Chao Liang1, Yuhao Wang1, Lei Ding1, Meiling Bao2, Gong Cheng1, Pengfei Shao1, Lixin Hua1, Bianjiang Liu3, Jie Li4. 1. Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210009, China. 2. Department of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210009, China. 3. Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210009, China. bjliu@njmu.edu.cn. 4. Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210009, China. drc_lijie@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although most studies believe that systematic biopsy (SB) and targeted biopsy (TB) should be performed simultaneously in patients with suspected prostate cancer, we believe that patients with the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 4/5 may be able to perform TB only. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the pathological results of patients undergoing transperineal prostate biopsy with PI-RADS 4 and 5 in our center. We use the data from 2019 to 2020 as the training set to establish the prediction model and the data from 2021 as the verification set to test the effectiveness. Through stepwise logistics regression analysis, we integrate statistically significant clinical factors and establish a model to further predict whether the target area is tumor. RESULTS: The results showed that age (O), total number of lesions (T), histological region (R), PI-RADS score (S), and PSA density (P) were significantly correlated with the results of TB, and the formula was: p = 1/[1 + e^(- 11.387 + 0.058 × O + (- 0.736 × T) + 0.587 × R + 1.574 × S + 7.338 × P)]. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the prediction model was 0.840 (95% CI 0.802-0.877), with the optimal threshold of 0.762. And the corresponding specificity and sensitivity were 0.765 and 0.752. In the validation set, the AUC of the prediction model was 0.816 (95% CI 0.759-0.874), which means that it has good prediction efficiency. CONCLUSION: The P.R.O.S.T score can effectively screen PI-RADS 4/5 lesions, which may help physicians shunt patients who need prostate biopsy to reduce unnecessary systematic biopsies.
BACKGROUND: Although most studies believe that systematic biopsy (SB) and targeted biopsy (TB) should be performed simultaneously in patients with suspected prostate cancer, we believe that patients with the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 4/5 may be able to perform TB only. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the pathological results of patients undergoing transperineal prostate biopsy with PI-RADS 4 and 5 in our center. We use the data from 2019 to 2020 as the training set to establish the prediction model and the data from 2021 as the verification set to test the effectiveness. Through stepwise logistics regression analysis, we integrate statistically significant clinical factors and establish a model to further predict whether the target area is tumor. RESULTS: The results showed that age (O), total number of lesions (T), histological region (R), PI-RADS score (S), and PSA density (P) were significantly correlated with the results of TB, and the formula was: p = 1/[1 + e^(- 11.387 + 0.058 × O + (- 0.736 × T) + 0.587 × R + 1.574 × S + 7.338 × P)]. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the prediction model was 0.840 (95% CI 0.802-0.877), with the optimal threshold of 0.762. And the corresponding specificity and sensitivity were 0.765 and 0.752. In the validation set, the AUC of the prediction model was 0.816 (95% CI 0.759-0.874), which means that it has good prediction efficiency. CONCLUSION: The P.R.O.S.T score can effectively screen PI-RADS 4/5 lesions, which may help physicians shunt patients who need prostate biopsy to reduce unnecessary systematic biopsies.
Authors: Alexa R Meyer; Mufaddal Mamawala; Jared S Winoker; Patricia Landis; Jonathan I Epstein; Katarzyna J Macura; Mohamad E Allaf; Alan W Partin; Christian P Pavlovich; Michael A Gorin Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nelson N Stone; E David Crawford; Vassilios M Skouteris; Paul Arangua; Panagiotis-Marios Metsinis; M Scott Lucia; Francisco G La Rosa; Priya N Werahera Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Benjamin Spilseth; Sangeet Ghai; Nayana U Patel; Samir S Taneja; Daniel J Margolis; Andrew B Rosenkrantz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J P Radtke; S Boxler; T H Kuru; M B Wolf; C D Alt; I V Popeneciu; S Steinemann; C Huettenbrink; C Bergstraesser-Gasch; T Klein; C Kesch; M Roethke; N Becker; W Roth; H-P Schlemmer; M Hohenfellner; B A Hadaschik Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: R Renard-Penna; O Rouvière; P Puech; C Borgogno; L Abbas; C Roy; M Claudon; J-M Correas; L Cormier; G Ploussard; A Mejean; S Tezenas-du-Montcel; F Rozet Journal: Diagn Interv Imaging Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 4.026
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: 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