Literature DB >> 31506748

How to implement magnetic resonance imaging before prostate biopsy in clinical practice: nomograms for saving biopsies.

Ángel Borque-Fernando1, Luis Mariano Esteban2, Ana Celma3, Sarai Roche4, Jacques Planas3, Lucas Regis3, Inés de Torres5,6, Maria Eugenia Semidey5, Enrique Trilla3,6, Juan Morote3,6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To combine multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) findings and clinical parameters to provide nomograms for diagnosing different scenarios of aggressiveness of prostate cancer (PCa).
METHODS: A cohort of 346 patients with suspicion of PCa because of abnormal finding in digital rectal examination (DRE) and/or high prostate specific antigen (PSA) level received mpMRI prior to prostate biopsy (PBx). A conventional 12-core transrectal PBx with two extra cores from suspicious areas in mpMRI was performed by cognitive fusion. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed combining age, PSA density (PSAD), DRE, number of previous PBx, and mpMRI findings to predict three different scenarios: PCa, significant PCa (ISUP-group ≥ 2), or aggressive PCa (ISUP-group ≥ 3). We validate models by ROC curves, calibration plots, probability density functions (PDF), and clinical utility curves (CUC). Cut-off probabilities were estimated for helping decision-making in clinical practice.
RESULTS: Our cohort showed 39.6% incidence of PCa, 32.6% of significant PCa, and 23.4% of aggressive PCa. The AUC of predictive models were 0.856, 0.883, and 0.911, respectively. The PDF and CUC showed 11% missed diagnoses of significant PCa (35 cases of 326 significant PCa expected in 1000 proposed Bx) when choosing < 18% as the cutoff of probability for not performing PBx; the percentage of saved PBx was 47% (474 avoided PBx in 1000 proposed).
CONCLUSION: We developed clinical and mpMRI-based nomograms with a high discrimination ability for three different scenarios of PCa aggressiveness (https://urostatisticalsolutions.shinyapps.io/MRIfusionPCPrediction/). Specific clinical cutoff points allow us to save a high number of PBx with a minimum of missed diagnoses.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Multiparemetric resonance imaging; Nomograms; PI-RADS; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31506748     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02946-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  23 in total

1.  PSA-density does not improve bi-parametric prostate MR detection of prostate cancer in a biopsy naïve patient population.

Authors:  Renato Cuocolo; Arnaldo Stanzione; Giovanni Rusconi; Mario Petretta; Andrea Ponsiglione; Ferdinando Fusco; Nicola Longo; Francesco Persico; Sirio Cocozza; Arturo Brunetti; Massimo Imbriaco
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2018-05-04       Impact factor: 3.528

2.  Comparison of PET/MRI with multiparametric MRI in diagnosis of primary prostate cancer: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mou Li; Zixing Huang; Haopeng Yu; Yi Wang; Yongchang Zhang; Bin Song
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2019-02-21       Impact factor: 3.528

3.  Comparison of PI-RADS v1 and v2 for multiparametric MRI detection of prostate cancer with whole-mount histological workup as reference standard.

Authors:  Alexander Schaudinn; Josephin Gawlitza; Simone Mucha; Nicolas Linder; Toni Franz; Lars-Christian Horn; Thomas Kahn; Harald Busse
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 3.528

4.  Cancer incidence in Spain, 2015.

Authors:  J Galceran; A Ameijide; M Carulla; A Mateos; J R Quirós; D Rojas; A Alemán; A Torrella; M Chico; M Vicente; J M Díaz; N Larrañaga; R Marcos-Gragera; M J Sánchez; J Perucha; P Franch; C Navarro; E Ardanaz; J Bigorra; P Rodrigo; R Peris Bonet
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2.

Authors:  Jeffrey C Weinreb; Jelle O Barentsz; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Daniel Margolis; Mitchell D Schnall; Faina Shtern; Clare M Tempany; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadna Verma
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Implementing the use of nomograms by choosing threshold points in predictive models: 2012 updated Partin Tables vs a European predictive nomogram for organ-confined disease in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ángel Borque; Jose Rubio-Briones; Luis M Esteban; Gerardo Sanz; Jose Domínguez-Escrig; Miguel Ramírez-Backhaus; Ana Calatrava; Eduardo Solsona
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2014-02-14       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 7.  The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs-Part B: Prostate and Bladder Tumours.

Authors:  Peter A Humphrey; Holger Moch; Antonio L Cubilla; Thomas M Ulbright; Victor E Reuter
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Michael J Zelefsky; Daniel D Sjoberg; Joel B Nelson; Lars Egevad; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Andrew J Vickers; Anil V Parwani; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; James A Eastham; Peter Wiklund; Misop Han; Chandana A Reddy; Jay P Ciezki; Tommy Nyberg; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: Recommended Approaches and Details of Specific Care Options.

Authors:  Martin G Sanda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Erin Kirkby; Ronald C Chen; Tony Crispino; Joann Fontanarosa; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Greene; Laurence H Klotz; Danil V Makarov; Joel B Nelson; George Rodrigues; Howard M Sandler; Mary Ellen Taplin; Jonathan R Treadwell
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Optimizing the clinical utility of PCA3 to diagnose prostate cancer in initial prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Jose Rubio-Briones; Angel Borque; Luis M Esteban; Juan Casanova; Antonio Fernandez-Serra; Luis Rubio; Irene Casanova-Salas; Gerardo Sanz; Jose Domínguez-Escrig; Argimiro Collado; Alvaro Gómez-Ferrer; Inmaculada Iborra; Miguel Ramírez-Backhaus; Francisco Martínez; Ana Calatrava; Jose A Lopez-Guerrero
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  4 in total

1.  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

2.  Development and Validation of a Predictive Model to Evaluate the Risk of Bone Metastasis in Kidney Cancer.

Authors:  Shengtao Dong; Hua Yang; Zhi-Ri Tang; Yuqi Ke; Haosheng Wang; Wenle Li; Kang Tian
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-11-25       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 3.  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

4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.