External validation of nomograms including MRI features for the prediction of side-specific extraprostatic extension.
Journal
Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases
ISSN: 1476-5608
Titre abrégé: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815755
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Nov 2023
06 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
17
08
2023
accepted:
05
10
2023
revised:
14
09
2023
medline:
7
11
2023
pubmed:
7
11
2023
entrez:
6
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Prediction of side-specific extraprostatic extension (EPE) is crucial in selecting patients for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP). Multiple nomograms, which include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) information, are available predict side-specific EPE. It is crucial that the accuracy of these nomograms is assessed with external validation to ensure they can be used in clinical practice to support medical decision-making. Data of prostate cancer (PCa) patients that underwent robot-assisted RP (RARP) from 2017 to 2021 at four European tertiary referral centers were collected retrospectively. Four previously developed nomograms for the prediction of side-specific EPE were identified and externally validated. Discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]), calibration and net benefit of four nomograms were assessed. To assess the strongest predictor among the MRI features included in all nomograms, we evaluated their association with side-specific EPE using multivariate regression analysis and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). This study involved 773 patients with a total of 1546 prostate lobes. EPE was found in 338 (22%) lobes. The AUCs of the models predicting EPE ranged from 72.2% (95% CI 69.1-72.3%) (Wibmer) to 75.5% (95% CI 72.5-78.5%) (Nyarangi-Dix). The nomogram with the highest AUC varied across the cohorts. The Soeterik, Nyarangi-Dix, and Martini nomograms demonstrated fair to good calibration for clinically most relevant thresholds between 5 and 30%. In contrast, the Wibmer nomogram showed substantial overestimation of EPE risk for thresholds above 25%. The Nyarangi-Dix nomogram demonstrated a higher net benefit for risk thresholds between 20 and 30% when compared to the other three nomograms. Of all MRI features, the European Society of Urogenital Radiology score and tumor capsule contact length showed the highest AUCs and lowest AIC. The Nyarangi-Dix, Martini and Soeterik nomograms resulted in accurate EPE prediction and are therefore suitable to support medical decision-making.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Prediction of side-specific extraprostatic extension (EPE) is crucial in selecting patients for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP). Multiple nomograms, which include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) information, are available predict side-specific EPE. It is crucial that the accuracy of these nomograms is assessed with external validation to ensure they can be used in clinical practice to support medical decision-making.
METHODS
METHODS
Data of prostate cancer (PCa) patients that underwent robot-assisted RP (RARP) from 2017 to 2021 at four European tertiary referral centers were collected retrospectively. Four previously developed nomograms for the prediction of side-specific EPE were identified and externally validated. Discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]), calibration and net benefit of four nomograms were assessed. To assess the strongest predictor among the MRI features included in all nomograms, we evaluated their association with side-specific EPE using multivariate regression analysis and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC).
RESULTS
RESULTS
This study involved 773 patients with a total of 1546 prostate lobes. EPE was found in 338 (22%) lobes. The AUCs of the models predicting EPE ranged from 72.2% (95% CI 69.1-72.3%) (Wibmer) to 75.5% (95% CI 72.5-78.5%) (Nyarangi-Dix). The nomogram with the highest AUC varied across the cohorts. The Soeterik, Nyarangi-Dix, and Martini nomograms demonstrated fair to good calibration for clinically most relevant thresholds between 5 and 30%. In contrast, the Wibmer nomogram showed substantial overestimation of EPE risk for thresholds above 25%. The Nyarangi-Dix nomogram demonstrated a higher net benefit for risk thresholds between 20 and 30% when compared to the other three nomograms. Of all MRI features, the European Society of Urogenital Radiology score and tumor capsule contact length showed the highest AUCs and lowest AIC.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The Nyarangi-Dix, Martini and Soeterik nomograms resulted in accurate EPE prediction and are therefore suitable to support medical decision-making.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37932522
doi: 10.1038/s41391-023-00738-3
pii: 10.1038/s41391-023-00738-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Investigateurs
L Bianchi
(L)
F Ceci
(F)
P K-F Chiu
(PK)
F Giganti
(F)
I Heidegger
(I)
V Kasivisvanathan
(V)
C V Kesch
(CV)
G Marra
(G)
A Martini
(A)
J Olivier
(J)
F Preisser
(F)
P Rajwa
(P)
K Aas
(K)
U G Falagario
(UG)
V Fasulo
(V)
M Maggi
(M)
I Puche Sanz
(IP)
M C Roesch
(MC)
A Sigle
(A)
T Soeterik
(T)
L F Stolzenbach
(LF)
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Feng TS, Sharif-Afshar AR, Wu J, Li Q, Luthringer D, Saouaf R, et al. Multiparametric MRI improves accuracy of clinical nomograms for predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Urology. 2015;86:332–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.003
pubmed: 26194289
Rayn KN, Bioom JB, Gold SA, Hale GR, Baiocco JA, Mehralivand S, et al. Added value of multiparametric magnetic resonance lmaging to clinical nomograms tor predicting adverse pathology in prostate cancer. J Urol. 2019;200:1041–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.094
Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, Valerio M, Mattei A, Fiori C, Roumiguié M, et al. The key combined value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging–targeted and concomitant systematic biopsies for the prediction of adverse pathological features in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatect. Eur Urol. 2020;77:733–41.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.005
pubmed: 31547938
Martini A, Gupta A, Lewis SC, Cumarasamy S, Haines KG, Briganti A, et al. Development and internal validation of a side-specific, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for the prediction of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;122:1025–33.
doi: 10.1111/bju.14353
pubmed: 29676063
Nyarangi-Dix J, Wiesenfarth M, Bonekamp D, Hitthaler B, Schütz V, Dieffenbacher S, et al. Combined clinical parameters and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the prediction of extraprostatic disease—a risk model for patient-tailored risk stratification when planning radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6:1205–12.
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.11.004
pubmed: 30477971
Soeterik TFW, Van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM, Küsters-Vandevelde HVN, Stomps S, Schoots IG, et al. Development and external validation of a novel nomogram to predict side-specific extraprostatic extension in patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;S2588-9311.
Wibmer AG, Kattan MW, Alessandrino F, Baur ADJ, Boesen L, Franco FB, et al. International multi-site initiative to develop an mri-inclusive nomogram for side-specific prediction of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer. Cancers. 2021;13:2627.
doi: 10.3390/cancers13112627
pubmed: 34071842
pmcid: 8198352
Bleeker SE, Moll HA, Steyerberg EW, Donders ART, Derksen-Lubsen G, Grobbee DE, et al. External validation is necessary in prediction research: A clinical example. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:826–32.
doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00207-5
pubmed: 14505766
Siontis GCM, Tzoulaki I, Castaldi PJ, Ioannidis JPA. External validation of new risk prediction models is infrequent and reveals worse prognostic discrimination. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:25–34.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.007
pubmed: 25441703
Soeterik TFW, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM, Küsters-Vandevelde H, Stomps S, Schoots IG, et al. Development and external validation of a novel nomogram to predict side-specific extraprostatic extension in patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022;5:328–37.
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.008
pubmed: 32972895
Diamand R, Roche JB, Lievore E, Lacetera V, Chiacchio G, Beatrici V, et al. External validation of models for prediction of side-specific extracapsular extension in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9:309–16.
Veerman H, Heymans MW, van der Poel HG. External validation of a prediction model for side-specific extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer at robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;37:50–52.
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.12.010
pubmed: 35243390
pmcid: 8883192
Blas L, Shiota M, Nagakawa S, Tsukahara S, Matsumoto T, Lee K, et al. Validation of user-friendly models predicting extracapsular extension in prostate cancer patients. Asian J Urol. 2023;10:81–88.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2022.02.008
pubmed: 36721693
Soeterik TFW, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM, Küsters-Vandevelde HVN, Biesma DH, Witjes JA, et al. External validation of the Martini nomogram for prediction of side-specific extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urologic Oncol: Semin Original Investig. 2020;38:372–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.12.028
Baco E, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Eggesbø HB, Hung AJ, et al. Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging determined tumor contact length for extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193:466–72.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.08.084
pubmed: 25150643
Eurboonyanun K, Pisuchpen N, O’Shea A, Lahoud RM, Atre ID, Harisinghani M. The absolute tumor-capsule contact length in the diagnosis of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol. 2021;46:4014–24.
doi: 10.1007/s00261-021-03063-2
Li W, Dong A, Hong G, Shang W, Shen X. Diagnostic performance of ESUR scoring system for extraprostatic prostate cancer extension: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2021;143:109896.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109896
pubmed: 34416449
Asfuroğlu U, Asfuroğlu BB, Özer H, Gönül İI, Tokgöz N, İnan MA, et al. Which one is better for predicting extraprostatic extension on multiparametric MRI: ESUR score, Likert scale, tumor contact length, or EPE grade? Eur J Radiol. 2022;149:110228.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110228
pubmed: 35255320
Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, Lebastchi AH, Mehralivand S, Gomella PT, et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2020;382:917–28.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038
pubmed: 32130814
pmcid: 7323919
Padhani AR, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, Turkbey B, Barentsz J. Prostate imaging-reporting and data system steering committee: PI-RADS v2 status update and future directions. Eur Urol. 2019;75:385–96.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.035
pubmed: 29908876
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. 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.
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
pubmed: 26492179
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, 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;76:340–51.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
pubmed: 30898406
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:746–57.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
pubmed: 22322308
pmcid: 3297750
Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement. Eur Urol. 2015;67:1142–51.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.025
pubmed: 25572824
Van Calster B, Wynants L, Verbeek JFM, Verbakel JY, Christodoulou E, Vickers AJ, et al. Reporting and interpreting decision curve analysis: a guide for investigators. Eur Urol. 2018;74:796–804.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.038
pubmed: 30241973
pmcid: 6261531
Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw 2011;45:1–67.
doi: 10.18637/jss.v045.i03
Hou Y, Zhang YH, Bao J, Bao ML, Yang G, Shi HB, et al. Artificial intelligence is a promising prospect for the detection of prostate cancer extracapsular extension with mpMRI: a two-center comparative study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:3805–16.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-021-05381-5
pubmed: 34018011
Cuocolo R, Stanzione A, Faletti R, Gatti M, Calleris G, Fornari A, et al. MRI index lesion radiomics and machine learning for detection of extraprostatic extension of disease: a multicenter study. Eur Radiol. 2021;31:7575–83.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07856-3
pubmed: 33792737
pmcid: 8452573
Solari EL, Gafita A, Schachoff S, Bogdanović B, Villagrán Asiares A, Amiel T, et al. The added value of PSMA PET/MR radiomics for prostate cancer staging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49:527–38.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-021-05430-z
pubmed: 34255130
Nguyen LN, Head L, Witiuk K, Punjani N, Mallick R, Cnossen S, et al. The risks and benefits of cavernous neurovascular bundle sparing during radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2017;198:760–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.3344
pubmed: 28286069
Soeterik TFW, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM, Stomps S, Witjes JA, van Basten JPA. Nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy increases the risk of ipsilateral positive surgical margins. J Urol. 2020;204:91–95.
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000760
pubmed: 31971494
Heetman JG, Soeterik TFW, Wever L, Meyer AR, Nuininga JE, van Soest RJ, et al. A side-specific nomogram for extraprostatic extension may reduce the positive surgical margin rate in radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2022;40:2919–24.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04191-0
pubmed: 36344738
Christophe C, Montagne S, Bourrelier S, Roupret M, Barret E, Rozet F, et al. Prostate cancer local staging using biparametric MRI: assessment and comparison with multiparametric MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2020;132:109350.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109350
pubmed: 33080549