Prostate Cancer Nomogram Calculator and CPC Risk Calculator, performed the best.

Conclusions

The current PCa risk calculator mobile Apps available may be beneficial in counselling the concerned at risk patient. These Apps have potential to assist both the patient and the urologist alike. The PCa risk calculator App ‘predictability’ may be further enhanced by the incorporation of newly validated risk factors and predictors for PCa.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M et al (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136:E359–E386. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29210 CrossRefPubMed

Roobol MJ, Verbeek JF, van der Kwast T, Kümmerlin IP, Kweldam CF, van Leenders GJ (2017) Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator for initial prostate biopsy by incorporating the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason grading and cribriform growth. Eur Urol 72(1):45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.033 (Epub 2017 Feb 2) CrossRefPubMed

Foley R, Maweni R, Gorman L, Murphy K, Lundon D, Durkan G et al (2016) European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators significantly outperform the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int 118:706–713CrossRefPubMed

Poyet C, Wettstein M, Lundon D, Bhindi B, Kulkarni G, Saba K et al (2016) External evaluation of a novel prostate cancer risk calculator (ProstateCheck) based on data from the Swiss arm of the ERSPC. J Urol 196:1402–1407CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jeong CW, Lee S, Jung J, Ki Lee B, Jeong S, Hong S et al (2014) Mobile application-base Seoul National University Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator: development, validation, and comparative analysis with two western risk calculators in Korean men. PLoS ONE 9(4):e94441. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094441 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Myint M, Adam A, Herath S, Smith G (2016) Mobile phone applications in management of Enuresis: the good, the bad and the unreliable! J Pediatr Urol 12(2):112.e1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.09.011 (Epub 2 Nov 2015) CrossRefPubMed

Stoyanov S, Hides L, Kavanagh D, Wilson H (2016) Development and validation of the user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS). JMIR mHealth uHealth 4(2):e2CrossRef

The European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). http://www.erspc.org/. Accessed 20 Aug 2017

Cooperberg MR, Hilton JF, Carroll PR (2011) The CAPRA-S score: a straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 117(22):5039–5046CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Nardozza Junior A, Fihlo M, Borges dos Reis R (2006) Antigeno Prostatico Especificio. In: Urologica fundamental, edition, 1st edn, pp 190–194

11.

Karakiewicz PI, Benayoun S, Kattan MW, Perrotte P, Valiquette LU, Scardino PT et al (2005) Development and validation of a nomogram predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy based on patient age, digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen. J Urol 173(6):1930–1934CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator version (PCPT) 2.0. http://myprostatecancerrisk.com/. Accessed 20 Aug 2017

13.

Røder MA, Berg KD, Loft MD, Thomsen FB, Ferrari M, Kurbegovic S, Rytgaard HC, Gruschy L, Brasso K, Gerds TA, Kjær A (2016) The CPC risk calculator: a new app to predict prostate-specific antigen recurrence during follow-up after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.11.014 (Epub ahead of print)

14.

Yuri P, Wangge G, Abshari F, Satjakoesoemah AI, Perdana NR, Wijaya CD et al (2015) Indonesian prostate cancer risk calculator (IPCRC): an application for predicting prostate cancer risk (a multicenter study). Acta Med Indones 47(95):e103

15.

Bender JL, Yue RYK, To MJ, Deacken L, Jadad AR (2013) A lot of action, but not in the right direction: systematic review and content analysis of smartphone applications for the prevention, detection, and management of cancer. J Med Internet Res 15(12):e287. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2661 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Collado-Borrell R, Escudero-Vilaplana V, Ribed-Sanchez A, Ibanez-Garcia S, Herranz-Alonso A, Sanjurjo-Saez M (2016) Smartphone applications for cancer patients; what we know about them? Farm Hosp 40(1):25–35PubMed

17.

Kim H, Powell M, Bhuyan S (2017) Seeking medical information using mobile apps and the internet: are family caregivers different from the general public? J Med Syst 41:38CrossRefPubMed

18.

Ribeiro N, Moreira L, Barros A, Almeida A, Santos-Silva F (2016) Guidelines for a cancer prevention smartphone application: a mixed-methods study. Int J Med Inform 94:134–142CrossRefPubMed

19.

Adam A, Spencer K, Sivsankar P, Moon S, Jacub I (2016) Smartphone, Smart Surgeon, what about a ‘Smart Logbook’? S Afr J Surg 54(2):36–42PubMed

20.

Hemminki K (2012) Familial risk and familial survival in prostate cancer. World J Urol 30(2):143–148CrossRefPubMed

21.

Mondul AM, Weinstein SJ, Albanes D (2017) Vitamins, metabolomics, and prostate cancer. World J Urol 35(6):883–893CrossRefPubMed

22.

MacInnis RJ, English DR, Gertig DM, Hopper JL, Giles GG (2003) Body size and composition and prostate cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 12(12):1417–1421

23.

Peisch SF, Van Blarigan EL, Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Kenfield SA (2017) Prostate cancer progression and mortality: a review of diet and lifestyle factors. World J Urol 35(6):867–874CrossRefPubMed

24.

Lawrentschuk N, Abouassaly R, Hackett N, Groll R, Fleshner NE (2009) Health information quality on the internet in urological oncology: a multilingual longitudinal evaluation. Urology 74(5):1058–1063CrossRefPubMed

Titel: ‘Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator’ mobile applications (Apps): a systematic review and scoring using the validated user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS)
verfasst von: Ahmed Adam
Julian C. Hellig
Marlon Perera
Damien Bolton
Nathan Lawrentschuk
Publikationsdatum: 08.12.2017
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology / Ausgabe 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2150-1

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

25.04.2024 Nierenkarzinom Nachrichten

Nun gibt es auch Resultate zum Gesamtüberleben: Eine adjuvante Pembrolizumab-Therapie konnte in einer Phase-3-Studie das Leben von Menschen mit Nierenzellkarzinom deutlich verlängern. Die Sterberate war im Vergleich zu Placebo um 38% geringer.

Bei Senioren mit Prostatakarzinom auf Anämie achten!

24.04.2024 DGIM 2024 Nachrichten

Patienten, die zur Behandlung ihres Prostatakarzinoms eine Androgendeprivationstherapie erhalten, entwickeln nicht selten eine Anämie. Wer ältere Patienten internistisch mitbetreut, sollte auf diese Nebenwirkung achten.

Stufenschema weist Prostatakarzinom zuverlässig nach

22.04.2024 Prostatakarzinom Nachrichten

Erst PSA-Test, dann Kallikrein-Score, schließlich MRT und Biopsie – ein vierstufiges Screening-Schema kann die Zahl der unnötigen Prostatabiopsien erheblich reduzieren: Die Hälfte der Männer, die in einer finnischen Studie eine Biopsie benötigten, hatte einen hochgradigen Tumor.

Harnwegsinfektprophylaxe: Es geht auch ohne Antibiotika

20.04.2024 EAU 2024 Kongressbericht

Beim chronischen Harnwegsinfekt bei Frauen wird bisher meist eine Antibiotikaprophylaxe eingesetzt. Angesichts der zunehmenden Antibiotikaresistenz erweist sich das Antiseptikum Methenamin-Hippurat als vielversprechende Alternative, so die Auswertung einer randomisierten kontrollierten Studie.

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2018

Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review

Viability and biocompatibility of an adhesive system for intrarenal embedding and endoscopic removal of small residual fragments in minimally-invasive stone treatment in an in vivo pig model

Robotic surgery in public hospitals of Latin-America: a castle of sand?

68Ga-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) for primary staging of high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review

Reply to letter to editor regarding: LHRH analog therapy is associated with worse metabolic side effects than bilateral orchiectomy in prostate cancer