Literature DB >> 33469144

The comparative effectiveness of mpMRI and MRI-guided biopsy vs regular biopsy in a population-based PSA testing: a modeling study.

Abraham M Getaneh1, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk2, Harry J de Koning2.   

Abstract

The benefit of prostate cancer screening is counterbalanced by the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The use of a multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) test after a positive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test followed by magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy (MRIGB) may reduce these harms. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of mpMRI and MRIGB vs the regular screening pathway in a population-based prostate cancer screening setting. A micro-simulation model was used to predict the effects of regular PSA screening (men with elevated PSA followed by TRUSGB) and MRI based screening (men with elevated PSA followed by mpMRI and MRIGB). We predicted reduction of overdiagnosis, harm-benefit ratio (overdiagnosis per cancer death averted), reduction in number of biopsies, detection of clinically significant cancer, prostate cancer death averted, life-years gained (LYG), and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for both strategies. A univariate sensitivity analysis and threshold analysis were performed to assess uncertainty around the test sensitivity parameters used in the MRI strategy.In the MRI pathway, we predicted a 43% reduction in the risk of overdiagnosis, compared to the regular pathway. Similarly a lower harm-benefit ratio (overdiagnosis per cancer death averted) was predicted for this strategy compared to the regular screening pathway (1.0 vs 1.8 respectively). Prostate cancer mortality reduction, LY and QALYs gained were also slightly increased in the MRI pathway than the regular screening pathway. Furthermore, 30% of men with a positive PSA test could avoid a biopsy as compared to the regular screening pathway. Compared to regular PSA screening, the use of mpMRI as a triage test followed by MRIGB can substantially reduce the risk of overdiagnosis and improve the harm-benefit balance, while maximizing prostate cancer mortality reduction and QALYs gained.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33469144      PMCID: PMC7815791          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-81459-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  37 in total

1.  Cancer detection and cancer characteristics in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)--Section Rotterdam. A comparison of two rounds of screening.

Authors:  Renske Postma; Fritz H Schröder; Geert J L H van Leenders; Robert F Hoedemaeker; Andre N Vis; Monique J Roobol; Theodorus H van der Kwast
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2007-01-16       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Active Surveillance Strategies for Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Niranjan J Sathianathen; Badrinath R Konety; Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Damien M Bolton; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-11-10       Impact factor: 20.096

3.  Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study.

Authors:  Marloes van der Leest; Erik Cornel; Bas Israël; Rianne Hendriks; Anwar R Padhani; Martijn Hoogenboom; Patrik Zamecnik; Dirk Bakker; Anglita Yanti Setiasti; Jeroen Veltman; Huib van den Hout; Hans van der Lelij; Inge van Oort; Sjoerd Klaver; Frans Debruyne; Michiel Sedelaar; Gerjon Hannink; Maroeska Rovers; Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-11-23       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging, with or Without Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy, and Systematic Biopsy for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Frank-Jan H Drost; Daniel Osses; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; Monique J Roobol; Ivo G Schoots
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies.

Authors:  Morgan R Pokorny; Maarten de Rooij; Earl Duncan; Fritz H Schröder; Robert Parkinson; Jelle O Barentsz; Leslie C Thompson
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-03-14       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 6.  MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: do we need to add standard sampling? A review of the last 5 years.

Authors:  Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 5.554

7.  MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Michael Ahdoot; Andrew R Wilbur; Sarah E Reese; Amir H Lebastchi; Sherif Mehralivand; Patrick T Gomella; Jonathan Bloom; Sandeep Gurram; Minhaj Siddiqui; Paul Pinsky; Howard Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria Merino; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2020-03-05       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  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

9.  Mean sojourn time, overdiagnosis, and reduction in advanced stage prostate cancer due to screening with PSA: implications of sojourn time on screening.

Authors:  N Pashayan; S W Duffy; P Pharoah; D Greenberg; J Donovan; R M Martin; F Hamdy; D E Neal
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Lifetime Benefits and Harms of Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Risk-Stratified Screening for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Roman Gulati; Alex Tsodikov; Jane M Lange; Angela B Mariotto; Andrew J Vickers; Sigrid V Carlsson; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  1 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and MRI-guided biopsy in a population-based prostate cancer screening setting using a micro-simulation model.

Authors:  Abraham M Getaneh; Eveline Am Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 4.452

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.