Reduction of false positives using zone-specific prostate-specific antigen density for prostate MRI-based biopsy decision strategies.
Clinical decision-making
Image-guided biopsy
Magnetic resonance imaging
Prostate-specific antigen density
Prostatic neoplasms
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Mar 2024
28 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
03
11
2023
accepted:
22
02
2024
revised:
19
02
2024
medline:
28
3
2024
pubmed:
28
3
2024
entrez:
28
3
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To develop and test zone-specific prostate-specific antigen density (sPSAD) combined with PI-RADS to guide prostate biopsy decision strategies (BDS). This retrospective study included consecutive patients, who underwent prostate MRI and biopsy (01/2012-10/2018). The whole gland and transition zone (TZ) were segmented at MRI using a retrained deep learning system (DLS; nnU-Net) to calculate PSAD and sPSAD, respectively. Additionally, sPSAD and PI-RADS were combined in a BDS, and diagnostic performances to detect Grade Group ≥ 2 (GG ≥ 2) prostate cancer were compared. Patient-based cancer detection using sPSAD was assessed by bootstrapping with 1000 repetitions and reported as area under the curve (AUC). Clinical utility of the BDS was tested in the hold-out test set using decision curve analysis. Statistics included nonparametric DeLong test for AUCs and Fisher-Yates test for remaining performance metrics. A total of 1604 patients aged 67 (interquartile range, 61-73) with 48% GG ≥ 2 prevalence (774/1604) were evaluated. By employing DLS-based prostate and TZ volumes (DICE coefficients of 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.97) and 0.84 (0.70-0.99)), GG ≥ 2 detection using PSAD was inferior to sPSAD (AUC, 0.71 (0.68-0.74)/0.73 (0.70-0.76); p < 0.001). Combining PI-RADS with sPSAD, GG ≥ 2 detection specificity doubled from 18% (10-20%) to 43% (30-44%; p < 0.001) with similar sensitivity (93% (89-96%)/97% (94-99%); p = 0.052), when biopsies were taken in PI-RADS 4-5 and 3 only if sPSAD was ≥ 0.42 ng/mL/cc as compared to all PI-RADS 3-5 cases. Additionally, using the sPSAD-based BDS, false positives were reduced by 25% (123 (104-142)/165 (146-185); p < 0.001). Using sPSAD to guide biopsy decisions in PI-RADS 3 lesions can reduce false positives at MRI while maintaining high sensitivity for GG ≥ 2 cancers. Transition zone-specific prostate-specific antigen density can improve the accuracy of prostate cancer detection compared to MRI assessments alone, by lowering false-positive cases without significantly missing men with ISUP GG ≥ 2 cancers. • Prostate biopsy decision strategies using PI-RADS at MRI are limited by a substantial proportion of false positives, not yielding grade group ≥ 2 prostate cancer. • PI-RADS combined with transition zone (TZ)-specific prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) decreased the number of unproductive biopsies by 25% compared to PI-RADS only. • TZ-specific PSAD also improved the specificity of MRI-directed biopsies by 9% compared to the whole gland PSAD, while showing identical sensitivity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38538841
doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10700-z
pii: 10.1007/s00330-024-10700-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Drost FJH, Osses DF, Nieboer D et al (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Systemat Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2
Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G et al (2019) PI-RADS steering committee: the PI-RADS multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed biopsy pathway. Radiology 292:464–474
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182946
pubmed: 31184561
NICE Guideline NG131. Prostate caner: diagnosis and management. Updated December 15
Mottet N, van den Bergh RC, Briers E et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 79:243–262
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
pubmed: 33172724
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 76:340–351
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
pubmed: 30898406
Schoots IG, Padhani AR (2020) Personalizing prostate cancer diagnosis with multivariate risk prediction tools: how should prostate MRI be incorporated? World J Urol 38:531–545
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02899-0
pubmed: 31399825
Barkovich EJ, Shankar PR, Westphalen AC (2019) A systematic review of the existing prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADSv2) literature and subset meta-analysis of PI-RADSv2 categories stratified by Gleason scores. AJR Am J Roentgenol 212:847–854
doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20571
pubmed: 30807218
Hansen NL, Barrett T, Kesch C et al (2018) Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BJU Int 122:40–49
doi: 10.1111/bju.14049
pubmed: 29024425
Falagario UG, Martini A, Wajswol E et al (2020) Avoiding unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biopsies: negative and positive predictive value of MRI according to prostate-specific antigen density, 4Kscore and risk calculators. Eur Urol Oncol 3:700–704
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.015
pubmed: 31548130
Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ et al (2004) Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level≤ 4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 350:2239–2246
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa031918
pubmed: 15163773
Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V et al (2019) Prebiopsy biparametric magnetic resonance imaging combined with prostate-specific antigen density in detecting and ruling out Gleason 7–10 prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. Eur Urol Oncol 2:311–319
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.001
pubmed: 31200846
Fascelli M, Rais-Bahrami S, Sankineni S et al (2016) Combined biparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen in the detection of prostate cancer: a validation study in a biopsy-naive patient population. Urology 88:125–134
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.09.035
pubmed: 26680244
Knaapila J, Jambor I, Perez IM et al (2020) Prebiopsy IMPROD biparametric magnetic resonance imaging combined with prostate-specific antigen density in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: an external validation study. Eur Urol Oncol 3:648–656
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.008
pubmed: 31501082
Van Poppel H, Roobol MJ, Chapple CR et al (2021) Prostate-specific antigen testing as part of a risk-adapted early detection strategy for prostate cancer: European Association of Urology position and recommendations for 2021. Eur Urol 80:703–711
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.07.024
pubmed: 34407909
Maggi M, Panebianco V, Mosca A et al (2020) Prostate imaging reporting and data system 3 category cases at multiparametric magnetic resonance for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus 6:463–478
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.06.014
pubmed: 31279677
Yusim I, Krenawi M, Mazor E, Novack V, Mabjeesh NJ (2020) The use of prostate specific antigen density to predict clinically significant prostate cancer. Sci Rep 10:1–6
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76786-9
Schoots IG, Padhani AR (2021) Risk-adapted biopsy decision based on prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density for enhanced biopsy avoidance in first prostate cancer diagnostic evaluation. BJU Int 127:175
doi: 10.1111/bju.15277
pubmed: 33089586
Dianat SS, Ruiz RMR, Bonekamp D, Carter HB, Macura KJ (2013) Prostate volumetric assessment by magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound: impact of variation in calculated prostate-specific antigen density on patient eligibility for active surveillance program. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:589–595
doi: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e318296af5f
pubmed: 23863537
Hamzaoui D, Montagne S, Granger B et al (2022) Prostate volume prediction on MRI: tools, accuracy and variability. Eur Radiol:1-11
Ko JS, Landis P, Carter HB, Partin AW (2011) Effect of intra-observer variation in prostate volume measurement on prostate-specific antigen density calculations among prostate cancer active surveillance participants. BJU Int 108:1739–1742
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10223.x
pubmed: 21736692
Lee JS, Chung BH (2007) Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostate volume as compared with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Int 78:323–327
doi: 10.1159/000100836
pubmed: 17495490
Kalish J, Cooner WH, Graham SD Jr (1994) Serum PSA adjusted for volume of transition zone (PSAT) is more accurate than PSA adjusted for total gland volume (PSAD) in detecting adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urology 43:601–606
doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(94)90170-8
pubmed: 7513104
Nadler RB, Humphrey PA, Smith DS, Catalona WJ, Ratliff TL (1995) Effect of inflammation and benign prostatic hyperplasia on elevated serum prostate specific antigen levels. J Urol 154:407–413
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)67064-2
pubmed: 7541857
Castro HA, Iared W, Santos JEM, Solha RS, Shigueoka DC, Ajzen SA (2018) Impact of PSA density of transition zone as a potential parameter in reducing the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies in patients with PSA levels between 2.6 and 10.0 ng/mL. Int Braz J Urol 44:709–716
doi: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2017.0506
pubmed: 29697929
pmcid: 6092659
Sunoqrot MR, Saha A, Hosseinzadeh M, Elschot M, Huisman H (2022) Artificial intelligence for prostate MRI: open datasets, available applications, and grand challenges. Eur Radiol Exp 6:1–13
doi: 10.1186/s41747-022-00288-8
Aldoj N, Biavati F, Michallek F, Stober S, Dewey M (2020) Automatic prostate and prostate zones segmentation of magnetic resonance images using DenseNet-like U-net. Sci Rep 10:14315
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71080-0
pubmed: 32868836
pmcid: 7459118
Cuocolo R, Cipullo MB, Stanzione A et al (2019) Machine learning applications in prostate cancer magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol Exp 3:1–8
doi: 10.1186/s41747-019-0109-2
Cuocolo R, Comelli A, Stefano A et al (2021) Deep learning whole-gland and zonal prostate segmentation on a public MRI dataset. J Magn Reson Imaging 54:452–459
doi: 10.1002/jmri.27585
pubmed: 33634932
Thimansson E, Bengtsson J, Baubeta E et al (2023) Deep learning algorithm performs similarly to radiologists in the assessment of prostate volume on MRI. Eur Radiol 33:2519–2528
doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-09239-8
pubmed: 36371606
Hamm CA, Baumgärtner GL, Biessmann F et al (2023) Interactive explainable deep learning model informs prostate cancer diagnosis at MRI. Radiology 0:222276
Natarajan S, Priester A, Margolis D, Huang J, Marks L (2020) Prostate MRI and ultrasound with pathology and coordinates of tracked biopsy (prostate-MRI-US-biopsy). Cancer Imaging Arch 10:7937
de Rooij M, Israël B, Tummers M et al (2020) ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training. Eur Radiol 30:5404-5416 %@ 1432-1084
Franiel T, Asbach P, Beyersdorff D et al (2021) mpMRI of the prostate (MR-Prostatography): updated recommendations of the DRG and BDR on patient preparation and scanning protocol. Rofo 193:763–777
Hofbauer SL, Maxeiner A, Kittner B et al (2018) Validation of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 200:767–773
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.003
pubmed: 29733838
Wolf I, Vetter M, Wegner I et al (2005) The Medical Imaging Interaction Toolkit. Med Image Anal 9:594–604
doi: 10.1016/j.media.2005.04.005
pubmed: 15896995
Isensee F, Jaeger PF, Kohl SA, Petersen J, Maier-Hein KH (2021) nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature Meth 18:203–211
doi: 10.1038/s41592-020-01008-z
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845
Falagario UG, Jambor I, Lantz A et al (2021) Combined use of prostate-specific antigen density and magnetic resonance imaging for prostate biopsy decision planning: a retrospective multi-institutional study using the prostate magnetic resonance imaging outcome database (PROMOD). Eur Urol Oncol 4:971–979
Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L et al (2019) 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 154:811–818
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1734
pubmed: 31188412
pmcid: 6563598