Karim Marzouk1, Behfar Ehdaie2, Emily Vertosick3, Stephen Zappala4, Andrew Vickers5. 1. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Windsor Regional Hospital, University of Western Ontario, Windsor, Ontario, Canada. 2. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 4. Andover Urology, Andover, MA. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. Electronic address: vickersa@mskcc.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recent years have seen the development of biomarkers and imaging technologies designed to improve the specificity of PSA. Widespread implementation of imaging technologies, such as mp-MRI raises considerable logistical challenges. Our objective was to evaluate a biopsy strategy that utilizes selective mp-MRI as a follow-up test to biomarkers to improve the detection of significant prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We developed a conceptual approach based on the risk calculated from the 4Kscore using results from the US prospective validation study, multiplied by the likelihood ratio of mp-MRI from the PROMIS trial. The primary outcome was Gleason grade ≥ 7 (grade group ≥ 2) cancer on biopsy. Using decision curve analysis, the net benefit was determined for our model and compared with the use of the 4Kscore and mp-MRI independently at various thresholds for biopsy. RESULTS: For a cut-point of 7.5% risk of high-grade disease, patients with <5% risk from a blood marker would not have risk of significant prostate cancer sufficiently increased by a positive mp-MRI to warrant biopsy; comparably, patients with a risk >23% would not have risk sufficiently reduced by a negative imaging study to forgo biopsy. From the 4Kscore validation study, 46% of men considered for biopsy in the US have risks 5% to 23%. Net benefit was highest for the combined strategy, followed by 4Kscore alone. CONCLUSIONS: Selective mp-MRI in men with intermediate scores on a secondary blood test results in a biopsy strategy that is more scalable than mp-MRI for all men with elevated PSA. Prospective validation is required to demonstrate if the predicted properties of combined blood and imaging testing are empirically confirmed.
OBJECTIVES: Recent years have seen the development of biomarkers and imaging technologies designed to improve the specificity of PSA. Widespread implementation of imaging technologies, such as mp-MRI raises considerable logistical challenges. Our objective was to evaluate a biopsy strategy that utilizes selective mp-MRI as a follow-up test to biomarkers to improve the detection of significant prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We developed a conceptual approach based on the risk calculated from the 4Kscore using results from the US prospective validation study, multiplied by the likelihood ratio of mp-MRI from the PROMIS trial. The primary outcome was Gleason grade ≥ 7 (grade group ≥ 2) cancer on biopsy. Using decision curve analysis, the net benefit was determined for our model and compared with the use of the 4Kscore and mp-MRI independently at various thresholds for biopsy. RESULTS: For a cut-point of 7.5% risk of high-grade disease, patients with <5% risk from a blood marker would not have risk of significant prostate cancer sufficiently increased by a positive mp-MRI to warrant biopsy; comparably, patients with a risk >23% would not have risk sufficiently reduced by a negative imaging study to forgo biopsy. From the 4Kscore validation study, 46% of men considered for biopsy in the US have risks 5% to 23%. Net benefit was highest for the combined strategy, followed by 4Kscore alone. CONCLUSIONS: Selective mp-MRI in men with intermediate scores on a secondary blood test results in a biopsy strategy that is more scalable than mp-MRI for all men with elevated PSA. Prospective validation is required to demonstrate if the predicted properties of combined blood and imaging testing are empirically confirmed.
Authors: Dipen J Parekh; Sanoj Punnen; Daniel D Sjoberg; Scott W Asroff; James L Bailen; James S Cochran; Raoul Concepcion; Richard D David; Kenneth B Deck; Igor Dumbadze; Michael Gambla; Michael S Grable; Ralph J Henderson; Lawrence Karsh; Evan B Krisch; Timothy D Langford; Daniel W Lin; Shawn M McGee; John J Munoz; Christopher M Pieczonka; Kimberley Rieger-Christ; Daniel R Saltzstein; John W Scott; Neal D Shore; Paul R Sieber; Todd M Waldmann; Fredrick N Wolk; Stephen M Zappala Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-27 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ivo G Schoots; Monique J Roobol; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Geoffrey A Sonn; Edward Chang; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J Margolis; Malu Macairan; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-03-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: James S Wysock; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; William C Huang; Michael D Stifelman; Herbert Lepor; Fang-Ming Deng; Jonathan Melamed; Samir S Taneja Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: M Abd-Alazeez; A Kirkham; H U Ahmed; M Arya; E Anastasiadis; S C Charman; A Freeman; M Emberton Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 5.554
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
Authors: Juan Morote; Miriam Campistol; Marina Triquell; Anna Celma; Lucas Regis; Inés de Torres; Maria E Semidey; Richard Mast; Anna Santamaria; Jacques Planas; Enrique Trilla Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-01-23
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