The impact of prostate volume estimation on the risk-adapted biopsy decision based on prostate-specific antigen density and magnetic resonance imaging score.
MRI
Prostate cancer
Segmentation
Transrectal ultrasound
Volume estimation
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 May 2024
15 May 2024
Historique:
received:
20
11
2023
accepted:
25
03
2024
medline:
15
5
2024
pubmed:
15
5
2024
entrez:
15
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Utility of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAd) for risk-stratification to avoid unnecessary biopsy remains unclear due to the lack of standardization of prostate volume estimation. We evaluated the impact of ellipsoidal formula using multiparametric magnetic resonance (MRI) and semi-automated segmentation using tridimensional ultrasound (3D-US) on prostate volume and PSAd estimations as well as the distribution of patients in a risk-adapted table of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). In a prospectively maintained database of 4841 patients who underwent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies, 971 met inclusions criteria. Correlation of volume estimation was assessed by Kendall's correlation coefficient and graphically represented by scatter and Bland-Altman plots. Distribution of csPCa was presented using the Schoots risk-adapted table based on PSAd and PI-RADS score. The model was evaluated using discrimination, calibration plots and decision curve analysis (DCA). Median prostate volume estimation using 3D-US was higher compared to MRI (49cc[IQR 37-68] vs 47cc[IQR 35-66], p < 0.001). Significant correlation between imaging modalities was observed (τ = 0.73[CI 0.7-0.75], p < 0.001). Bland-Altman plot emphasizes the differences in prostate volume estimation. Using the Schoots risk-adapted table, a high risk of csPCa was observed in PI-RADS 2 combined with high PSAd, and in all PI-RADS 4-5. The risk of csPCa was proportional to the PSAd for PI-RADS 3 patients. Good accuracy (AUC of 0.69 and 0.68 using 3D-US and MRI, respectively), adequate calibration and a higher net benefit when using 3D-US for probability thresholds above 25% on DCA. Prostate volume estimation with semi-automated segmentation using 3D-US should be preferred to the ellipsoidal formula (MRI) when evaluating PSAd and the risk of csPCa.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38747982
doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-04962-x
pii: 10.1007/s00345-024-04962-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
322Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: Globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71:209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
doi: 10.3322/caac.21660
pubmed: 33538338
Omri N, Kamil M, Alexander K et al (2020) Association between PSA density and pathologically significant prostate cancer: the impact of prostate volume. Prostate 80:1444–1449. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24078
doi: 10.1002/pros.24078
pubmed: 32970856
Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K et al (2017) Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients. BJU Int 119:225–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13465
doi: 10.1111/bju.13465
pubmed: 26935594
EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2023. ISBN 978-94-92671-19-6
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU et al (2013) Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 64:876–892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049
pubmed: 23787356
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 127:175–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15277
doi: 10.1111/bju.15277
pubmed: 33089586
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
pubmed: 26427566
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
pubmed: 30898406
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z
pubmed: 32424596
pmcid: 7476997
Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Eur Urol 67:1142–1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.025
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.025
pubmed: 25572824
Roehrborn CG, Girman CJ, Rhodes T et al (1997) Correlation between prostate size estimated by digital rectal examination and measured by transrectal ultrasound. Urology 49:548–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00031-9
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00031-9
pubmed: 9111624
Lin Y-T, Hung S-W, Chiu K-Y et al (2023) Assessment of prostate volume and prostate-specific antigen density with the segmentation method on magnetic resonance imaging. In Vivo 37:786–793. https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.13142
doi: 10.21873/invivo.13142
pubmed: 36881046
pmcid: 10026687
Choe S, Patel HD, Lanzotti N et al (2023) MRI vs transrectal ultrasound to estimate prostate volume and PSAD: impact on prostate cancer detection. Urology 171:172–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.09.007
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.09.007
pubmed: 36152871
Paterson NR, Lavallée LT, Nguyen LN et al (2016) Prostate volume estimations using magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound compared to radical prostatectomy specimens. Can Urol Assoc J 10:264. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3236
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.3236
pubmed: 27878049
pmcid: 5110405
Hong MKH, Yao HHI, Rzetelski-West K et al (2012) Prostate weight is the preferred measure of prostate size in radical prostatectomy cohorts. BJU Int 109:57–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11049.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11049.x
pubmed: 22458496
Rodriguez E, Skarecky D, Narula N, Ahlering TE (2008) Prostate volume estimation using the ellipsoid formula consistently underestimates actual gland size. J Urol 179:501–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.083
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.083
pubmed: 18076916
Sandberg M, Whitman W, Rong A et al (2023) Is transrectal ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging better at estimating prostatic volume for patients with prostate cancer? J Clin Oncol 41:314–314. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2023.41.6_suppl.314
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.6_suppl.314
Turkbey B, Fotin SV, Huang RJ et al (2013) Fully automated prostate segmentation on MRI: comparison with manual segmentation methods and specimen volumes. Am J Roentgenol 201:W720–W729. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9712
doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.9712
Belue MJ, Turkbey B (2022) Tasks for artificial intelligence in prostate MRI. Eur Radiol Exp 6:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-022-00287-9
doi: 10.1186/s41747-022-00287-9
pubmed: 35908102
pmcid: 9339059
Turkbey B, Haider MA (2022) Deep learning-based artificial intelligence applications in prostate MRI: brief summary. Br J Radiol 95:20210563. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20210563
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210563
pubmed: 34860562
Oerther B, Engel H, Bamberg F et al (2022) Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 25:256–263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1
doi: 10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1
pubmed: 34230616
Ploussard G, Fiard G, Barret E et al (2022) French AFU cancer committee guidelines—update 2022–2024: prostate cancer—diagnosis and management of localised disease. Prog En Urol 32:1275–1372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2022.07.148
doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2022.07.148
Schoots IG (2018) MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions? Transl Androl Urol 7:70–82. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.12.31
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.12.31
pubmed: 29594022
pmcid: 5861283
Oderda M, Albisinni S, Benamran D et al (2023) Accuracy of elastic fusion biopsy: comparing prostate cancer detection between targeted and systematic biopsy. Prostate 83:162–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24449
doi: 10.1002/pros.24449
pubmed: 36259316
Morote J, Campistol M, Triquell M et al (2022) Improving the early detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in men in the challenging prostate imaging-reporting and data system 3 category. Eur Urol Open Sci 37:38–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2021.12.009
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.12.009
pubmed: 35243388
pmcid: 8883194
Kawada T, Yanagisawa T, Rajwa P et al (2022) Diagnostic performance of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography–targeted biopsy for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 5:390–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2022.04.006
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.04.006
pubmed: 35715320
Windisch O, Benamran D, Dariane C et al (2023) Role of the prostate imaging quality PI-QUAL score for prostate magnetic resonance image quality in pathological upstaging after radical prostatectomy: a multicentre european study. Eur Urol Open Sci 47:94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.11.013
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.11.013
pubmed: 36601048