Literature DB >> 28976544

Multi-institutional nomogram predicting benign prostate pathology on magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion biopsy in men with a prior negative 12-core systematic biopsy.

Matthew Truong1, Bokai Wang2, Jennifer B Gordetsky3,4, Jeffrey W Nix4, Thomas P Frye1, Edward M Messing1, John V Thomas5, Changyong Feng2, Soroush Rais-Bahrami4,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may be recommended for patients with a prior negative systematic biopsy (SB). However, a proportion of these patients will continue to have no prostate cancer (PCa) identified on magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion biopsy (FB) despite abnormal mpMRI findings.
METHODS: In this multi-institutional, retrospective study, clinical and mpMRI parameters were assessed for 285 consecutive patients with at least 1 prior negative biopsy who underwent FB for a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 3 to 5 at the University of Rochester Medical Center from December 2014 to December 2016, or at the University of Alabama at Birmingham from February 2014 to February 2017. Nomograms were generated for predicting benign prostate pathology on both the targeted biopsy and the concurrent SB.
RESULTS: Benign pathology was found in 132 of 285 patients (46.3%). In a multivariate analysis, the predictors of benign prostate pathology on FB were age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, and PI-RADS score. The predicted probabilities were plotted on a receiver operating characteristic curve, and the area under the curve was 0.825. The nomogram demonstrated excellent calibration and a high net benefit in a decision curve analysis. With a theoretical cutoff probability of ≥0.7 used to recommend deferment of FB, 61 of 285 patients (21.4%) would have avoided an unnecessary biopsy, and only 4 of 285 patients (1.4%) with PCa with a Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4 would have been missed.
CONCLUSIONS: False-positive mpMRI examinations may occur in up to 46.3% of patients with a prior negative biopsy. Thus, a multi-institutional nomogram has been developed and validated for predicting benign pathology after FB in patients with a prior negative biopsy, and this may help to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies in the setting of abnormal mpMRI findings. Cancer 2018;124:278-85.
© 2017 American Cancer Society. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  diagnostic imaging; early detection of cancer; magnetic resonance imaging; nomograms; prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28976544     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31051

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


  15 in total

1.  Role of MRI for the detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Richard C Wu; Amir H Lebastchi; Boris A Hadaschik; Mark Emberton; Caroline Moore; Pilar Laguna; Jurgen J Fütterer; Arvin K George
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Assessment of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 false-positive category 4 and 5 lesions in clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Xiangyu Wang; Weizong Liu; Yi Lei; Guangyao Wu; Fan Lin
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-03-12

3.  A Novel Prediction Tool Based on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Determine the Biopsy Strategy for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with PSA Levels Less than 50 ng/ml.

Authors:  Bi-Ming He; Zhen-Kai Shi; Hu-Sheng Li; Heng-Zhi Lin; Qing-Song Yang; Jian-Ping Lu; Ying-Hao Sun; Hai-Feng Wang
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Prostate cancer: A valuable tool for prediction of repeat biopsy pathology.

Authors:  Pierre Karakiewicz; Sebastiano Nazzani
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 5.  Developing a National Center of Excellence for Prostate Imaging.

Authors:  Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Manuel Madariaga-Venegas; Nicolas Aviles; Juan Carlos Roman; Ivan Gallegos; Mauricio Burotto
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 6.  Follow-up of negative MRI-targeted prostate biopsies: when are we missing cancer?

Authors:  Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Jonathan B Bloom; Clayton P Smith; Kareem N Rayn; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography-fusion transperineal targeted biopsy for lesions with a prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 score of 3-5.

Authors:  Yuji Hakozaki; Hisashi Matsushima; Taro Murata; Tomoko Masuda; Yoko Hirai; Mai Oda; Nobuo Kawauchi; Munehiro Yokoyama; Haruki Kume
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 3.369

Review 8.  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

9.  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

10.  Utility of 18F-Fluciclovine PET/MRI for Staging Newly Diagnosed High-Risk Prostate Cancer and Evaluating Response to Initial Androgen Deprivation Therapy: A Prospective Single-Arm Pilot Study.

Authors:  Samuel J Galgano; Andrew M McDonald; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Kristin K Porter; Gagandeep Choudhary; Constantine Burgan; Pradeep Bhambhvani; Jeffrey W Nix; Desiree E Morgan; Yufeng Li; John V Thomas; Jonathan McConathy
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 6.582

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.