Literature DB >> 31848822

A Novel Prediction Tool Based on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Determine the Biopsy Strategy for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with PSA Levels Less than 50 ng/ml.

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.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31848822     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-08111-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  29 in total

1.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013.

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

2.  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

3.  Diagnostic Pathway with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Standard Pathway: Results from a Randomized Prospective Study in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Francesco Porpiglia; Matteo Manfredi; Fabrizio Mele; Marco Cossu; Enrico Bollito; Andrea Veltri; Stefano Cirillo; Daniele Regge; Riccardo Faletti; Roberto Passera; Cristian Fiori; Stefano De Luca
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-08-27       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen.

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

5.  Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies.

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

6.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study.

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

7.  Risk of Upgrading from Prostate Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy Pathology-Does Saturation Biopsy of Index Lesion during Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Help?

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

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.

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

9.  Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate mapping biopsies as the reference standard.

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

10.  MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis.

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

View more
  3 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.  Study protocol for a single-centre non-inferior randomised controlled trial on a novel three-dimensional matrix positioning-based cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy and software-based fusion-targeted biopsy for the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in men without a prior biopsy.

Authors:  Biming He; Rongbing Li; Dongyang Li; Liqun Huang; Xiaofei Wen; Guosheng Yang; Haifeng Wang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  A Multicenter Single-Arm Objective Performance Criteria Trial to Determine the Efficacy and Safety of High-Frequency Irreversible Electroporation as Primary Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Study Protocol.

Authors:  Bi-Ming He; Wei Xue; Wei-Gang Yan; Lei Yin; Bai-Jun Dong; Zhi-En Zhou; Heng-Zhi Lin; Yi Zhou; Yan-Qing Wang; Zhen-Kai Shi; Hai Zhou; Shuai-Dong Wang; Shan-Cheng Ren; Xu Gao; Lin-Hui Wang; Chuan-Liang Xu; Hai-Feng Wang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-11-10       Impact factor: 6.244

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.