Literature DB >> 27464612

Could Magnetic Resonance Imaging Help to Identify the Presence of Prostate Cancer Before Initial Biopsy? The Development of Nomogram Predicting the Outcomes of Prostate Biopsy in the Chinese Population.

Dong Fang1, Chenglin Zhao2, Da Ren1, Wei Yu1, Rui Wang2, Huihui Wang2, Xuesong Li1, Wenshi Yin1, Xiaoteng Yu1, Kunlin Yang1, Pei Liu1, Gangzhi Shan1, Shuqing Li1, Qun He1, Xiaoying Wang2, Zhongcheng Xin3, Liqun Zhou4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa) and high-grade prostate cancer (HGPCa) before transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy.
METHODS: The clinical data of 894 patients who received TRUS-guided biopsy and prior MRI test from a large Chinese center was reviewed. Based on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scoring, all MRIs were re-reviewed and assigned as Grade 0-2 (PI-RADS 1-2; PI-RADS 3; PI-RADS 4-5). We constructed two models both in predicting PCa and HGPCa (Gleason score ≥ 4 + 3): Model 1 with MRI and Model 2 without MRI. Other clinical factors include age, digital rectal examination, PSA, free-PSA, volume, and TRUS.
RESULTS: PCa and HGPCa were present in 434 (48.5 %) and 218 (24.4 %) patients. An MRI Grade 0, 1, and 2 were assigned in 324 (36.2 %), 193 (21.6 %) and 377 (42.2 %) patients, which was associated with the presence of PCa (p < 0.001) and HGPCa (p < 0.001). Particularly in patients aged ≤55 years, the assignment of MRI Grade 0 was correlated with extremely low rate of PCa (1/27) and no HGPCa. The c-statistic of Model 1 and Model 2 for predicting PCa was 0.875 and 0.841 (Z = 4.2302, p < 0.001), whereas for predicting HGPCa was 0.872 and 0.850 (Z = 3.265, p = 0.001). Model 1 exhibited higher sensitivity and specificity at same cutoffs, and decision-curve analysis also suggested the favorable clinical utility of Model 1.
CONCLUSIONS: Prostate MRI before biopsy could predict the presence of PCa and HGPCa, especially in younger patients. The incorporation of MRI in nomograms could increase predictive accuracy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27464612     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5438-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  9 in total

1.  Comparative Analysis of PSA Density and an MRI-Based Predictive Model to Improve the Selection of Candidates for Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Juan Morote; Angel Borque-Fernando; Marina Triquell; Anna Celma; Lucas Regis; Richard Mast; Inés M de Torres; María E Semidey; José M Abascal; Pol Servian; Anna Santamaría; Jacques Planas; Luis M Esteban; Enrique Trilla
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 6.575

2.  The combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2) and periprostatic fat thickness on multi-parametric MRI to predict the presence of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Yudong Cao; Min Cao; Yuke Chen; Wei Yu; Yu Fan; Qing Liu; Ge Gao; Zheng Zhao; Xiaoying Wang; Jie Jin
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-07-04

Review 3.  Multivariate risk prediction tools including MRI for individualized biopsy decision in prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions.

Authors:  Ivo G Schoots; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-03-13       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  A Nomogram Based on a Multiparametric Ultrasound Radiomics Model for Discrimination Between Malignant and Benign Prostate Lesions.

Authors:  Lei Liang; Xin Zhi; Ya Sun; Huarong Li; Jiajun Wang; Jingxu Xu; Jun Guo
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting prostate cancer in patients with PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL at initial biopsy.

Authors:  Qiang Wu; Fanglong Li; Xiaotao Yin; Jiangping Gao; Xu Zhang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-12-17       Impact factor: 1.817

6.  Construction and Validation of a Clinical Predictive Nomogram for Improving the Cancer Detection of Prostate Naive Biopsy Based on Chinese Multicenter Clinical Data.

Authors:  Tao Tao; Changming Wang; Weiyong Liu; Lei Yuan; Qingyu Ge; Lang Zhang; Biming He; Lei Wang; Ling Wang; Caiping Xiang; Haifeng Wang; Shuqiu Chen; Jun Xiao
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 7.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Predictive Models for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Marina Triquell; Miriam Campistol; Ana Celma; Lucas Regis; Mercè Cuadras; Jacques Planas; Enrique Trilla; Juan Morote
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 6.575

8.  Radiomics prediction model for the improved diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer on biparametric MRI.

Authors:  Mengjuan Li; Tong Chen; Wenlu Zhao; Chaogang Wei; Xiaobo Li; Shaofeng Duan; Libiao Ji; Zhihua Lu; Junkang Shen
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-02

9.  The Barcelona Predictive Model of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Juan Morote; Angel Borque-Fernando; Marina Triquell; Anna Celma; Lucas Regis; Manel Escobar; Richard Mast; Inés M de Torres; María E Semidey; José M Abascal; Carles Sola; Pol Servian; Daniel Salvador; Anna Santamaría; Jacques Planas; Luis M Esteban; Enrique Trilla
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 6.639

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.