Reducing prostate biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging with prostate cancer risk stratification

被引:10
作者
Davik, Petter [1 ,2 ]
Remmers, Sebastiaan [3 ]
Elschot, Mattijs [4 ,5 ]
Roobol, Monique J. [3 ]
Bathen, Tone Frost [4 ,5 ]
Bertilsson, Helena [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] NTNU Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Clin & Mol Med, Trondheim, Norway
[2] St Olavs Hosp, Dept Urol, Trondheim, Norway
[3] Univ Med Ctr Rotterdam, Erasmus MC Canc Inst, Dept Urol, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[4] NTNU Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Circulat & Med Imaging, Trondheim, Norway
[5] St Olavs Hosp, Dept Radiol & Nucl Med, Trondheim, Norway
基金
芬兰科学院;
关键词
biopsy; European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculators (ERSPC RCs); magnetic resonance imaging; MRI; prediction model; prostate cancer; risk calculator; risk stratification; EXTERNAL VALIDATION; PREDICTION; ERSPC; COMPLICATIONS; ACCURACY; MRI;
D O I
10.1002/bco2.146
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives: To recalibrate and validate the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculators (ERSPC RCs) 3/4 and the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ERSPC-RCs to a contemporary Norwegian setting to reduce upfront prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and prostate biopsies. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified and entered all men who underwent prostate mpMRI and subsequent prostate biopsy between January 2016 and March 2017 in a Norwegian centre into a database. mpMRI was reported using PI-RADS v2.0 and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) defined as Gleason >= 3+4. Probabilities of csPCa and any prostate cancer (PCa) on biopsy were calculated by the ERSPC RCs 3/4 and the MRI-ERSPC-RC and compared with biopsy results. RCs were then recalibrated to account for differences in prevalence between the development and current cohorts (if indicated), and calibration, discrimination and clinical usefulness assessed. Results: Three hundred and three patients were included. The MRI-ERSPC-RCs were perfectly calibrated to our cohort, although the ERSPC RCs 3/4 needed recalibration. Area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for the ERSPC RCs 3/4 was 0.82 for the discrimination of csPCa and 0.77 for any PCa. The AUC for the MRI-ERSPC-RCs was 0.89 for csPCa and 0.85 for any PCa. Decision curve analysis showed clear net benefit for both the ERSPC RCs 3/4 (>2% risk of csPCa threshold to biopsy) and for the MRI-ERSPC-RCs (>1% risk of csPCa threshold), with a greater net benefit for the MRI-RCs. Using a >10% risk of csPCa or 20% risk of any PCa threshold for the ERSPC RCs 3/4, 15.5% of mpMRIs could be omitted, missing 0.8% of csPCa. Using the MRI-ERSPC-RCs, 23.4% of biopsies could be omitted with the same threshold, missing 0.8% of csPCa. Conclusion: The ERSPC RCs 3/4 and MRI-ERSPC-RCs can considerably reduce both upfront mpMRI and prostate biopsies with little risk of missing csPCa.
引用
收藏
页码:344 / 353
页数:10
相关论文
共 30 条
[21]   Multivariate risk prediction tools including MRI for individualized biopsy decision in prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions [J].
Schoots, Ivo G. ;
Roobol, Monique J. .
WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 38 (03) :517-529
[22]   External validation of clinical prediction models: simulation-based sample size calculations were more reliable than rules-of-thumb [J].
Snell, Kym I. E. ;
Archer, Lucinda ;
Ensor, Joie ;
Bonnett, Laura J. ;
Debray, Thomas P. A. ;
Phillips, Bob ;
Collins, Gary S. ;
Riley, Richard D. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2021, 135 :79-89
[23]   Assessing the Performance of Prediction Models A Framework for Traditional and Novel Measures [J].
Steyerberg, Ewout W. ;
Vickers, Andrew J. ;
Cook, Nancy R. ;
Gerds, Thomas ;
Gonen, Mithat ;
Obuchowski, Nancy ;
Pencina, Michael J. ;
Kattan, Michael W. .
EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 21 (01) :128-138
[24]   Assessing prostate cancer risk: Results from the prostate cancer prevention trial [J].
Thompson, IM ;
Ankerst, DP ;
Chi, C ;
Goodman, PJ ;
Tangen, CM ;
Lucia, MS ;
Feng, ZD ;
Parnes, HL ;
Coltman, CA .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2006, 98 (08) :529-534
[25]  
van Buuren S, 2011, J STAT SOFTW, V45, P1
[26]   Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers [J].
Vickers, Andrew J. ;
Cronin, Angel M. ;
Elkin, Elena B. ;
Gonen, Mithat .
BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2008, 8 (1)
[27]   Reducing infection rates after prostate biopsy [J].
Wagenlehner, Florian M. E. ;
Pilatz, Adrian ;
Waliszewski, Przemyslaw ;
Weidner, Wolfgang ;
Johansen, Truls E. Bjerklund .
NATURE REVIEWS UROLOGY, 2014, 11 (02) :80-86
[28]   Bi- or multiparametric MRI in a sequential screening program for prostate cancer with PSA followed by MRI? Results from the Goteborg prostate cancer screening 2 trial [J].
Wallstrom, Jonas ;
Geterud, Kjell ;
Kohestani, Kimia ;
Maier, Stephan E. ;
Mansson, Marianne ;
Pihl, Carl-Gustaf ;
Socratous, Andreas ;
Arnsrud Godtman, Rebecka ;
Hellstrom, Mikael ;
Hugosson, Jonas .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2021, 31 (11) :8692-8702
[29]   PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2 [J].
Weinreb, Jeffrey C. ;
Barentsz, Jelle O. ;
Choyke, Peter L. ;
Cornud, Francois ;
Haider, Masoom A. ;
Macura, Katarzyna J. ;
Margolis, Daniel ;
Schnall, Mitchell D. ;
Shtern, Faina ;
Tempany, Clare M. ;
Thoeny, Harriet C. ;
Verma, Sadna .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (01) :16-40
[30]   Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis [J].
Woo, Sungmin ;
Suh, Chong Hyun ;
Kim, Sang Youn ;
Cho, Jeong Yeon ;
Kim, Seung Hyup .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2017, 72 (02) :177-188