Literature DB >> 31100233

Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment in Biopsy-naïve Patients: The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) Fusion Biopsy and Systematic TRUS Biopsy.

Christophe K Mannaerts1, Maudy Gayet2, Jan F Verbeek3, Marc R W Engelbrecht4, C Dilara Savci-Heijink5, Gerrit J Jager6, Maaike P M Gielens6, Hans van der Linden7, Harrie P Beerlage8, Theo M de Reijke9, Hessel Wijkstra10, Monique J Roobol6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy (TBx) remains controversial for biopsy-naïve men when compared to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsy (SBx). Risk-based patient selection could help to selectively identify men with significant prostate cancer (PCa) and thus reduce unnecessary mpMRI and biopsies.
OBJECTIVES: To compare PCa detection rates for mpMRI TBx with SBx and to determine the rate of potentially avoided mpMRI and biopsies through risk-based selection using the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two-hundred consecutive biopsy-naïve men in two centres underwent mpMRI scanning, 12-core SBx, and subsequent MRI-TRUS TBx in the case of suspicious lesion(s) (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v.2 score ≥3). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We measured the detection rate for high-grade (Gleason score ≥ 3+4) PCa for TBx and SBx. We carried out a retrospective stratification according to RPCRC biopsy advice to determine the rate of mpMRI and biopsies that could potentially be avoided by RPCRC-based patient selection in relation to the rate of high-grade PCa missed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: TBx yielded high-grade PCa in 51 men (26%) and low-grade PCa in 14 men (7%), while SBx yielded high-grade PCa in 63 men (32%) and low-grade PCa in 41 men (21%). Four out of 73 men (5%) with negative RPCRC advice and 63 out of 127 men (50%) with positive advice had high-grade PCa. Upfront RPCRC-based patient selection for mpMRI and TBx would have avoided 73 out of 200 (37%) mpMRI scans, missing two out of 51 (4%) high-grade PCas. Limitations include the RPCRC definition of high- and low-grade PCa and different mpMRI techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: mpMRI with TBx detected PCa with high Gleason score and avoided biopsy in low-grade PCa, but failed to detect all high-grade PCa when compared to SBx among biopsy-naïve men. Risk-based patient selection using the RPCRC can avoid one-third of mpMRI scans and SBx in biopsy-naïve men. PATIENT
SUMMARY: Men with a suspicion of prostate cancer are increasingly undergoing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Although promising, MRI-targeted biopsy is not accurate enough to safely replace systematic prostate biopsy for now. Individualised assessment of prostate cancer risk using the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator could avoid one-third of MRI scans and systematic prostate biopsies.
Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biopsy; Early diagnosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Nomogram; Prostatic neoplasms; Risk stratification

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 31100233     DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol        ISSN: 2588-9311


  8 in total

Review 1.  Serum PSA-based early detection of prostate cancer in Europe and globally: past, present and future.

Authors:  Hendrik Van Poppel; Tit Albreht; Partha Basu; Renée Hogenhout; Sarah Collen; Monique Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2022-08-16       Impact factor: 16.430

2.  Implications of the European Association of Urology Recommended Risk Assessment Algorithm for Early Prostate Cancer Detection.

Authors:  Bas Israël; Gerjon Hannink; Jelle O Barentsz; Marloes M G van der Leest
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2022-07-11

3.  Prostate cancer detection by targeted prostate biopsy using the 3D Navigo system: a prospective study.

Authors:  Alexandre Magnier; Cosmina Nedelcu; Samuel Chelly; Marie-Christine Rousselet-Chapeau; Abdel Rahmene Azzouzi; Souhil Lebdai
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-04-15

Review 4.  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

5.  Reducing Biopsies and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scans During the Diagnostic Pathway of Prostate Cancer: Applying the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator to the PRECISION Trial Data.

Authors:  Sebastiaan Remmers; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Jan F M Verbeek; Caroline M Moore; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2021-12-15

Review 6.  Augmenting prostate magnetic resonance imaging reporting to incorporate diagnostic recommendations based upon clinical risk calculators.

Authors:  Karisma Gupta; Jordan D Perchik; Andrew M Fang; Kristin K Porter; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2022-08-28

7.  Clinical utility and cost modelling of the phi test to triage referrals into image-based diagnostic services for suspected prostate cancer: the PRIM (Phi to RefIne Mri) study.

Authors:  Lois Kim; Nicholas Boxall; Anne George; Keith Burling; Pete Acher; Jonathan Aning; Stuart McCracken; Toby Page; Vincent J Gnanapragasam
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2020-04-17       Impact factor: 8.775

Review 8.  Personalized strategies in population screening for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sebastiaan Remmers; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 7.396

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.