Comparison of Rotterdam and Barcelona Magnetic Resonance Imaging Risk Calculators for Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
Clinically significant
Early detection
Magnetic resonance imaging
Predictive model
Prostate cancer
Risk calculator
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:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
accepted:
19
03
2023
medline:
13
7
2023
pubmed:
13
7
2023
entrez:
13
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based risk calculators (MRI-RCs) individualise the likelihood of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and improve candidate selection for prostate biopsy beyond the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). To compare the Barcelona (BCN) and Rotterdam (ROT) MRI-RCs in an entire population and according to the PI-RADS categories. A prospective comparison of BCN- and ROT-RC in 946 men with suspected prostate cancer in whom systematic biopsy was performed, as well as target biopsies of PI-RADS ≥3 lesions. Saved biopsies and undetected csPCa (grade group ≥2) were determined. The csPCa detection was 40.8%. The median risks of csPCa from BCN- and ROT-RC were, respectively, 67.1% and 25% in men with csPCa, whereas 10.5% and 3% in those without csPCa ( ROT-RC provided a lower and narrower range of csPCa probabilities than BCN-RC. BCN-RC showed a net benefit over ROT-RC in the entire population. However, BCN-RC was useful in men with PI-RADS 3 and 4, whereas ROT-RC was useful only in those with PI-RADS 3. No RC seemed to be helpful in men with negative MRI and PI-RADS 5. Barcelona risk calculator was more helpful than Rotterdam risk calculator to select candidates for prostate biopsy.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based risk calculators (MRI-RCs) individualise the likelihood of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and improve candidate selection for prostate biopsy beyond the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS).
Objective
UNASSIGNED
To compare the Barcelona (BCN) and Rotterdam (ROT) MRI-RCs in an entire population and according to the PI-RADS categories.
Design setting and participants
UNASSIGNED
A prospective comparison of BCN- and ROT-RC in 946 men with suspected prostate cancer in whom systematic biopsy was performed, as well as target biopsies of PI-RADS ≥3 lesions.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis
UNASSIGNED
Saved biopsies and undetected csPCa (grade group ≥2) were determined.
Results and limitations
UNASSIGNED
The csPCa detection was 40.8%. The median risks of csPCa from BCN- and ROT-RC were, respectively, 67.1% and 25% in men with csPCa, whereas 10.5% and 3% in those without csPCa (
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
ROT-RC provided a lower and narrower range of csPCa probabilities than BCN-RC. BCN-RC showed a net benefit over ROT-RC in the entire population. However, BCN-RC was useful in men with PI-RADS 3 and 4, whereas ROT-RC was useful only in those with PI-RADS 3. No RC seemed to be helpful in men with negative MRI and PI-RADS 5.
Patient summary
UNASSIGNED
Barcelona risk calculator was more helpful than Rotterdam risk calculator to select candidates for prostate biopsy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37441350
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.013
pii: S2666-1683(23)00196-9
pmc: PMC10334241
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
46-54Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Author(s).
Références
BJU Int. 2014 Jun;113(6):878-86
pubmed: 24529282
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 1997 Jan;24(1):12
pubmed: 9213501
J Exp Psychol. 1968 Jul;77(3):514-6
pubmed: 5665590
Eur Urol. 2020 Sep;78(3):402-414
pubmed: 32444265
Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022 Jul 01;42:40-41
pubmed: 35795075
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Apr 02;20(7):
pubmed: 30986955
J Urol. 2022 Oct;208(4):830-837
pubmed: 36082555
J Nucl Cardiol. 2022 Dec;29(6):3248-3255
pubmed: 35610537
Eur Urol. 2021 Feb;79(2):243-262
pubmed: 33172724
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):428-35
pubmed: 26166626
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Mar 21;14(6):
pubmed: 35326740
Eur Urol Oncol. 2021 Oct;4(5):731-739
pubmed: 34364829
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Oct;47(10):2640-2645
pubmed: 33965292
World J Urol. 2021 Jan;39(1):73-80
pubmed: 32279141
Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Feb;3(1):32-41
pubmed: 31706946
Eur Urol. 2010 Jan;57(1):79-85
pubmed: 19733959
J Biomed Inform. 2015 Aug;56:87-93
pubmed: 25989018
Eur Urol. 2019 Feb;75(2):310-318
pubmed: 30082150
Eur Urol. 2021 Dec;80(6):703-711
pubmed: 34407909
Br J Anaesth. 2018 Dec;121(6):1192-1196
pubmed: 30442242
Methods. 2022 Aug;204:340-347
pubmed: 35314343
Med Decis Making. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):565-74
pubmed: 17099194
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Sep 29;14(19):
pubmed: 36230670
Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021 Apr 19;28:9-16
pubmed: 34337520
BJU Int. 2020 Mar;125(3):407-416
pubmed: 31758738
World J Urol. 2021 Nov;39(11):4109-4116
pubmed: 34169337
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Eur Urol Oncol. 2021 Oct;4(5):697-713
pubmed: 33358543