UNLABELLED: Study Type--Prognosis (case series). Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? And what does the study add? Nomograms are available that combine clinical and biopsy findings to predict the probability of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer in patients with clinically low-risk disease. Based on data from patients with Gleason score 6, clinical stage ≤ T2a and PSA <20 ng/ml, our group developed the first nomogram models for predicting insignificant prostate cancer that incorporated clinical data, detailed biopsy data and findings from MRI or MRI/MRSI (BJU Int. 2007;99(4):786-93). When tested retrospectively, these MR models performed significantly better than standard clinical models with and without detailed biopsy data. We prospectively validated the previously published MR-based nomogram models in a population of patients with Gleason score 6, clinical stage ≤ T2a and PSA <10 ng/ml. Based on data from this same population, we also developed two new models for predicting insignificant prostate cancer that combine MR findings and clinical data without detailed biopsy data. Upon initial testing, the new MR models performed significantly better than a clinical model lacking detailed biopsy data. OBJECTIVES: • To validate previously published nomograms for predicting insignificant prostate cancer (PCa) that incorporate clinical data, percentage of biopsy cores positive (%BC+) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or MRI/MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) results. • We also designed new nomogram models incorporating magnetic resonance results and clinical data without detailed biopsy data. Nomograms for predicting insignificant PCa can help physicians counsel patients with clinically low-risk disease who are choosing between active surveillance and definitive therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • In total, 181 low-risk PCa patients (clinical stage T1c-T2a, prostate-specific antigen level <10 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason score of 6) had MRI/MRSI before surgery. • For MRI and MRI/MRSI, the probability of insignificant PCa was recorded prospectively and independently by two radiologists on a scale from 0 (definitely insignificant) to 3 (definitely significant PCa). • Insignificant PCa was defined on surgical pathology. • There were four models incorporating MRI or MRI/MRSI and clinical data with and without %BC+ that were compared with a base clinical model without %BC and a more comprehensive clinical model with %BC+. Prediction accuracy was assessed using areas under receiver-operator characteristic curves. RESULTS: • At pathology, 27% of patients had insignificant PCa, and the Gleason score was upgraded in 56.4% of patients. • For both readers, all magnetic resonance models performed significantly better than the base clinical model (P ≤ 0.05 for all) and similarly to the more comprehensive clinical model. CONCLUSIONS: • Existing models incorporating magnetic resonance data, clinical data and %BC+ for predicting the probability of insignificant PCa were validated. • All MR-inclusive models performed significantly better than the base clinical model.
UNLABELLED: Study Type--Prognosis (case series). Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? And what does the study add? Nomograms are available that combine clinical and biopsy findings to predict the probability of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer in patients with clinically low-risk disease. Based on data from patients with Gleason score 6, clinical stage ≤ T2a and PSA <20 ng/ml, our group developed the first nomogram models for predicting insignificant prostate cancer that incorporated clinical data, detailed biopsy data and findings from MRI or MRI/MRSI (BJU Int. 2007;99(4):786-93). When tested retrospectively, these MR models performed significantly better than standard clinical models with and without detailed biopsy data. We prospectively validated the previously published MR-based nomogram models in a population of patients with Gleason score 6, clinical stage ≤ T2a and PSA <10 ng/ml. Based on data from this same population, we also developed two new models for predicting insignificant prostate cancer that combine MR findings and clinical data without detailed biopsy data. Upon initial testing, the new MR models performed significantly better than a clinical model lacking detailed biopsy data. OBJECTIVES: • To validate previously published nomograms for predicting insignificant prostate cancer (PCa) that incorporate clinical data, percentage of biopsy cores positive (%BC+) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or MRI/MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) results. • We also designed new nomogram models incorporating magnetic resonance results and clinical data without detailed biopsy data. Nomograms for predicting insignificant PCa can help physicians counsel patients with clinically low-risk disease who are choosing between active surveillance and definitive therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • In total, 181 low-risk PCa patients (clinical stage T1c-T2a, prostate-specific antigen level <10 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason score of 6) had MRI/MRSI before surgery. • For MRI and MRI/MRSI, the probability of insignificant PCa was recorded prospectively and independently by two radiologists on a scale from 0 (definitely insignificant) to 3 (definitely significant PCa). • Insignificant PCa was defined on surgical pathology. • There were four models incorporating MRI or MRI/MRSI and clinical data with and without %BC+ that were compared with a base clinical model without %BC and a more comprehensive clinical model with %BC+. Prediction accuracy was assessed using areas under receiver-operator characteristic curves. RESULTS: • At pathology, 27% of patients had insignificant PCa, and the Gleason score was upgraded in 56.4% of patients. • For both readers, all magnetic resonance models performed significantly better than the base clinical model (P ≤ 0.05 for all) and similarly to the more comprehensive clinical model. CONCLUSIONS: • Existing models incorporating magnetic resonance data, clinical data and %BC+ for predicting the probability of insignificant PCa were validated. • All MR-inclusive models performed significantly better than the base clinical model.
Authors: Aliya Qayyum; Fergus V Coakley; Ying Lu; Jeffrey D Olpin; Louis Wu; Benjamin M Yeh; Peter R Carroll; John Kurhanewicz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: C di Loreto; B Fitzpatrick; S Underhill; D H Kim; H E Dytch; H Galera-Davidson; M Bibbo Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 1991-07 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Christopher J Di Blasio; Audrey C Rhee; Daniel Cho; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan Journal: Semin Oncol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.929
Authors: Gerrit Draisma; Rob Boer; Suzie J Otto; Ingrid W van der Cruijsen; Ronald A M Damhuis; Fritz H Schröder; Harry J de Koning Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-06-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham; Thomas M Wheeler; Norio Maru; Peter T Scardino; Andreas Erbersdobler; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Hideshige Koh; Shahrokh F Shariat; Kevin M Slawin; Makoto Ohori Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Steven C Eberhardt; Semra Olgac; Manickam Muruganandham; Peter T Scardino; Victor E Reuter; Jason A Koutcher; Kristen L Zakian Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael Mullerad; Hedvig Hricak; Liang Wang; Hui-Ni Chen; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Deborah P Lubeck; Maxwell V Meng; Shilpa S Mehta; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Amita Shukla-Dave; Jingbo Zhang; Kristen L Zakian; Junting Zheng; Kent Kanao; Debra A Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Victor E Reuter; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Stacy Loeb; Jonathan I Epstein; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Date: 2016
Authors: Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Liang Cheng; Francesco Montorsi; Maria Scarpelli; Maria R Raspollini; Rodolfo Montironi Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Zachary Klaassen; Abhay A Singh; Lauren E Howard; Zhaoyong Feng; Bruce Trock; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Matthew R Cooperberg; Christopher L Amling; Christopher J Kane; Alan Partin; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Anna M Brown; Sandeep Sankineni; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Robert R Flavell; Antonio C Westphalen; Carmin Liang; Christopher C Sotto; Susan M Noworolski; Daniel B Vigneron; Zhen J Wang; John Kurhanewicz Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2014-10