Bi-Ming He1,2, Zhen-Kai Shi2, Hu-Sheng Li2, Heng-Zhi Lin2, Qing-Song Yang3, Jian-Ping Lu3, Ying-Hao Sun4, Hai-Feng Wang5,6. 1. Department of Urology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Radiology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. sunyhsmmu@126.com. 5. Department of Urology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 446720864@qq.com. 6. Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. 446720864@qq.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop and internally validate nomograms to help choose the optimal biopsy strategy among no biopsy, targeted biopsy (TB) only, or TB plus systematic biopsy (SB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included a total of 385 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided TB and/or SB at our institute after undergoing multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) between 2015 and 2018. We developed models to predict clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) based on suspicious lesions from a TB result and based on the whole prostate gland from the results of TB plus SB or SB only. Nomograms were generated using logistic regression and evaluated using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, calibration curves and decision analysis. The results were validated using ROC curve and calibration on 177 patients from 2018 to 2019 at the same institute. RESULTS: In the multivariate analyses, prostate-specific antigen level, prostate volume, and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score were predictors of csPCa in both nomograms. Age was also included in the model for suspicious lesions, while obesity was included in the model for the whole gland. The area under the curve (AUC) in the ROC analyses of the prediction models was 0.755 for suspicious lesions and 0.887 for the whole gland. Both models performed well in the calibration and decision analyses. In the validation cohort, the ROC curve described the AUCs of 0.723 and 0.917 for the nomogram of suspicious lesions and nomogram of the whole gland, respectively. Also, the calibration curve detected low error rates for both models. CONCLUSION: Nomograms with excellent discriminative ability were developed and validated. These nomograms can be used to select the optimal biopsy strategy for individual patients in the future.
PURPOSE: To develop and internally validate nomograms to help choose the optimal biopsy strategy among no biopsy, targeted biopsy (TB) only, or TB plus systematic biopsy (SB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included a total of 385 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided TB and/or SB at our institute after undergoing multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) between 2015 and 2018. We developed models to predict clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) based on suspicious lesions from a TB result and based on the whole prostate gland from the results of TB plus SB or SB only. Nomograms were generated using logistic regression and evaluated using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, calibration curves and decision analysis. The results were validated using ROC curve and calibration on 177 patients from 2018 to 2019 at the same institute. RESULTS: In the multivariate analyses, prostate-specific antigen level, prostate volume, and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score were predictors of csPCa in both nomograms. Age was also included in the model for suspicious lesions, while obesity was included in the model for the whole gland. The area under the curve (AUC) in the ROC analyses of the prediction models was 0.755 for suspicious lesions and 0.887 for the whole gland. Both models performed well in the calibration and decision analyses. In the validation cohort, the ROC curve described the AUCs of 0.723 and 0.917 for the nomogram of suspicious lesions and nomogram of the whole gland, respectively. Also, the calibration curve detected low error rates for both models. CONCLUSION: Nomograms with excellent discriminative ability were developed and validated. These nomograms can be used to select the optimal biopsy strategy for individual patients in the future.
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Patrick J Bastian; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Theodor van der Kwast; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Thomas Wiegel; F Zattoni; Nicolas Mottet Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-10-06 Impact factor: 20.096
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
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: Christopher P Filson; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Patricia Lieu; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: James E Thompson; Daniel Moses; Ron Shnier; Phillip Brenner; Warick Delprado; Lee Ponsky; Marley Pulbrook; Maret Böhm; Anne-Maree Haynes; Andrew Hayen; Phillip D Stricker Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Brian P Calio; Abhinav Sidana; Dordaneh Sugano; Sonia Gaur; Mahir Maruf; Amit L Jain; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-01-20 Impact factor: 7.450
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: 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: Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Antti S Rannikko; Marcelo Borghi; Valeria Panebianco; Lance A Mynderse; Markku H Vaarala; Alberto Briganti; Lars Budäus; Giles Hellawell; Richard G Hindley; Monique J Roobol; Scott Eggener; Maneesh Ghei; Arnauld Villers; Franck Bladou; Geert M Villeirs; Jaspal Virdi; Silvan Boxler; Grégoire Robert; Paras B Singh; Wulphert Venderink; Boris A Hadaschik; Alain Ruffion; Jim C Hu; Daniel Margolis; Sébastien Crouzet; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Peter Pinto; Inderbir Gill; Clare Allen; Francesco Giganti; Alex Freeman; Stephen Morris; Shonit Punwani; Norman R Williams; Chris Brew-Graves; Jonathan Deeks; Yemisi Takwoingi; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-03-18 Impact factor: 176.079
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