The predictive value of the prostate health index vs. multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in prostate biopsy.
MRI
PIRADS
PSA density
Prostate MRI
Prostate cancer
Prostate health index
TRUS fusion biopsy
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
19
05
2020
accepted:
25
07
2020
pubmed:
8
8
2020
medline:
28
9
2021
entrez:
8
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the ability of Prostate Health Index (PHI) to diagnose csPCa, with that of total PSA, PSA density (PSAD) and the multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMRI) of the prostate. We analysed a group of 395 men planned for a prostate biopsy who underwent a mpMRI of the prostate evaluated using the PIRADS v1 criteria. All patients had their PHI measured before prostate biopsy. In patients with an mpMRI suspicious lesions, an mpMRI/ultrasound software fusion-guided biopsy was performed first, with 12 core systematic biopsy performed in all patients. A ROC analysis was performed for PCa detection for total PSA, PSAD, PIRADS score and PHI; with an AUC curve calculated for all criteria and a combination of PIRADS score and PHI. Subsequent sub-analyses included patients undergoing first and repeat biopsy. The AUC for predicting the presence of csPCa in all patients was 59.5 for total PSA, 69.7 for PHI, 64.9 for PSAD and 62.5 for PIRADS. In biopsy naive patients it was 61.6 for total PSA, 68.9 for PHI, 64.6 for PSAD and 63.1 for PIRADS. In patients with previous negative biopsy the AUC for total PSA, PHI, PSAD and PIRADS was 55.4, 71.2, 64.4 and 69.3, respectively. Adding of PHI to PIRADS increased significantly (p = 0.007) the accuracy for prediction of csPCa. Prostate Health Index could serve as a tool in predicting csPCa. When compared to the mpMRI, it shows comparable results. The PHI cannot, however, help us guide prostate biopsies in any way, and its main use may, therefore, be in pre-MRI or pre-biopsy triage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32761380
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03397-4
pii: 10.1007/s00345-020-03397-4
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1889-1895Subventions
Organisme : Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky
ID : 15-27047A
Références
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2018) EAU - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2018. In: European Association of Urology Guidelines, 2018th edn. European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG (2008) Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol 10:262–280
pubmed: 19145270
pmcid: 2615104
Shaw GL, Thomas BC, Dawson SN et al (2014) Identification of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer is not accurate in unscreened men. Br J Cancer 110:2405–2411. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2014.192
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.192
pubmed: 24722183
pmcid: 4021526
Thompson JE, van Leeuwen PJ, Moses D et al (2016) The diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer. J Urol 195:1428–1435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.140
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.140
pubmed: 26529298
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
pubmed: 28110982
Loeb S, Catalona WJ (2014) The Prostate Health index: a new test for the detection of prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol 6:74–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287213513488
doi: 10.1177/1756287213513488
pubmed: 24688603
pmcid: 3943368
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
pubmed: 22322308
pmcid: 3297750
Le BV, Griffin CR, Loeb S et al (2010) [-2]Proenzyme prostate specific antigen is more accurate than total and free prostate specific antigen in differentiating prostate cancer from benign disease in a prospective prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 183:1355–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.056
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.056
pubmed: 20171670
pmcid: 3537165
Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG et al (2011) A Multicenter study of [-2] pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0–10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. J Urol 185:1650–1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.032
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.032
pubmed: 21419439
pmcid: 3140702
Filella X, Giménez N (2013) Evaluation of [-2] proPSA and Prostate Health Index (phi) for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 51:729–739. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2012-0410
doi: 10.1515/cclm-2012-0410
pubmed: 23154423
Loeb S, Shin SS, Broyles DL et al (2017) Prostate Health Index improves multivariable risk prediction of aggressive prostate cancer. BJU Int 120:61–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13676
doi: 10.1111/bju.13676
pubmed: 27743489
White J, Shenoy BV, Tutrone RF et al (2018) Clinical utility of the Prostate Health Index (phi) for biopsy decision management in a large group urology practice setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21:78–84. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-017-0008-7
doi: 10.1038/s41391-017-0008-7
pubmed: 29158509
Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D et al (2016) Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 280:793–804. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152542
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016152542
pubmed: 27035179
Zhao C, Gao G, Fang D et al (2016) The efficiency of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) using PI-RADS Version 2 in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Imaging 40:885–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.04.010
doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.04.010
pubmed: 27179959
Druskin SC, Tosoian JJ, Young A et al (2018) Combining Prostate Health Index density, magnetic resonance imaging and prior negative biopsy status to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. BJU Int 121:619–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14098
doi: 10.1111/bju.14098
pubmed: 29232037
Drost F-JH, Osses DF, Nieboer D et al (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2
pubmed: 31022301
pmcid: 6699659
Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 68:438–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037
pubmed: 25480312
Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P et al (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68:1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.013
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.013
pubmed: 25656808
Matoso A, Epstein JI (2019) Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings. Histopathology 74:135–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13712
doi: 10.1111/his.13712
pubmed: 30565298
Shah ZK, Elias SN, Abaza R et al (2015) Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 22:467–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.11.007
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.11.007
pubmed: 25579637
pmcid: 4355101
Park BK, Kim B, Kim CK et al (2007) Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31:534–538. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rct.0000250108.85799.e1
doi: 10.1097/01.rct.0000250108.85799.e1
pubmed: 17882027
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
pubmed: 26427566
Auer T, Edlinger M, Bektic J et al (2017) Performance of PI-RADS version 1 versus version 2 regarding the relation with histopathological results. World J Urol 35:687–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1920-5
doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1920-5
pubmed: 27510762
Becker AS, Cornelius A, Reiner CS et al (2017) Direct comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and version 1 regarding interreader agreement and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 94:58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.07.016
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.07.016
pubmed: 28941761
Krishna S, McInnes M, Lim C et al (2017) Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system versions 1 and 2 for the detection of peripheral zone gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 Cancers. Am J Roentgenol 209:W365–W373. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.17964
doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.17964
Gaur S, Harmon S, Mehralivand S et al (2018) Prospective comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and qualitative in-house categorization system in detection of prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 48:1326–1335. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26025
doi: 10.1002/jmri.26025
pubmed: 29603833
pmcid: 6167212
Simmons LAM, Kanthabalan A, Arya M et al (2018) Accuracy of transperineal targeted prostate biopsies, visual estimation and image fusion in men needing repeat biopsy in the PICTURE trial. J Urol 200:1227–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.001
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.001
pubmed: 30017964
Vaché T, Bratan F, Mège-Lechevallier F et al (2014) Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology 272:446–455. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14131584
doi: 10.1148/radiol.14131584
pubmed: 24937690