Literature DB >> 28853167

A urinary biomarker-based risk score correlates with multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection.

Rianne J Hendriks1, Marloes M G van der Leest2, Siebren Dijkstra1, Jelle O Barentsz2, Wim Van Criekinge3, Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa4, Jack A Schalken1, Peter F A Mulders1, Inge M van Oort1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics would greatly benefit from more accurate, non-invasive techniques for the detection of clinically significant disease, leading to a reduction of over-diagnosis and over-treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the association between a novel urinary biomarker-based risk score (SelectMDx), multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) outcomes, and biopsy results for PCa detection.
METHODS: This retrospective observational study used data from the validation study of the SelectMDx score, in which urine was collected after digital rectal examination from men undergoing prostate biopsies. A subset of these patients also underwent a mpMRI scan of the prostate. The indications for performing mpMRI were based on persistent clinical suspicion of PCa or local staging after PCa was found upon biopsy. All mpMRI images were centrally reviewed in 2016 by an experienced radiologist blinded for the urine test results and biopsy outcome. The PI-RADS version 2 was used.
RESULTS: In total, 172 patients were included for analysis. Hundred (58%) patients had PCa detected upon prostate biopsy, of which 52 (52%) had high-grade disease correlated with a significantly higher SelectMDx score (P < 0.01). The median SelectMDx score was significantly higher in patients with a suspicious significant lesion on mpMRI compared to no suspicion of significant PCa (P < 0.01). For the prediction of mpMRI outcome, the area-under-the-curve of SelectMDx was 0.83 compared to 0.66 for PSA and 0.65 for PCA3. There was a positive association between SelectMDx score and the final PI-RADS grade. There was a statistically significant difference in SelectMDx score between PI-RADS 3 and 4 (P < 0.01) and between PI-RADS 4 and 5 (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The novel urinary biomarker-based SelectMDx score is a promising tool in PCa detection. This study showed promising results regarding the correlation between the SelectMDx score and mpMRI outcomes, outperforming PCA3. Our results suggest that this risk score could guide clinicians in identifying patients at risk for significant PCa and selecting patients for further radiological diagnostics to reduce unnecessary procedures.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  SelectMDx score; multiparametric MRI; prostate cancer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28853167     DOI: 10.1002/pros.23401

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate        ISSN: 0270-4137            Impact factor:   4.104


  24 in total

1.  Risk-based MRI-directed diagnostic pathway outperforms non-risk-based pathways in suspected prostate cancer biopsy-naïve men: a large cohort validation study.

Authors:  Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Karolina Guricova; Isaac Zucker; Jared C Durieux; Ivo G Schoots
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Characteristics of α2,3-sialyl N-glycosylated PSA as a biomarker for clinically significant prostate cancer in men with elevated PSA level.

Authors:  Tohru Yoneyama; Hayato Yamamoto; Mihoko Sutoh Yoneyama; Yuki Tobisawa; Shingo Hatakeyama; Takuma Narita; Hirotake Kodama; Masaki Momota; Hiroyuki Ito; Shintaro Narita; Fumiyasu Tsushima; Koji Mitsuzuka; Takahiro Yoneyama; Yasuhiro Hashimoto; Wilhelmina Duivenvoorden; Jehonathan H Pinthus; Shingo Kakeda; Akihiro Ito; Norihiko Tsuchiya; Tomonori Habuchi; Chikara Ohyama
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2021-09-21       Impact factor: 4.012

Review 3.  All change in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

Authors:  Derek J Lomas; Hashim U Ahmed
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 4.  How should radiologists incorporate non-imaging prostate cancer biomarkers into daily practice?

Authors:  Pawel Rajwa; Jamil Syed; Michael S Leapman
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-12

5.  Prospective assessment of two-gene urinary test with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate for men undergoing primary prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Gian Maria Busetto; Francesco Del Giudice; Martina Maggi; Ferdinando De Marco; Angelo Porreca; Isabella Sperduti; Fabio Massimo Magliocca; Stefano Salciccia; Benjamin I Chung; Ettore De Berardinis; Alessandro Sciarra
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  A panel of DNA methylation markers for the detection of prostate cancer from FV and DRE urine DNA.

Authors:  Igor Brikun; Deborah Nusskern; Andrew Decatus; Eric Harvey; Lin Li; Diha Freije
Journal:  Clin Epigenetics       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 6.551

Review 7.  Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test?

Authors:  David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Heminder Sokhi; Anwar R Padhani; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 8.  Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: Role of Available Biomarkers in Daily Practice.

Authors:  Belén Pastor-Navarro; José Rubio-Briones; Ángel Borque-Fernando; Luis M Esteban; Jose Luis Dominguez-Escrig; José Antonio López-Guerrero
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 5.923

9.  Advances in Biomarkers for PCa Diagnostics and Prognostics-A Way towards Personalized Medicine.

Authors:  Carsten Stephan; Klaus Jung
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2017-10-20       Impact factor: 5.923

10.  Inflammation appears as high Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System scores on prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) leading to false positive MRI fusion biopsy.

Authors:  Elizabeth Rourke; Abhijit Sunnapwar; Daniel Mais; Vishal Kukkar; John DiGiovanni; Dharam Kaushik; Michael A Liss
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2019-07-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.