Literature DB >> 29175542

Defining a Cohort that May Not Require Repeat Prostate Biopsy Based on PCA3 Score and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: The Dual Negative Effect.

Nathan Perlis1, Thamir Al-Kasab2, Ardalan Ahmad2, Estee Goldberg2, Kamel Fadak2, Rashid Sayyid2, Antonio Finelli2, Girish Kulkarni2, Rob Hamilton2, Alexandre Zlotta3, Sangeet Ghai4, Neil Fleshner2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer over diagnosis and overtreatment are concerns for clinicians and policy makers. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and the PCA3 (prostate cancer antigen 3) urine test select for clinically significant cases. We explored how well the tests performed together with previous biopsies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In accordance with ethics committee approval we collected clinicopathological data on all patients in whom a PCA3 test was done from January 2011 to June 2016. This included patients on active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer and those without prostate cancer who had previous negative biopsies and suspicion of occult disease. We explored whether age, prostate specific antigen, PCA3 score, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, digital rectal examination, family history and prostate size would predict clinically significant prostate cancer on repeat biopsy. The negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and PCA3 score was calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 470 patients were included in study. The PCA3 score was abnormal at 35 or greater in 32.5% of cases. In the multivariate model including 154 men only age (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System) score 4 (OR 16.6, 95% CI 3.9-70.0) or 5 (OR 28.3, 95% CI 5.7-138) and PCA3 score (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.0-8.8) predicted clinically significant cancer on biopsy. No patient with negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and a normal PCA3 score had clinically significant prostate cancer on biopsy for a negative predictive value of 100% (p <0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with dual negative tests (multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and PCA3 score) clinically significant prostate cancer was never found on biopsy, which may be unnecessary in this group. This study was limited by its retrospective design, selection bias and lack of cost-effectiveness data.
Copyright © 2018 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biopsy; local; magnetic resonance imaging; neoplasm recurrence; prostatic neoplasms; watchful waiting

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29175542     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.074

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  10 in total

1.  Genome-wide analysis of differentially expressed lncRNA in sporadic parathyroid tumors.

Authors:  T Jiang; B J Wei; D X Zhang; L Li; G L Qiao; X A Yao; Z W Chen; X Liu; X Y Du
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Role of pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: Evidence from the literature.

Authors:  David Ka-Wai Leung; Peter Ka-Fung Chiu; Chi-Fai Ng; Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-10-01

3.  How to make clinical decisions to avoid unnecessary prostate screening in biopsy-naïve men with PI-RADs v2 score ≤ 3?

Authors:  Yu Zhang; Na Zeng; FengBo Zhang; YangXinRui Huang; Ye Tian
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-08-31       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 4.  PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Jelle Barentsz; Geert Villeirs; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Daniel J Margolis; Baris Turkbey; Harriet C Thoeny; François Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Clare M Tempany; Sadhna Verma; Jeffrey C Weinreb
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Jeffrey Weinreb; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Geert Villeirs; Baris Turkbey; Jelle Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 6.  Multiparametric MRI in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: An Overview and a Practical Approach.

Authors:  Chau Hung Lee; Teck Wei Tan; Cher Heng Tan
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 3.500

7.  Four-year outcomes from a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based active surveillance programme: PSA dynamics and serial MRI scans allow omission of protocol biopsies.

Authors:  Kevin Michael Gallagher; Edward Christopher; Andrew James Cameron; Scott Little; Alasdair Innes; Gill Davis; Julian Keanie; Prasad Bollina; Alan McNeill
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2018-10-09       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Disparities in magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate for traditionally underserved patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Timothy P Quinn; Martin G Sanda; David H Howard; Dattatraya Patil; Christopher P Filson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 6.921

9.  Which Patients with Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Can Safely Avoid Biopsy for Prostate Cancer?

Authors:  Masakatsu Oishi; Toshitaka Shin; Chisato Ohe; Nima Nassiri; Suzanne L Palmer; Manju Aron; Akbar N Ashrafi; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Frank Chen; Vinay Duddalwar; Mariana C Stern; Osamu Ukimura; Inderbir S Gill; Andre Luis de Castro Abreu
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 7.600

10.  Can Prostate-Specific Antigen Density Be an Index to Distinguish Patients Who Can Omit Repeat Prostate Biopsy in Patients with Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging?

Authors:  Jiwoong Yu; Youngjun Boo; Minyong Kang; Hyun Hwan Sung; Byong Chang Jeong; Seongil Seo; Seong Soo Jeon; Hyunmoo Lee; Hwang Gyun Jeon
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 3.989

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.