Combined Use of Prostate-specific Antigen Density and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Biopsy Decision Planning: A Retrospective Multi-institutional Study Using the Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Outcome Database (PROMOD).


Journal

European urology oncology
ISSN: 2588-9311
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101724904

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2021
Historique:
received: 05 07 2020
revised: 07 08 2020
accepted: 25 08 2020
pubmed: 26 9 2020
medline: 3 2 2022
entrez: 25 9 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Previous studies suggested that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (PSAd) combined with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may help avoid unnecessary prostate biopsy (PB) with a limited risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa; Gleason grade group [GGG] >1). To define optimal diagnostic strategies based on the combined use of PSAd and MRI in patients at risk of prostate cancer (PCa). A retrospective analysis of the international multicenter Prostate MRI Outcome Database (PROMOD), including 2512 men having undergone PSAd and prostate MRI before PB between 2013 and 2019, was performed. Rates of avoided PB, missed GGG 1, and csPCa according to 10 strategies based on PSAd values and MRI reporting scores (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS]/Likert/IMPROD biparametric prostate MRI Likert). Decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to statistically compare the net benefit of each strategy. Combined systematic and targeted biopsies were used for reference. According to DCA, the best strategy in biopsy-naive patients was #7 (PI-RADS/Likert 4-5 or PI-RADS/Likert 3 if PSAd >0.2), which avoided 41.2% PBs while missed 44% of GGG 1 and 10.9% of csPCa cases. From a clinical standpoint, however, strategies with a lower risk of missing csPCa included #10 (PI-RADS/Likert 4-5 or PI-RADS 3 if PSAd >0.10 or PSAd >0.2), which avoided 27% PBs while missing 24.4% GGG 1 and 4% csPCa cases, or #5 (PI-RADS/Likert 3-5 or PSAd>0.15), which avoided 14.7% PBs while missing 9.3% GGG 1 and 1.7% csPCa cases. Similar results were found in patients with a previous negative biopsy. This study is limited by its retrospective nature, and no central review of MRI and histopathological findings. Combined PSAd and MRI findings allows individualization of the decision to perform PB on the basis of the risk of missing PCa that both patients and clinicians are ready to accept to avoid this procedure. We compared several biopsy strategies based on a combination of prostate magnetic resonance imaging findings and prostate-specific antigen density, providing a readily available tool for each center and practicing urologist to counsel patients about their individual risk of significant prostate cancer.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Previous studies suggested that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (PSAd) combined with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may help avoid unnecessary prostate biopsy (PB) with a limited risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa; Gleason grade group [GGG] >1).
OBJECTIVE
To define optimal diagnostic strategies based on the combined use of PSAd and MRI in patients at risk of prostate cancer (PCa).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A retrospective analysis of the international multicenter Prostate MRI Outcome Database (PROMOD), including 2512 men having undergone PSAd and prostate MRI before PB between 2013 and 2019, was performed.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Rates of avoided PB, missed GGG 1, and csPCa according to 10 strategies based on PSAd values and MRI reporting scores (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS]/Likert/IMPROD biparametric prostate MRI Likert). Decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to statistically compare the net benefit of each strategy. Combined systematic and targeted biopsies were used for reference.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
According to DCA, the best strategy in biopsy-naive patients was #7 (PI-RADS/Likert 4-5 or PI-RADS/Likert 3 if PSAd >0.2), which avoided 41.2% PBs while missed 44% of GGG 1 and 10.9% of csPCa cases. From a clinical standpoint, however, strategies with a lower risk of missing csPCa included #10 (PI-RADS/Likert 4-5 or PI-RADS 3 if PSAd >0.10 or PSAd >0.2), which avoided 27% PBs while missing 24.4% GGG 1 and 4% csPCa cases, or #5 (PI-RADS/Likert 3-5 or PSAd>0.15), which avoided 14.7% PBs while missing 9.3% GGG 1 and 1.7% csPCa cases. Similar results were found in patients with a previous negative biopsy. This study is limited by its retrospective nature, and no central review of MRI and histopathological findings.
CONCLUSIONS
Combined PSAd and MRI findings allows individualization of the decision to perform PB on the basis of the risk of missing PCa that both patients and clinicians are ready to accept to avoid this procedure.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We compared several biopsy strategies based on a combination of prostate magnetic resonance imaging findings and prostate-specific antigen density, providing a readily available tool for each center and practicing urologist to counsel patients about their individual risk of significant prostate cancer.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32972896
pii: S2588-9311(20)30142-5
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.014
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Prostate-Specific Antigen EC 3.4.21.77

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

971-979

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Ugo Giovanni Falagario (UG)

Department of Urology and Organ Transplantation, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy; Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: ugofalagario@gmail.com.

Ivan Jambor (I)

Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; Department of Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; Medical Imaging Centre of Southwest Finland, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.

Anna Lantz (A)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Urology, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden.

Otto Ettala (O)

Department of Urology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.

Armando Stabile (A)

Department of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.

Pekka Taimen (P)

Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; Department of Pathology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.

Hannu J Aronen (HJ)

Department of Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; Medical Imaging Centre of Southwest Finland, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.

Juha Knaapila (J)

Department of Urology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.

Ileana Montoya Perez (IM)

Department of Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; Medical Imaging Centre of Southwest Finland, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.

Giorgio Gandaglia (G)

Department of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.

Nicola Fossati (N)

Department of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.

Alberto Martini (A)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; Department of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.

Vito Cucchiara (V)

Department of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.

Wolfgang Picker (W)

Department of Radiology, Aleris Cancer Center, Oslo, Norway.

Erik Haug (E)

Section of Urology, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway.

Parita Ratnani (P)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Kenneth Haines (K)

Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Sara Lewis (S)

Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Nair Sujit (N)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Oscar Selvaggio (O)

Department of Urology and Organ Transplantation, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Francesca Sanguedolce (F)

Department of Pathology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Luca Macarini (L)

Department of Radiology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Luigi Cormio (L)

Department of Urology and Organ Transplantation, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy; Department of Urology, Bonomo Teaching Hospital, Andria, Italy.

Tobias Nordström (T)

Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Urology, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden.

Ash Tewari (A)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Alberto Briganti (A)

Department of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.

Peter J Boström (PJ)

Department of Urology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.

Giuseppe Carrieri (G)

Department of Urology and Organ Transplantation, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH