Literature DB >> 28140460

Factors predicting prostate cancer upgrading on magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in an active surveillance population.

Win Shun Lai1, Jennifer B Gordetsky1,2, John V Thomas3, Jeffrey W Nix1, Soroush Rais-Bahrami1,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to create a nomogram model integrating clinical and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI)-based variables to predict prostate cancer upgrading in a population of active surveillance (AS) patients.
METHODS: Prostate cancer patients on AS who underwent MP-MRI with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound (US) fusion-guided biopsy were identified. Clinical and imaging variables, including the prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD), number of lesions, total lesion volume, total lesion density, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score (MRI-SS), and duration between prereferral systematic and MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy sessions, were assessed. Logistic regression modeling was used to assess upgrading on MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy. A predictive model for upgrading was calculated with the significant factors identified.
RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were analyzed with a mean age of 62.5 years and a median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 5.1 ng/mL. The average duration between prereferral and MRI/US biopsies was 21 months. Twenty patients (26.32%) were upgraded. The PSAD, duration between prereferral and MRI/US biopsies, MRI-SS, and MRI total lesion density were significantly associated with upgrading. A logistic regression model using these factors to predict upgrading on confirmatory MRI/US fusion biopsy had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84, whereas the AUC was 0.69 with PSA alone. On the basis of this model, a nomogram was generated, and using a probability cutoff of 22% as an indication of upgrading, it produced sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values of 80%, 81.25%, 57.1%, and 92.86%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The integration of MRI findings with clinical parameters can add value to a model predicting upgrading from a Gleason score of 3 + 3 = 6 in men on AS. This can potentially be used as a noninvasive approach to confirm AS patients with low-risk disease for whom biopsy may be deferred. Cancer 2017;123:1941-1948.
© 2017 American Cancer Society. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gleason grade; cancer imaging; cancer progression; prostatic adenocarcinoma; upgrading

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28140460     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30548

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  31 in total

1.  Predicting Gleason Group Progression for Men on Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: Role of a Negative Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy.

Authors:  Jonathan B Bloom; Graham R Hale; Samuel A Gold; Kareem N Rayn; Clayton Smith; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Howard L Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Best of the 2018 AUA Annual Meeting.

Authors:  Zeyad R Schwen; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2018

3.  Active surveillance of prostate cancer: Current state of practice and utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Ridwan Alam; H Ballentine Carter; Jonathan I Epstein; Jeffrey J Tosoian
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2017

4.  Management of prostate cancer: NYU Case of the Month, July 2017.

Authors:  Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2017

5.  A novel predictor of clinical progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Guan Hee Tan; Antonio Finelli; Ardalan Ahmad; Marian S Wettstein; Thenappan Chandrasekar; Alexandre R Zlotta; Neil E Fleshner; Robert J Hamilton; Girish S Kulkarni; Khaled Ajib; Gregory Nason; Nathan Perlis
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2019-08-31       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  How Would MRI-targeted Prostate Biopsy Alter Radiation Therapy Approaches in Treating Prostate Cancer?

Authors:  Daniel B Dix; Andrew M McDonald; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Jeffrey W Nix; John V Thomas; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2018-08-30       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  The factors predicting upgrading of prostate cancer by using International Society for Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2014 Gleason grading system.

Authors:  Turgay Turan; Berrin Güçlüer; Özgür Efiloğlu; Furkan Şendoğan; Ramazan Gökhan Atış; Turhan Çaşkurlu; Asıf Yıldırım
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2018-09-04

8.  MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy allows for equivalent cancer detection with significantly fewer needle cores in biopsy-naive men.

Authors:  Vidhush K Yarlagadda; Win Shun Lai; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Kristin K Porter; Jeffrey W Nix; John V Thomas; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2018 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.630

9.  PTEN and ERG detection in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy compared to systematic biopsy.

Authors:  Erin Baumgartner; Maria Del Carmen Rodriguez Pena; Marie-Lisa Eich; Kristin K Porter; Jeffrey W Nix; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Jennifer Gordetsky
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 3.466

10.  Evaluation of MSKCC Preprostatectomy nomogram in men who undergo MRI-targeted prostate biopsy prior to radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Zachary A Glaser; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Sejong Bae; Jeffrey W Nix; Kristin K Porter; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 3.498

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.