Refining clinically relevant cut-offs of prostate specific antigen density for risk stratification in patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions.

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:
24 Jul 2024

Historique:

received: 19 05 2024

accepted: 08 07 2024

revised: 30 06 2024

medline: 26 7 2024

pubmed: 26 7 2024

entrez: 24 7 2024

Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 lesions, identified through multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), present a clinical challenge due to their equivocal nature in predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Aim of the study is to improve risk stratification of patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions and candidates for prostate biopsy. A cohort of 4841 consecutive patients who underwent MRI and subsequent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies between January 2016 and April 2023 were retrospectively identified from independent prospectively maintained database. Only patients who have PI-RADS 3 lesions were included in the final analysis. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify covariables associated with csPCa defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group ≥2. Performance of the model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration, and net benefit. Significant predictors were then selected for further exploration using a Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID) analysis. Overall, 790 patients had PI-RADS 3 lesions and 151 (19%) had csPCa. Significant associations were observed for age (OR: 1.1 [1.0-1.1]; p = 0.01) and PSA density (OR: 1643 [2717-41,997]; p < 0.01). The CHAID analysis identified PSAd as the sole significant factor influencing the decision tree. Cut-offs for PSAd were 0.13 ng/ml/cc (csPCa detection rate of 1% vs. 18%) for the two-nodes model and 0.09 ng/ml/cc and 0.16 ng/ml/cc for the three-nodes model (csPCa detection rate of 0.5% vs. 2% vs. 17%). For individuals with PI-RADS 3 lesions on prostate mpMRI and a PSAd below 0.13, especially below 0.09, prostate biopsy can be omitted, in order to avoid unnecessary biopsy and overdiagnosis of non-csPCa.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

METHODS METHODS

A cohort of 4841 consecutive patients who underwent MRI and subsequent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies between January 2016 and April 2023 were retrospectively identified from independent prospectively maintained database. Only patients who have PI-RADS 3 lesions were included in the final analysis. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify covariables associated with csPCa defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group ≥2. Performance of the model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration, and net benefit. Significant predictors were then selected for further exploration using a Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID) analysis.

RESULTS RESULTS

Overall, 790 patients had PI-RADS 3 lesions and 151 (19%) had csPCa. Significant associations were observed for age (OR: 1.1 [1.0-1.1]; p = 0.01) and PSA density (OR: 1643 [2717-41,997]; p < 0.01). The CHAID analysis identified PSAd as the sole significant factor influencing the decision tree. Cut-offs for PSAd were 0.13 ng/ml/cc (csPCa detection rate of 1% vs. 18%) for the two-nodes model and 0.09 ng/ml/cc and 0.16 ng/ml/cc for the three-nodes model (csPCa detection rate of 0.5% vs. 2% vs. 17%).

CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with PI-RADS 3 lesions on prostate mpMRI and a PSAd below 0.13, especially below 0.09, prostate biopsy can be omitted, in order to avoid unnecessary biopsy and overdiagnosis of non-csPCa.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00872-6 PMID: 39048664

pubmed: 39048664

doi: 10.1038/s41391-024-00872-6

pii: 10.1038/s41391-024-00872-6

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Informations de copyright

Références

Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389:815–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1

doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1 pubmed: 28110982

Zhang Y, Zeng N, Zhang F, Huang Y, Tian Y. How to make clinical decisions to avoid unnecessary prostate screening in biopsy-naïve men with PI-RADs v2 score ≤ 3? Int J Clin Oncol. 2020;25:175–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-019-01524-9

doi: 10.1007/s10147-019-01524-9 pubmed: 31473884

Wysock JS, Mendhiratta N, Zattoni F, Meng X, Bjurlin M, Huang WC, et al. Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate on 12-core biopsy results. BJU Int. 2016;118:515–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13427

doi: 10.1111/bju.13427 pubmed: 26800439

Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, Haber G-P, Leroy X, Jones JS, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int. 2011;108:E171–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10112.x

doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10112.x pubmed: 21426475

Hamoen EHJ, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;67:1112–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.033

doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.033 pubmed: 25466942

EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer - Uroweb. Uroweb - Eur Assoc Urol n.d. https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer#4 . Accessed 21 May 2023.

Purysko AS, Rosenkrantz AB, Turkbey IB, Macura KJ. RadioGraphics update: PI-RADS Version 2.1—a pictorial update. RadioGraphics. 2020;40:E33–7. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2020190207

doi: 10.1148/rg.2020190207 pubmed: 33136475

Oerther B, Engel H, Bamberg F, Sigle A, Gratzke C, Benndorf M. 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. 2022;25:256–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1

doi: 10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1 pubmed: 34230616

Schoots IG. MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions? Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7:70–82. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.12.31

doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.12.31 pubmed: 29594022 pmcid: 5861283

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;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, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033

doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033 pubmed: 30898406

Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, 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;40:244–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530

doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530 pubmed: 26492179

Riley RD, Ensor J, Snell KIE, Harrell FE, Martin GP, Reitsma JB, et al. Calculating the sample size required for developing a clinical prediction model. BMJ. 2020;368:m441. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m441

doi: 10.1136/bmj.m441. pubmed: 32188600

Zeng J, Cheng Q, Zhang D, Fan M, Shi C, Luo L. Diagnostic ability of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer in equivocal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2021;11:620628.

doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.620628 pubmed: 33680965 pmcid: 7933498

Hong SK, Song SH, Kim HJ, Lee HS, Nam JH, Lee SB. Temporal changes of PIRADS scoring by radiologists and correlation to radical prostatectomy pathological outcomes. Prostate Int. 2022;10:188–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2022.07.001

doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2022.07.001 pubmed: 36570646 pmcid: 9747593

Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Brunckhorst O, Darraugh J, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2024 update. Part I: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2024:S0302-2838(24)02254-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027

Boschheidgen M, Schimmöller L, Doerfler S, Al-Monajjed R, Morawitz J, Ziayee F, et al. Single center analysis of an advisable control interval for follow-up of patients with PI-RADS category 3 in multiparametric MRI of the prostate. Sci Rep. 2022;12:6746 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10859-9

doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-10859-9 pubmed: 35469056 pmcid: 9038748

Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JGR, van der Leest M, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Barentsz JO, et al. Results of targeted biopsy in men with magnetic resonance imaging lesions classified equivocal, likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2018;73:353–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.021

doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.021 pubmed: 28258784

Szempliński S, Kamecki H, Dębowska M, Zagożdżon B, Mokrzyś M, Zawadzki M, et al. Predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with PIRADS categories 3–5 undergoing magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate. J Clin Med. 2023;12:156 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010156

doi: 10.3390/jcm12010156

Felker ER, Raman SS, Margolis DJ, Lu DSK, Shaheen N, Natarajan S, et al. Risk stratification among men with prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 category 3 transition zone lesions: is biopsy always necessary? Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209:1272–7. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18008

doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18008

Sheridan AD, Nath SK, Syed JS, Aneja S, Sprenkle PC, Weinreb JC, et al. Risk of clinically significant prostate cancer associated with prostate imaging reporting and data system category 3 (equivocal) lesions identified on multiparametric prostate MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210:347–57. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18516

doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18516

Schoots IG, Padhani AR. 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. 2021;127:175–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15277

doi: 10.1111/bju.15277 pubmed: 33089586

Kim TJ, Lee MS, Hwang SI, Lee HJ, Hong SK. Outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging fusion-targeted biopsy of prostate imaging reporting and data system 3 lesions. World J Urol. 2019;37:1581–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2565-3

doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2565-3 pubmed: 30460594

Aussavavirojekul P, Hoonlor A, Srinualnad S. Optimization of clinical risk-factor interpretation and radiological findings with machine learning for PIRADS category 3 patients. Prostate. 2022;82:235–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24266

doi: 10.1002/pros.24266 pubmed: 34783053

Ferro M, Crocetto F, La Civita E, Fiorenza M, Jannuzzi G, Carbone G, et al. Serum (-2)proPSA/freePSAratio, (-2)proPSA/freePSA density, prostate health index, and prostate health index density as clues to reveal postoperative clinically significant prostate cancer in men with prostate-specific antigen 2-10ng/mL. Prostate. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24752

Ferro M, Crocetto F, Bruzzese D, Imbriaco M, Fusco F, Longo N, et al. Prostate health index and multiparametric MRI: partners in crime fighting overdiagnosis and overtreatment in prostate cancer. Cancers. 2021;13:4723. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13184723

doi: 10.3390/cancers13184723 pubmed: 34572950 pmcid: 8466029

Wetterauer C, Matthias M, Pueschel H, Deckart A, Bubendorf L, Mortezavi A, et al. Opportunistic prostate cancer screening with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (VISIONING). Eur Urol Focus. 2024:S2405-4569(24)00023-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2024.02.006