Using biomarkers in patients with positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: 4Kscore predicts the presence of cancer outside the index lesion.
4Kscore
biomarkers
multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
prostate biopsy
prostate cancer
Journal
International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association
ISSN: 1442-2042
Titre abrégé: Int J Urol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9440237
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
18
06
2020
accepted:
30
08
2020
pubmed:
29
9
2020
medline:
28
4
2021
entrez:
28
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate if the blood biomarker, 4Kscore, in addition to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging information could identify patients who would benefit from undergoing only a targeted biopsy. We retrospectively analyzed a population of 256 men with positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging who underwent standard + targeted biopsy at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA. 4Kscore (OPKO Health, Miami, FL, USA) was sampled from all patients before biopsy. Uni- and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were carried out to predict clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2, in standard biopsy cores. The model with the best area under the curve was selected and internal validation was carried out using the leave-one-out cross-validation. The developed model showed an area under the curve of 0.86. Carrying out only targeted biopsy in patients with a model-derived probability <12.5% resulted in 39.5% (n = 101) fewer standard biopsies and a 33.9% (n = 20) reduction of detecting grade group 1 disease, while missing grade group ≥2 in 5.2% (n = 4) using standard biopsy only and 1.1% (n = 1) using standard biopsy + targeted biopsy. 4Kscore in combination with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can help to reduce unnecessary standard biopsy and decrease detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer.
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
47-52Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Japanese Urological Association.
Références
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al. EAU - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2018. European Association of Urology Guidelines 2018 Edition, Vol. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen 2018. European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands, 2018.
Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J. Urol. 2016; 196: 1613-8.
Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M et al. Complications and adverse events of three magnetic resonance imaging-based target biopsy techniques in the diagnosis of prostate cancer among men with prior negative biopsies: results from the FUTURE trial, a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2019; 2: 617-24.
Eineluoto JT, Jarvinen P, Kilpelainen T et al. Patient experience of systematic versus fusion prostate biopsies. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2018; 1: 202-7.
Dell’Oglio P, Stabile A, Soligo M et al. There is no way to avoid systematic prostate biopsies in addition to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2020; 3: 112-8.
Ploussard G, Borgmann H, Briganti A et al. Positive pre-biopsy MRI: are systematic biopsies still useful in addition to targeted biopsies? World J. Urol. 2019; 37: 243-51.
Stabile A, Dell’Oglio P, De Cobelli F et al. Association between prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) Score for the index lesion and multifocal, clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2018; 1: 29-36.
Cash H, Gunzel K, Maxeiner A et al. Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography-guided random biopsy despite negative real-time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failure. BJU Int. 2016; 118: 35-43.
Falagario UG, Martini A, Wajswol E et al. Avoiding unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biopsies: negative and positive predictive value of MRI according to prostate-specific antigen density, 4Kscore and risk calculators. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.015.
Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 2016; 280: 793-804.
Wajswol E, Winoker JS, Anastos H et al. A cohort of transperineal electromagnetically tracked magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy: assessing the impact of inter-reader variability on cancer detection. BJU Int. 2020; 125: 531-40.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2016; 40: 244-52.
Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med. Decis. Making 2006; 26: 565-74.
Assel M, Sjoberg D, Elders A et al. Guidelines for reporting of statistics for clinical research in urology. BJU Int. 2019; 123: 401-10.
Drost F-JH, Osses DF, Nieboer D et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019; CD012663.
Falagario U, Jambor I, Taimen P et al. Added value of systematic biopsy in men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing biparametric MRI-targeted biopsy: multi-institutional external validation study. World J. Urol. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03393-8.
Sathianathen NJ, Warlick CA, Weight CJ et al. A clinical prediction tool to determine the need for concurrent systematic sampling at the time of magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy. BJU Int. 2019; 123: 612-7.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate Cancer (Version 4.2019). 2019. [Cited 1 Nov 2019]. Available from URL: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate_blocks.pdf
Falagario UG, Beksac AT, Martini A et al. Defining prostate cancer at favorable intermediate risk: the potential utility of magnetic resonance imaging and genomic tests. J. Urol. 2019; 202: 102-7.
Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020; 382: 917-28.
Gronberg H, Eklund M, Picker W et al. Prostate cancer diagnostics using a combination of the Stockholm3 blood test and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur. Urol. 2018; 74: 722-8.
Beksac AT, Sobotka S, Xu P et al. Downgrading of grade group after radical prostatectomy: comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided fusion biopsy and standard 12-core biopsy. Urology 2019; 127: 80-5.