Clinical Utility of Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Predictive nomogram Prostate cancer

Journal

European urology open science
ISSN: 2666-1683
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Open Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101771568

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Historique:
accepted: 23 03 2021
entrez: 2 8 2021
pubmed: 3 8 2021
medline: 3 8 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used to diagnose prostate cancer (PCa). It is not yet established whether all men with negative MRI (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 score <3) should undergo prostate biopsy or not. To develop and validate a prediction model that uses clinical parameters to reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies by predicting PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) for men with negative MRI findings who are at risk of harboring PCa. This was a retrospective analysis of 200 men with negative MRI at risk of PCa who underwent prostate biopsy (2014-2020) with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >4 ng/ml, 4Kscore of >7%, PSA density ≥0.15 ng/ml/cm csPCa was defined as Gleason grade group ≥2 on biopsy. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed using coefficients of logit function for predicting PCa and csPCa. Nomogram validation was performed by calculating the area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and comparing nomogram-predicted probabilities with actual rates of PCa and csPCa. Of 200 men in the development cohort, 18% showed PCa and 8% showed csPCa on biopsy. Of 182 men in the validation cohort, 21% showed PCa and 6% showed csPCa on biopsy. PSA density, 4Kscore, and family history of PCa were significant predictors for PCa and csPCa. The AUC was 0.80 and 0.87 for prediction of PCa and csPCa, respectively. There was agreement between predicted and actual rates of PCa in the validation cohort. Using the prediction model at threshold of 40, 47% of benign biopsies and 15% of indolent PCa cases diagnosed could be avoided, while missing 10% of csPCa cases. The small sample size and number of events are limitations of the study. Our prediction model can reduce the number of prostate biopsies among men with negative MRI without compromising the detection of csPCa. We developed a tool for selection of men with negative MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) findings for prostate cancer who should undergo prostate biopsy. This risk prediction tool safely reduces the number of men who need to undergo the procedure.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used to diagnose prostate cancer (PCa). It is not yet established whether all men with negative MRI (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 score <3) should undergo prostate biopsy or not.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To develop and validate a prediction model that uses clinical parameters to reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies by predicting PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) for men with negative MRI findings who are at risk of harboring PCa.
DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS METHODS
This was a retrospective analysis of 200 men with negative MRI at risk of PCa who underwent prostate biopsy (2014-2020) with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >4 ng/ml, 4Kscore of >7%, PSA density ≥0.15 ng/ml/cm
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS METHODS
csPCa was defined as Gleason grade group ≥2 on biopsy. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed using coefficients of logit function for predicting PCa and csPCa. Nomogram validation was performed by calculating the area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and comparing nomogram-predicted probabilities with actual rates of PCa and csPCa.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS CONCLUSIONS
Of 200 men in the development cohort, 18% showed PCa and 8% showed csPCa on biopsy. Of 182 men in the validation cohort, 21% showed PCa and 6% showed csPCa on biopsy. PSA density, 4Kscore, and family history of PCa were significant predictors for PCa and csPCa. The AUC was 0.80 and 0.87 for prediction of PCa and csPCa, respectively. There was agreement between predicted and actual rates of PCa in the validation cohort. Using the prediction model at threshold of 40, 47% of benign biopsies and 15% of indolent PCa cases diagnosed could be avoided, while missing 10% of csPCa cases. The small sample size and number of events are limitations of the study.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our prediction model can reduce the number of prostate biopsies among men with negative MRI without compromising the detection of csPCa.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
We developed a tool for selection of men with negative MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) findings for prostate cancer who should undergo prostate biopsy. This risk prediction tool safely reduces the number of men who need to undergo the procedure.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34337520
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.03.008
pii: S2666-1683(21)00071-9
pmc: PMC8317880
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

9-16

Références

Mod Pathol. 2015 Mar;28(3):457-64
pubmed: 25189638
Lancet. 2014 Dec 6;384(9959):2027-35
pubmed: 25108889
Prostate. 2015 Jun 15;75(9):947-56
pubmed: 25808608
BJU Int. 2016 Oct;118(4):515-20
pubmed: 26800439
Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2021 Mar 4;:e1357
pubmed: 33661541
Eur Urol. 2017 Mar;71(3):353-365
pubmed: 27543165
J Urol. 2019 Mar;201(3):510-519
pubmed: 30266332
Eur Urol. 2015 Jul;68(1):8-19
pubmed: 25454618
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):419-25
pubmed: 26033153
Eur Urol. 2014 Apr;65(4):809-15
pubmed: 23523537
Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Oct;3(5):700-704
pubmed: 31548130
J Urol. 2021 Mar;205(3):725-731
pubmed: 33080153
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40
pubmed: 26427566
BJU Int. 2002 Apr;89(6):538-42
pubmed: 11942960

Auteurs

Vinayak G Wagaskar (VG)

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

Micah Levy (M)

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

Parita Ratnani (P)

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

Kate Moody (K)

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

Mariely Garcia (M)

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

Adriana M Pedraza (AM)

Department of Urology, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Bogota, Colombia.

Sneha Parekh (S)

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

Krunal Pandav (K)

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

Bhavya Shukla (B)

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

Sonya Prasad (S)

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

Stanislaw Sobotka (S)

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

Kenneth Haines (K)

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

Sanoj Punnen (S)

Department of Urology, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.

Peter Wiklund (P)

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

Ash Tewari (A)

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

Classifications MeSH