The "Is mpMRI Enough" or IMRIE Study: A Multicentre Evaluation of Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compared with Biopsy.

Magnetic resonance imaging Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Negative predictive value Prostate cancer Prostate-specific antigen density

Journal

European urology focus
ISSN: 2405-4569
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Focus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101665661

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Historique:
received: 06 01 2020
revised: 19 08 2020
accepted: 22 09 2020
pubmed: 14 10 2020
medline: 14 4 2022
entrez: 13 10 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is now recommended prebiopsy in numerous healthcare regions based on the findings of high-quality studies from expert centres. Concern remains about reproducibility of mpMRI to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in real-world settings. To assess the diagnostic performance of mpMRI for csPCa in a real-world setting. A multicentre, retrospective cohort study, including men referred with raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or an abnormal digital rectal examination who had undergone mpMRI followed by transrectal or transperineal biopsy, was conducted. Patients could be biopsy naïve or have had previous negative biopsies. The primary definition for csPCa was International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) ≥2 (any Gleason ≥7); the accuracy for other definitions was also evaluated. Across ten sites, 2642 men were included (January 2011-November 2018). Mean age and PSA were 65.3yr (standard deviation [SD] 7.8yr) and 7.5ng/ml (SD 3.3ng/ml), respectively. Of the patients, 35.9% had "negative MRI" (scores 1-2); 51.9% underwent transrectal biopsy and 48.1% had transperineal biopsy, with 43.4% diagnosed with csPCa overall. The sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for ISUP GG≥2 were 87.3% and 87.5%, respectively. The NPVs were 87.4% and 88.1% for men undergoing transrectal and transperineal biopsy, respectively. Specificity and positive predictive value of MRI were 49.8% and 49.2%, respectively. The sensitivity and NPV increased to 96.6% and 90.6%, respectively, when a PSA density threshold of 0.15ng/ml/ml was used in MRI scores 1-2; these metrics increased to 97.5% and 91.2%, respectively, for PSA density 0.12ng/ml/ml. ISUP GG≥3 (Gleason ≥4+3) was found in 2.4% (15/617) of men with MRI scores 1-2. They key limitations of this study are the heterogeneity and retrospective nature of the data. Multiparametric MRI when used in real-world settings is able to rule out csPCa accurately, suggesting that about one-third of men might avoid an immediate biopsy. Men should be counselled about the risk of missing some significant cancers. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a useful tool for ruling out prostate cancer, especially when combined with prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD). Previous results published from specialist centres can be reproduced at smaller institutions. However, patients and their clinicians must be aware that an early diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer could be missed in nearly 10% of patients by relying on MRI and PSAD alone.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is now recommended prebiopsy in numerous healthcare regions based on the findings of high-quality studies from expert centres. Concern remains about reproducibility of mpMRI to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in real-world settings.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To assess the diagnostic performance of mpMRI for csPCa in a real-world setting.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS METHODS
A multicentre, retrospective cohort study, including men referred with raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or an abnormal digital rectal examination who had undergone mpMRI followed by transrectal or transperineal biopsy, was conducted. Patients could be biopsy naïve or have had previous negative biopsies.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS METHODS
The primary definition for csPCa was International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) ≥2 (any Gleason ≥7); the accuracy for other definitions was also evaluated.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS CONCLUSIONS
Across ten sites, 2642 men were included (January 2011-November 2018). Mean age and PSA were 65.3yr (standard deviation [SD] 7.8yr) and 7.5ng/ml (SD 3.3ng/ml), respectively. Of the patients, 35.9% had "negative MRI" (scores 1-2); 51.9% underwent transrectal biopsy and 48.1% had transperineal biopsy, with 43.4% diagnosed with csPCa overall. The sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for ISUP GG≥2 were 87.3% and 87.5%, respectively. The NPVs were 87.4% and 88.1% for men undergoing transrectal and transperineal biopsy, respectively. Specificity and positive predictive value of MRI were 49.8% and 49.2%, respectively. The sensitivity and NPV increased to 96.6% and 90.6%, respectively, when a PSA density threshold of 0.15ng/ml/ml was used in MRI scores 1-2; these metrics increased to 97.5% and 91.2%, respectively, for PSA density 0.12ng/ml/ml. ISUP GG≥3 (Gleason ≥4+3) was found in 2.4% (15/617) of men with MRI scores 1-2. They key limitations of this study are the heterogeneity and retrospective nature of the data.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Multiparametric MRI when used in real-world settings is able to rule out csPCa accurately, suggesting that about one-third of men might avoid an immediate biopsy. Men should be counselled about the risk of missing some significant cancers.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a useful tool for ruling out prostate cancer, especially when combined with prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD). Previous results published from specialist centres can be reproduced at smaller institutions. However, patients and their clinicians must be aware that an early diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer could be missed in nearly 10% of patients by relying on MRI and PSAD alone.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33046412
pii: S2405-4569(20)30271-6
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.09.012
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

1027-1034

Subventions

Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 204998/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

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

Auteurs

Thomas Stonier (T)

King's College Hospital, London, UK; Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, UK. Electronic address: Thomas.stonier@nhs.net.

Nick Simson (N)

Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, UK; Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.

Taimur Shah (T)

Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Niyati Lobo (N)

Kent and Canterbury Hospital, East Kent Hospital University Foundation Trust, Kent, UK.

Tarik Amer (T)

Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.

Su-Min Lee (SM)

Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.

Edward Bass (E)

Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Chertsey, UK.

Edwin Chau (E)

Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southend, UK.

Alistair Grey (A)

Imperial Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Neil McCartan (N)

Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.

Peter Acher (P)

Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southend, UK.

Imran Ahmad (I)

Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.

Nimalan Arumainayagam (N)

Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Chertsey, UK.

Dominic Brown (D)

Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, UK.

Alex Chapman (A)

Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Chertsey, UK.

Deborah Elf (D)

Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, UK.

Thomas Hartington (T)

Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.

Ibrahim Ibrahim (I)

Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.

Hing Leung (H)

Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.

Sidath Liyanage (S)

Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southend, UK.

Catherine Lovegrove (C)

Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Theo Malthouse (T)

Kent and Canterbury Hospital, East Kent Hospital University Foundation Trust, Kent, UK.

Bilal Mateen (B)

King's College Hospital, London, UK.

Kiki Mistry (K)

Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Chertsey, UK.

Iain Morrison (I)

Kent and Canterbury Hospital, East Kent Hospital University Foundation Trust, Kent, UK.

Sarika Nalagatla (S)

Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.

Raj Persad (R)

Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.

Alvan Pope (A)

The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hillingdon, UK.

Heminder Sokhi (H)

The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hillingdon, UK; Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK.

Hira Syed (H)

Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Chertsey, UK.

Sergey Tadtayev (S)

Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Chertsey, UK.

Meera Tharmaratnam (M)

Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, UK.

Ahmed Qteishat (A)

Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, UK.

Saiful Miah (S)

Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Mark Emberton (M)

Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.

Caroline Moore (C)

Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.

Tom Walton (T)

Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.

Ben Eddy (B)

Kent and Canterbury Hospital, East Kent Hospital University Foundation Trust, Kent, UK.

Hashim U Ahmed (HU)

Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

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