Literature DB >> 30988407

A predictive model based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters for improved risk assessment and selection of biopsy-naïve men for prostate biopsies.

Lars Boesen1, Frederik B Thomsen2, Nis Nørgaard2, Vibeke Løgager3, Ingegerd Balslev4, Rasmus Bisbjerg2, Henrik S Thomsen3, Henrik Jakobsen2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer risk prediction models and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) are used for individualised pre-biopsy risk assessment. However, biparametric MRI (bpMRI) has emerged as a simpler, more rapid MRI approach (fewer scan sequences, no intravenous contrast-media) to reduce costs and facilitate a more widespread clinical implementation. It is unknown how bpMRI and risk models perform conjointly. Therefore, the objective was to develop a predictive model for significant prostate cancer (sPCa) in biopsy-naive men based on bpMRI findings and clinical parameters.
METHODS: Eight hundred and seventy-six biopsy-naive men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen, <50 ng/mL; tumour stage, <T3) underwent pre-biopsy prostate bpMRI (T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted) followed by 10-core standard biopsies (all men) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies of bpMRI-suspicious lesions (suspicion score, ≥3). Prediction models based on bpMRI scores and clinical parameters (age, tumour stage, prostate-specific-antigen [PSA] level, prostatevolume, and PSAdensity) were created to detect sPCa (any biopsy-core with Gleason grade-group, ≥2) and compared by analysing the areas under the curves and decision curves.
RESULTS: Overall, sPCa was detected in 350/876 men (40%) with median (inter-quartile range) age and PSA level of 65 years (60-70) and 7.3 ng/mL (5.5-10.6), respectively. The model defined by bpMRI scores, age, tumour stage, and PSAdensity had the highest discriminatory power (area under the curve, 0.89), showed good calibration on internal bootstrap validation, and resulted in the greatest net benefit on decision curve analysis. Applying a biopsy risk threshold of 20% meant that 42% of men could avoid a biopsy, 50% fewer insignificant cancers were diagnosed, and only 7% of significant cancers (grade-group, ≥2) were missed.
CONCLUSIONS: A predictive model based on bpMRI scores and clinical parameters significantly improved risk stratification for sPCa in biopsy-naïve men and could be used for clinical decision-making and counselling men prior to prostate biopsies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30988407     DOI: 10.1038/s41391-019-0149-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis        ISSN: 1365-7852            Impact factor:   5.554


  5 in total

1.  Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Claus G Roehrborn
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2008

2.  Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study.

Authors:  Marloes van der Leest; Erik Cornel; Bas Israël; Rianne Hendriks; Anwar R Padhani; Martijn Hoogenboom; Patrik Zamecnik; Dirk Bakker; Anglita Yanti Setiasti; Jeroen Veltman; Huib van den Hout; Hans van der Lelij; Inge van Oort; Sjoerd Klaver; Frans Debruyne; Michiel Sedelaar; Gerjon Hannink; Maroeska Rovers; Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-11-23       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 3.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.

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

4.  Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer Following Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators.

Authors:  Arnout R Alberts; Monique J Roobol; Jan F M Verbeek; Ivo G Schoots; Peter K Chiu; Daniël F Osses; Jasper D Tijsterman; Harrie P Beerlage; Christophe K Mannaerts; Lars Schimmöller; Peter Albers; Christian Arsov
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Challenges in Adopting Level 1 Evidence for Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Biomarker for Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Soo Jeong Kim; Andrew J Vickers; Jim C Hu
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 31.777

  5 in total
  10 in total

1.  Added Value of Biparametric MRI and TRUS-Guided Systematic Biopsies to Clinical Parameters in Predicting Adverse Pathology in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Hailang Liu; Kun Tang; Ding Xia; Xinguang Wang; Wei Zhu; Liang Wang; Weimin Yang; Ejun Peng; Zhiqiang Chen
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 3.989

2.  Comparative Analysis of PSA Density and an MRI-Based Predictive Model to Improve the Selection of Candidates for Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Juan Morote; Angel Borque-Fernando; Marina Triquell; Anna Celma; Lucas Regis; Richard Mast; Inés M de Torres; María E Semidey; José M Abascal; Pol Servian; Anna Santamaría; Jacques Planas; Luis M Esteban; Enrique Trilla
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 6.575

3.  Modified Predictive Model and Nomogram by Incorporating Prebiopsy Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Clinical Indicators for Prostate Biopsy Decision Making.

Authors:  Jin-Feng Pan; Rui Su; Jian-Zhou Cao; Zhen-Ya Zhao; Da-Wei Ren; Sha-Zhou Ye; Rui-da Huang; Zhu-Lei Tao; Cheng-Ling Yu; Jun-Hui Jiang; Qi Ma
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 6.244

4.  A risk model for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer based on bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging in a Japanese cohort.

Authors:  Kazushige Sakaguchi; Michikata Hayashida; Naoto Tanaka; Suguru Oka; Shinji Urakami
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-09-22       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial biparametric MRI.

Authors:  Karen-Cecilie Kortenbach; Lars Boesen; Vibeke Løgager; Henrik S Thomsen
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2021-11-06

6.  The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy in clinically significant prostate cancer detection in patients with biopsy-naïve men according to PSA levels: A propensity score matching analysis.

Authors:  Hye J Byun; Teak J Shin; Wonho Jung; Ji Y Ha; Byung H Kim; Young H Kim
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2021-11-04

Review 7.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Predictive Models in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Mohammad Saatchi; Fatemeh Khatami; Rahil Mashhadi; Akram Mirzaei; Leila Zareian; Zeinab Ahadi; Seyed Mohammad Kazem Aghamir
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2022-06-08

Review 8.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Predictive Models for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Marina Triquell; Miriam Campistol; Ana Celma; Lucas Regis; Mercè Cuadras; Jacques Planas; Enrique Trilla; Juan Morote
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 6.575

9.  A PI-RADS-Based New Nomogram for Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Cohort Study.

Authors:  Yueyue Zhang; Guiqi Zhu; Wenlu Zhao; Chaogang Wei; Tong Chen; Qi Ma; Yongsheng Zhang; Boxin Xue; Junkang Shen
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 3.989

10.  The Barcelona Predictive Model of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Juan Morote; Angel Borque-Fernando; Marina Triquell; Anna Celma; Lucas Regis; Manel Escobar; Richard Mast; Inés M de Torres; María E Semidey; José M Abascal; Carles Sola; Pol Servian; Daniel Salvador; Anna Santamaría; Jacques Planas; Luis M Esteban; Enrique Trilla
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 6.639

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.