Sherif Mehralivand1,2,3, Joanna H Shih4, Soroush Rais-Bahrami5,6, Aytekin Oto7, Sandra Bednarova8,9, Jeffrey W Nix5, John V Thomas6, Jennifer B Gordetsky10, Sonia Gaur3, Stephanie A Harmon11, Mohummad Minhaj Siddiqui12, Maria J Merino13, Howard L Parnes14, Bradford J Wood9, Peter A Pinto2, Peter L Choyke3, Baris Turkbey3. 1. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany. 2. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis: Biometric Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland. 5. Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 7. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. 8. Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Medical and Biological Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. 9. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute and Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 10. Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 11. Clinical Research Directorate/Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc, National Cancer Institute Campus at Frederick, Frederick, Maryland. 12. University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore. 13. Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 14. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
Importance: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in conjunction with MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-guided biopsies have improved the detection of prostate cancer. It is unclear whether MRI itself adds additional value to multivariable prediction models based on clinical parameters. Objective: To determine whether an MRI-based prediction model can reduce unnecessary biopsies in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients underwent MRI, MRI-TRUS fusion-guided biopsy, and 12-core systematic biopsy in 1 session. The development cohort used to derive the prediction model consisted of 400 patients from 1 institution enrolled between May 14, 2015, and August 31, 2016, and the validation cohort included 251 patients from 2 independent institutions who underwent biopsies between April 1, 2013, and June 30, 2016, at 1 institution and between July 1, 2015, and October 31, 2016, at the other institution. The MRI model included MRI-derived parameters in addition to clinical variables. Area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic curves and decision curve analysis were performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk of clinically significant prostate cancer on biopsy, defined as a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or higher in at least 1 biopsy core. Results: Overall, 193 (48.3%) of the 400 patients in the development cohort (mean [SD] age at biopsy, 64.3 [7.1] years) and 96 (38.2%) of the 251 patients in the validation cohort (mean [SD] age at biopsy, 64.9 [7.2] years) had clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as a Gleason score greater than or equal to 3 + 4. By applying the model to the external validation cohort, the area under the curve increased from 64% to 84% compared with the baseline model (P < .001). At a risk threshold of 20%, the MRI model had a lower false-positive rate than the baseline model (46% [95% CI, 32%-66%] vs 92% [95% CI, 70%-100%]), with only a small reduction in the true-positive rate (89% [95% CI, 85%-96%] vs 99% [95% CI, 89%-100%]). Eighteen of 100 fewer biopsies could have been performed, with no increase in the number of patients with missed clinically significant prostate cancers. Conclusions and Relevance: The inclusion of MRI-derived parameters in a risk model could reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies while maintaining a high rate of diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancers.
Importance: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in conjunction with MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-guided biopsies have improved the detection of prostate cancer. It is unclear whether MRI itself adds additional value to multivariable prediction models based on clinical parameters. Objective: To determine whether an MRI-based prediction model can reduce unnecessary biopsies in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients underwent MRI, MRI-TRUS fusion-guided biopsy, and 12-core systematic biopsy in 1 session. The development cohort used to derive the prediction model consisted of 400 patients from 1 institution enrolled between May 14, 2015, and August 31, 2016, and the validation cohort included 251 patients from 2 independent institutions who underwent biopsies between April 1, 2013, and June 30, 2016, at 1 institution and between July 1, 2015, and October 31, 2016, at the other institution. The MRI model included MRI-derived parameters in addition to clinical variables. Area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic curves and decision curve analysis were performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk of clinically significant prostate cancer on biopsy, defined as a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or higher in at least 1 biopsy core. Results: Overall, 193 (48.3%) of the 400 patients in the development cohort (mean [SD] age at biopsy, 64.3 [7.1] years) and 96 (38.2%) of the 251 patients in the validation cohort (mean [SD] age at biopsy, 64.9 [7.2] years) had clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as a Gleason score greater than or equal to 3 + 4. By applying the model to the external validation cohort, the area under the curve increased from 64% to 84% compared with the baseline model (P < .001). At a risk threshold of 20%, the MRI model had a lower false-positive rate than the baseline model (46% [95% CI, 32%-66%] vs 92% [95% CI, 70%-100%]), with only a small reduction in the true-positive rate (89% [95% CI, 85%-96%] vs 99% [95% CI, 89%-100%]). Eighteen of 100 fewer biopsies could have been performed, with no increase in the number of patients with missed clinically significant prostate cancers. Conclusions and Relevance: The inclusion of MRI-derived parameters in a risk model could reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies while maintaining a high rate of diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancers.
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Catherine M Tangen; Phyllis J Goodman; Cathee Till; Jeannette M Schenk; M Scott Lucia; Ian M Thompson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Vinay Prabhu; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ricardo Otazo; Daniel K Sodickson; Stella K Kang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Clayton P Smith; Stephanie A Harmon; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Yan Mee Law; Haytham Shebel; Julie Y An; Marcin Czarniecki; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 4.813
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
Authors: Frank-Jan H Drost; Daniël F Osses; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol; Ivo G Schoots Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-25
Authors: Sonia Gaur; Esther Mena; Stephanie A Harmon; Maria L Lindenberg; Stephen Adler; Anita T Ton; Joanna H Shih; Sherif Mehralivand; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ángel Borque-Fernando; Luis Mariano Esteban; Ana Celma; Sarai Roche; Jacques Planas; Lucas Regis; Inés de Torres; Maria Eugenia Semidey; Enrique Trilla; Juan Morote Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 4.226