Elucidating the need for prostate cancer risk calculators in conjunction with mpMRI in initial risk assessment before prostate biopsy at a tertiary prostate cancer center

被引:0
|
作者
Krausewitz, Philipp [1 ]
Buettner, Thomas [1 ]
von Danwitz, Marthe [1 ]
Weiten, Richard [1 ]
Cox, Alexander [1 ]
Kluemper, Niklas [1 ,2 ]
Stein, Johannes [1 ]
Luetkens, Julian [3 ]
Kristiansen, Glen [4 ]
Ritter, Manuel [1 ]
Ellinger, Jorg [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Bonn, Dept Urol & Pediat Urol, Bonn, Germany
[2] Univ Hosp Bonn, Inst Expt Oncol, Bonn, Germany
[3] Univ Hosp Bonn, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, Bonn, Germany
[4] Univ Hosp Bonn, Inst Pathol, Bonn, Germany
关键词
Clinically significant prostate cancer; Prostate biopsy; mpMRI; Risk calculators;
D O I
10.1186/s12894-024-01460-5
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
Objective Utilizing personalized risk assessment for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) reduces biopsies and overdiagnosis. We validated both multi- and univariate risk models in biopsy-naive men, with and without the inclusion of mpMRI data for csPCa detection. Methods N = 565 men underwent mpMRI-targeted prostate biopsy, and the diagnostic performance of risk calculators (RCs), mpMRI alone, and clinical measures were compared using receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis and decision curve analysis (DCA). Subgroups were stratified based on mpMRI findings and quality. Results csPCa was detected in 56.3%. PI-RADS score achieved the highest area under the curve (AUC) when comparing univariate risk models (AUC 0.82, p < 0.001). Multivariate RCs showed only marginal improvement in csPCa detection compared to PI-RADS score alone, with just one of four RCs showing significant superiority. In mpMRI-negative cases, the non-MRI-based RC performed best (AUC 0.80, p = 0.016), with the potential to spare biopsies for 23%. PSA-density and multivariate RCs demonstrated comparable performance for PI-RADS 3 constellation (AUC 0.65 vs. 0.60-0.65, p > 0.5; saved biopsies 16%). In men with suspicious mpMRI, both mpMRI-based RCs and the PI-RADS score predicted csPCa excellently (AUC 0.82-0.79 vs. 0.80, p > 0.05), highlighting superior performance compared to non-MRI-based models (all p < 0.002). Quality-assured imaging consistently improved csPCa risk stratification across all subgroups. Conclusion In tertiary centers serving a high-risk population, high-quality mpMRI provides a simple yet effective way to assess the risk of csPCa. Using multivariate RCs reduces multiple biopsies, especially in mpMRI-negative and PI-RADS 3 constellation.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Elucidating the need for prostate cancer risk calculators in conjunction with mpMRI in initial risk assessment before prostate biopsy at a tertiary prostate cancer center
    Philipp Krausewitz
    Thomas Büttner
    Marthe von Danwitz
    Richard Weiten
    Alexander Cox
    Niklas Klümper
    Johannes Stein
    Julian Luetkens
    Glen Kristiansen
    Manuel Ritter
    Jörg Ellinger
    BMC Urology, 24
  • [2] External validation of two mpMRI-risk calculators predicting risk of prostate cancer before biopsy
    Pallauf, Maximilian
    Steinkohl, Fabian
    Zimmermann, Georg
    Horetzky, Maximilian
    Rajwa, Pawel
    Pradere, Benjamin
    Lindner, Andrea Katharina
    Pichler, Renate
    Kunit, Thomas
    Shariat, Shahrokh F.
    Lusuardi, Lukas
    Drerup, Martin
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 40 (10) : 2451 - 2457
  • [3] External validation of two mpMRI-risk calculators predicting risk of prostate cancer before biopsy
    Maximilian Pallauf
    Fabian Steinkohl
    Georg Zimmermann
    Maximilian Horetzky
    Pawel Rajwa
    Benjamin Pradere
    Andrea Katharina Lindner
    Renate Pichler
    Thomas Kunit
    Shahrokh F. Shariat
    Lukas Lusuardi
    Martin Drerup
    World Journal of Urology, 2022, 40 : 2451 - 2457
  • [4] Clash of the calculators: External validation of prostate cancer risk calculators in men undergoing mpMRI and transperineal biopsy
    Wei, G.
    Kelly, B. D.
    Timm, B.
    Perera, M.
    Lundon, D. J.
    Jack, G.
    Bolton, D. M.
    BJUI COMPASS, 2021, 2 (03): : 194 - 201
  • [5] Defining prostate cancer risk before prostate biopsy
    Pal, Raj P.
    Maitra, Neil U.
    Mellon, J. Kilian
    Khan, Masood A.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2013, 31 (08) : 1408 - 1418
  • [6] Comparation between IPCRC (Indonesian Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator) and Western Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators for predicting prostate cancer risk
    Abshari, F.
    Yuri, P.
    Satjakoesoemah, A. I.
    Abdullah, R. R.
    Akbar, M. I.
    Wangge, G.
    Mochtar, C. A.
    Umbas, R.
    Hamid, A. R. A. H.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 117 : 18 - 18
  • [7] The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculators indicating a positive prostate biopsy: a comparison
    van den Bergh, Roderick C. N.
    Roobol, Monique J.
    Wolters, Tineke
    van Leeuwen, Pim J.
    Schroder, Fritz H.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2008, 102 (09) : 1068 - 1073
  • [8] The Next Generation of Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators
    Hermanns, Thomas
    Poyet, Cedric
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2017, 72 (06) : 897 - 898
  • [9] Can Western Based Online Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators Be Used to Predict Prostate Cancer after Prostate Biopsy for the Korean Population?
    Lee, Dong Hoon
    Jung, Ha Bum
    Park, Jae Won
    Kim, Kyu Hyun
    Kim, Jongchan
    Lee, Seung Hwan
    Chung, Byung Ha
    YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 54 (03) : 665 - 671
  • [10] PROSTATE CANCER Rescreening policies and risk calculators
    Roobol, Monique J.
    NATURE REVIEWS UROLOGY, 2014, 11 (08) : 429 - 430