M A Pagniez1, V Kasivisvanathan2,3, P Puech4, E Drumez5, A Villers1,6, J Olivier1,6. 1. Department of Urology, CHU Lille, Lille, France. 2. Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Radiology, CHU Lille, Lille, France. 5. Santé Publique, Épidémiologie et Qualité des Soins, Department of Biostatistics, Universite Lille, CHU Lille, Lille, France. 6. UMR8161/CNRS-Institut de Biologie de Lille, Lille, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We systematically reviewed the literature on predictive factors for clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis after prebiopsy negative magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer naïve patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE® and Scopus® databases were searched up to March 2019. The review protocol was published in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019125549). The clinical factors and markers studied were age, prostate specific antigen, prostate specific antigen isoforms, prostate specific antigen density, PCA3, prostate volume, family history, ethnicity and risk calculators. The primary objective was to determine their predictive ability for clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis. Secondary objectives included meta-analysis of the negative predictive value of prebiopsy negative magnetic resonance imaging when combined with these predictive factors. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were eligible for inclusion. Few studies reported negative predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging combined with a marker. Prostate specific antigen density was the best studied and the strongest predictor of clinically significant prostate cancer in men with prebiopsy negative magnetic resonance imaging. There were 8 studies (1,015 patients) eligible for meta-analysis of the added value of prostate specific antigen density less than 0.15 ng/ml/ml to magnetic resonance imaging in reducing the risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer. When combined with prostate specific antigen density, overall magnetic resonance imaging negative predictive value increased from 84.4% to 90.4% in cancer naïve patients. The increase was from 82.7% to 88.7% in biopsy naïve and from 88.2% to 94.1% in previous negative biopsy subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of prostate specific antigen density less than 0.15 ng/ml/ml in the presence of prebiopsy negative magnetic resonance imaging was the most useful factor to identify men without clinically significant prostate cancer who could avoid biopsy.
PURPOSE: We systematically reviewed the literature on predictive factors for clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis after prebiopsy negative magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer naïve patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE® and Scopus® databases were searched up to March 2019. The review protocol was published in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019125549). The clinical factors and markers studied were age, prostate specific antigen, prostate specific antigen isoforms, prostate specific antigen density, PCA3, prostate volume, family history, ethnicity and risk calculators. The primary objective was to determine their predictive ability for clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis. Secondary objectives included meta-analysis of the negative predictive value of prebiopsy negative magnetic resonance imaging when combined with these predictive factors. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were eligible for inclusion. Few studies reported negative predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging combined with a marker. Prostate specific antigen density was the best studied and the strongest predictor of clinically significant prostate cancer in men with prebiopsy negative magnetic resonance imaging. There were 8 studies (1,015 patients) eligible for meta-analysis of the added value of prostate specific antigen density less than 0.15 ng/ml/ml to magnetic resonance imaging in reducing the risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer. When combined with prostate specific antigen density, overall magnetic resonance imaging negative predictive value increased from 84.4% to 90.4% in cancer naïve patients. The increase was from 82.7% to 88.7% in biopsy naïve and from 88.2% to 94.1% in previous negative biopsy subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of prostate specific antigen density less than 0.15 ng/ml/ml in the presence of prebiopsy negative magnetic resonance imaging was the most useful factor to identify men without clinically significant prostate cancer who could avoid biopsy.
Entities:
Keywords:
magnetic resonance imaging; negative results; predictive value of tests; prostatic neoplasms; risk factors
Authors: Luke P O'Connor; Alex Z Wang; Nitin K Yerram; Lori Long; Michael Ahdoot; Amir H Lebastchi; Sandeep Gurram; Johnathan Zeng; Stephanie A Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Maria J Merino; Howard L Parnes; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Bradford J Wood; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2020-10-21
Authors: Ronja Hietikko; Tuomas P Kilpeläinen; Anu Kenttämies; Johanna Ronkainen; Kirsty Ijäs; Kati Lind; Suvi Marjasuo; Juha Oksala; Outi Oksanen; Tuomas Saarinen; Ritja Savolainen; Kimmo Taari; Teuvo L J Tammela; Tuomas Mirtti; Kari Natunen; Anssi Auvinen; Antti Rannikko Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Hayley Pye; Saurabh Singh; Joseph M Norris; Lina M Carmona Echeverria; Vasilis Stavrinides; Alistair Grey; Eoin Dinneen; Elly Pilavachi; Joey Clemente; Susan Heavey; Urszula Stopka-Farooqui; Benjamin S Simpson; Elisenda Bonet-Carne; Dominic Patel; Peter Barker; Keith Burling; Nicola Stevens; Tony Ng; Eleftheria Panagiotaki; David Hawkes; Daniel C Alexander; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Aiman Haider; Alex Freeman; Alex Kirkham; David Atkinson; Clare Allen; Greg Shaw; Teresita Beeston; Mrishta Brizmohun Appayya; Arash Latifoltojar; Edward W Johnston; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Hashim U Ahmed; Shonit Punwani; Hayley C Whitaker Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Alberto Artiles Medina; Rafael Rodríguez-Patrón Rodríguez; Mercedes Ruiz Hernández; Marina Mata Alcaraz; Silvia García Barreras; Guillermo Fernández Conejo; Agustín Fraile Poblador; Enrique Sanz Mayayo; Francisco Javier Burgos Revilla Journal: Res Rep Urol Date: 2021-09-27
Authors: Nathan Velarde; Antonio C Westphalen; Hao G Nguyen; John Neuhaus; Katsuto Shinohara; Jeffry P Simko; Peder E Larson; Kirti Magudia Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2022-01-07
Authors: Andreas G Wibmer; Michael W Kattan; Francesco Alessandrino; Alexander D J Baur; Lars Boesen; Felipe Boschini Franco; David Bonekamp; Riccardo Campa; Hannes Cash; Violeta Catalá; Sebastien Crouzet; Sounil Dinnoo; James Eastham; Fiona M Fennessy; Kamyar Ghabili; Markus Hohenfellner; Angelique W Levi; Xinge Ji; Vibeke Løgager; Daniel J Margolis; Paul C Moldovan; Valeria Panebianco; Tobias Penzkofer; Philippe Puech; Jan Philipp Radtke; Olivier Rouvière; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Preston C Sprenkle; Clare M Tempany; Joan C Vilanova; Jeffrey Weinreb; Hedvig Hricak; Amita Shukla-Dave Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Joseph M Norris; Lina M Carmona Echeverria; Simon R J Bott; Louise C Brown; Nick Burns-Cox; Tim Dudderidge; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Eleni Frangou; Alex Freeman; Maneesh Ghei; Alastair Henderson; Richard G Hindley; Richard S Kaplan; Alex Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Raj Persad; Shonit Punwani; Derek J Rosario; Iqbal S Shergill; Vasilis Stavrinides; Mathias Winkler; Hayley C Whitaker; Hashim U Ahmed; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 20.096