Avoiding Unnecessary Systematic Biopsy in Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Comparison Between MRI-Based Radiomics Model and PI-RADS Category.
MRI-targeted biopsy
PI-RADS
prostate cancer
radiomics
systematic biopsy
Journal
Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI
ISSN: 1522-2586
Titre abrégé: J Magn Reson Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9105850
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2023
02 2023
Historique:
revised:
15
06
2022
received:
11
04
2022
accepted:
16
06
2022
pubmed:
20
7
2022
medline:
20
1
2023
entrez:
19
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
MRI-targeted biopsy (MRTB) improves the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rate with fewer biopsy cores in men with suspected PCa. However, whether concurrent systematic biopsy (SB) can be avoided in patients undergoing MRTB remains unclear. To evaluate the potential value of MRI-based radiomics models in avoiding unnecessary SB in biopsy-naïve patients. Retrospective. A total of 226 patients (mean age 66.6 ± 9.02 years) with suspicion of PCa (PI-RADS score ≥ 3) and received combined cognitive MRTB with SB were retrospectively recruited and randomly divided into training (N = 180) and test (N = 46) cohorts at an 8:2 ratio. A 3.0 T, biparametric MRI (bpMRI) including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map. The whole prostate gland (PG) and the index lesion (IL) were delineated. Three radiomics models of bpMRI The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression method was used to select texture features. The area under the curve (AUC) and decision curve analysis were used to estimate the models. The bpMRI A bpMRI 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 6.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
MRI-targeted biopsy (MRTB) improves the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rate with fewer biopsy cores in men with suspected PCa. However, whether concurrent systematic biopsy (SB) can be avoided in patients undergoing MRTB remains unclear.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the potential value of MRI-based radiomics models in avoiding unnecessary SB in biopsy-naïve patients.
STUDY TYPE
Retrospective.
POPULATION
A total of 226 patients (mean age 66.6 ± 9.02 years) with suspicion of PCa (PI-RADS score ≥ 3) and received combined cognitive MRTB with SB were retrospectively recruited and randomly divided into training (N = 180) and test (N = 46) cohorts at an 8:2 ratio.
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE
A 3.0 T, biparametric MRI (bpMRI) including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map.
ASSESSMENT
The whole prostate gland (PG) and the index lesion (IL) were delineated. Three radiomics models of bpMRI
STATISTICAL TESTS
The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression method was used to select texture features. The area under the curve (AUC) and decision curve analysis were used to estimate the models.
RESULTS
The bpMRI
DATA CONCLUSION
A bpMRI
EVIDENCE LEVEL
3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 6.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
578-586Informations de copyright
© 2022 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Références
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018;378(19):1767-1777.
Kasivisvanathan V, Stabile A, Neves JB, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2019;76(3):284-303.
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet 2017;389(10071):815-822.
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B, et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: A large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 2019;75(4):570-578.
Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, et al. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: Comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 2013;189(2):493-499.
Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2020;382(10):917-928.
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): A prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2019;20(1):100-109.
Kim CH, Kim CK, Park JJ, et al. Yield of concurrent systemic biopsy during MRI-targeted biopsy according to prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2021;31(3):1667-1675.
Connor MJ, Eldred-Evans D, van Son M, et al. A multicenter study of the clinical utility of nontargeted systematic transperineal prostate biopsies in patients undergoing pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2020;204(6):1195-1201.
Miah S, Eldred-Evans D, Simmons LAM, et al. Patient reported outcome measures for transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies in the PICTURE study. J Urol 2018;200(6):1235-1240.
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64(6):876-892.
Choi YH, Kang MY, Sung HH, et al. Comparison of cancer detection rates between TRUS-guided biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy according to PSA level in biopsy-naive patients: A propensity score matching analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2019;17(1):e19-e25.
Neale A, Stroman L, Kum F, et al. Targeted and systematic cognitive freehand-guided transperineal biopsy: Is there still a role for systematic biopsy? BJU Int 2020;126(2):280-285.
Lee AYM, Yang XY, Lee HJ, et al. Multiparametric MRI-ultrasonography software fusion prostate biopsy: Initial results using a stereotactic robotic-assisted transperineal prostate biopsy platform comparing systematic vs targeted biopsy. BJU Int 2020;126(5):568-576.
Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, et al. Comparison of targeted vs systematic prostate biopsy in men who are biopsy naive: The prospective assessment of image registration in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PAIREDCAP) study. JAMA Surg 2019;154(9):811-818.
Arabi A, Deebajah M, Yaguchi G, et al. Systematic biopsy does not contribute to disease upgrading in patients undergoing targeted biopsy for PI-RADS 5 lesions identified on magnetic resonance imaging in the course of active surveillance for prostate cancer. Urology 2019;134:168-172.
Cheng X, Xu J, Chen Y, et al. Is additional systematic biopsy necessary in all initial prostate biopsy patients with abnormal MRI? Front Oncol 2021;11:643051. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.643051.
Patel U, Dasgupta P, Challacombe B, et al. Pre-biopsy 3-tesla MRI and targeted biopsy of the index prostate cancer: Correlation with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2017;119(1):82-90.
Lambin P, Leijenaar RTH, Deist TM, et al. Radiomics: The bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017;14(12):749-762.
Spohn SKB, Bettermann AS, Bamberg F, et al. Radiomics in prostate cancer imaging for a personalized treatment approach - current aspects of methodology and a systematic review on validated studies. Theranostics 2021;11(16):8027-8042.
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 2019;76(3):340-351.
Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P, et al. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: Sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol 2013;189(6):2039-2046.
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(2):244-252.
van Griethuysen JJM, Fedorov A, Parmar C, et al. Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res 2017;77(21):e104-e107.
Bartko JJ. Measures of agreement: A single procedure. Stat Med 1994;13(5-7):737-745.
Hassanzadeh E, Glazer DI, Dunne RM, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2): A pictorial review. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017;42(1):278-289.
Tafuri A, Iwata A, Shakir A, et al. Systematic biopsy of the prostate can be omitted in men with PI-RADS 5 and prostate specific antigen density greater than 15. J Urol 2021;206(2):289-297.
Nagel KNA, Schouten MG, Hambrock T, et al. Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer by using diffusion-weighted MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy at 3 T. Radiology 2013;267(1):164-172.
Drost FH, 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;4:CD012663.
Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology prostate cancer guidelines panel. Eur Urol 2017;72(2):250-266.
Li M, Yang L, Yue Y, et al. Use of radiomics to improve diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2.1 in prostate cancer. Front Oncol 2020;10:631831.
Chen T, Li M, Gu Y, et al. Prostate cancer differentiation and aggressiveness: Assessment with a radiomic-based model vs. PI-RADS v2. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;49(3):875-884.
Iyama Y, Nakaura T, Katahira K, et al. Development and validation of a logistic regression model to distinguish transition zone cancers from benign prostatic hyperplasia on multi-parametric prostate MRI. Eur Radiol 2017;27(9):3600-3608.
Ginsburg SA-O, Algohary A, Pahwa S, et al. Radiomic features for prostate cancer detection on MRI differ between the transition and peripheral zones: Preliminary findings from a multi-institutional study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;46(1):184-193.
Nketiah G, Elschot M, Kim E, et al. T2-weighted MRI-derived textural features reflect prostate cancer aggressiveness: Preliminary results. Eur Radiol 2017;27(7):3050-3059.
Ma S, Xie H, Wang H, et al. MRI-based radiomics signature for the preoperative prediction of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;50(6):1914-1925.
Wu M, Krishna S, Thornhill RE, et al. Transition zone prostate cancer: Logistic regression and machine-learning models of quantitative ADC, shape and texture features are highly accurate for diagnosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;50(3):940-950.
Gugliandolo SG, Pepa M, Isaksson LJ, et al. MRI-based radiomics signature for localized prostate cancer: A new clinical tool for cancer aggressiveness prediction? Sub-study of prospective phase II trial on ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (AIRC IG-13218). Eur Radiol 2021;31(2):716-728.