Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Predictive Models for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

被引:18
作者
Triquell, Marina [1 ,2 ]
Campistol, Miriam [1 ,2 ]
Celma, Ana [1 ,2 ]
Regis, Lucas [1 ,2 ]
Cuadras, Merce [1 ,2 ]
Planas, Jacques [1 ,2 ]
Trilla, Enrique [1 ,2 ]
Morote, Juan [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Vall dHebron Univ Hosp, Dept Urol, Barcelona 08035, Spain
[2] Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Dept Surg, E-08193 Barcelona, Spain
关键词
prostate cancer; magnetic resonance imaging; predictive model; risk calculator; ISUP CONSENSUS CONFERENCE; PI-RADS V2; INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY; RISK CALCULATOR; BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; TRIAL; MRI; PREVENTION; GUIDELINES;
D O I
10.3390/cancers14194747
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Simple Summary Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has allowed the early detection of PCa to evolve towards clinically significant PCa (csPCa), decreasing unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdetection of insignificant tumours. MRI identifies suspicious lesions of csPCa, predicting the semi-quantitative risk through the prostate imaging report and data system (PI-RADS), and enables guided biopsies, increasing the sensitivity of csPCa. Predictive models that individualise the risk of csPCa have also evolved adding PI-RADS score (MRI-PMs), improving the selection of candidates for prostate biopsy beyond the PI-RADS category. During the last five years, many MRI-PMs have been developed. Our objective is to analyse the current developed MRI-PMs and define their clinical usefulness through a systematic review. We have found high heterogeneity between MRI technique, PI-RADS versions, biopsy schemes and approaches, and csPCa definitions. MRI-PMs outperform the selection of candidates for prostate biopsy beyond MRI alone and PMs based on clinical predictors. However, few developed MRI-PMs are externally validated or have available risk calculators (RCs), which constitute the appropriate requirements used in routine clinical practice. MRI can identify suspicious lesions, providing the semi-quantitative risk of csPCa through the Prostate Imaging-Report and Data System (PI-RADS). Predictive models of clinical variables that individualise the risk of csPCa have been developed by adding PI-RADS score (MRI-PMs). Our objective is to analyse the current developed MRI-PMs and define their clinical usefulness. A systematic review was performed after a literature search performed by two independent investigators in PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases, with the Medical Subjects Headings (MESH): predictive model, nomogram, risk model, magnetic resonance imaging, PI-RADS, prostate cancer, and prostate biopsy. This review was made following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria and studied eligibility based on the Participants, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes (PICO) strategy. Among 723 initial identified registers, 18 studies were finally selected. Warp analysis of selected studies was performed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Clinical predictors in addition to the PI-RADS score in developed MRI-PMs were age, PCa family history, digital rectal examination, biopsy status (initial vs. repeat), ethnicity, serum PSA, prostate volume measured by MRI, or calculated PSA density. All MRI-PMs improved the prediction of csPCa made by clinical predictors or imaging alone and achieved most areas under the curve between 0.78 and 0.92. Among 18 developed MRI-PMs, 7 had any external validation, and two RCs were available. The updated PI-RADS version 2 was exclusively used in 11 MRI-PMs. The performance of MRI-PMs according to PI-RADS was only analysed in a single study. We conclude that MRI-PMs improve the selection of candidates for prostate biopsy beyond the PI-RADS category. However, few developed MRI-PMs meet the appropriate requirements in routine clinical practice.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 80 条
[1]   Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study [J].
Ahmed, Hashim U. ;
Bosaily, Ahmed El-Shater ;
Brown, Louise C. ;
Gabe, Rhian ;
Kaplan, Richard ;
Parmar, Mahesh K. ;
Collaco-Moraes, Yolanda ;
Ward, Katie ;
Hindley, Richard G. ;
Freeman, Alex ;
Kirkham, Alex P. ;
Oldroyd, Robert ;
Parker, Chris ;
Emberton, Mark .
LANCET, 2017, 389 (10071) :815-822
[2]   Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer Following Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators [J].
Alberts, Arnout R. ;
Roobol, Monique J. ;
Verbeek, Jan F. M. ;
Schoots, Ivo G. ;
Chiu, Peter K. ;
Osses, Daniel F. ;
Tijsterman, Jasper D. ;
Beerlage, Harrie P. ;
Mannaerts, Christophe K. ;
Schimmoeller, Lars ;
Albers, Peter ;
Arsov, Christian .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2019, 75 (02) :310-318
[3]   Combined Systematic and MRI-US Fusion Prostate Biopsy Has the Highest Grading Accuracy When Compared to Final Pathology [J].
Andras, Iulia ;
Cata, Emanuel Darius ;
Serban, Andreea ;
Kadula, Pierre ;
Telecan, Teodora ;
Buzoianu, Maximilian ;
Bungardean, Maria ;
Stanca, Dan Vasile ;
Coman, Ioan ;
Crisan, Nicolae .
MEDICINA-LITHUANIA, 2021, 57 (06)
[4]   A Contemporary Prostate Biopsy Risk Calculator Based on Multiple Heterogeneous Cohorts [J].
Ankerst, Donna P. ;
Straubinger, Johanna ;
Selig, Katharina ;
Guerrios, Lourdes ;
De Hoedt, Amanda ;
Hernandez, Javier ;
Liss, Michael A. ;
Leach, Robin J. ;
Freedland, Stephen J. ;
Kattan, Michael W. ;
Nam, Robert ;
Haese, Alexander ;
Montorsi, Francesco ;
Boorjian, Stephen A. ;
Cooperberg, Matthew R. ;
Poyet, Cedric ;
Vertosick, Emily ;
Vickers, Andrew J. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2018, 74 (02) :197-203
[5]   Deep Learning Improves Speed and Accuracy of Prostate Gland Segmentations on Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Targeted Biopsy [J].
不详 .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2021, 206 (03) :604-604
[6]   A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric prostate MRI for prostate cancer in men at risk [J].
Bass, E. J. ;
Pantovic, A. ;
Connor, M. ;
Gabe, R. ;
Padhani, A. R. ;
Rockall, A. ;
Sokhi, H. ;
Tam, H. ;
Winkler, M. ;
Ahmed, H. U. .
PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2021, 24 (03) :596-611
[7]   Serum and urine biomarkers for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer [J].
Becerra, Maria F. ;
Atluri, Venkatasai S. ;
Bhattu, Amit S. ;
Punnen, Sanoj .
UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2021, 39 (10) :686-690
[8]   Selective identification and localization of indolent and aggressive prostate cancers via CorrSigNIA: an MRI-pathology correlation and deep learning framework [J].
Bhattacharya, Indrani ;
Seetharaman, Arun ;
Kunder, Christian ;
Shao, Wei ;
Chen, Leo C. ;
Soerensen, Simon J. C. ;
Wang, Jeffrey B. ;
Teslovich, Nikola C. ;
Fan, Richard E. ;
Ghanouni, Pejman ;
Brooks, James D. ;
Sonn, Geoffrey A. ;
Rusu, Mirabela .
MEDICAL IMAGE ANALYSIS, 2022, 75
[9]   Update of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer [J].
Bjurlin, Marc A. ;
Carroll, Peter R. ;
Eggener, Scott ;
Fulgham, Pat F. ;
Margolis, Daniel J. ;
Pinto, Peter A. ;
Rosenkrantz, Andrew B. ;
Rubenstein, Jonathan N. ;
Rukstalis, Daniel B. ;
Taneja, Samir S. ;
Turkbey, Baris .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 203 (04) :706-712
[10]   Predicting Benign Prostate Pathology on Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy in Men with a Prior Negative 12-core Systematic Biopsy: External Validation of a Prognostic Nomogram [J].
Bjurlin, Marc A. ;
Renson, Audrey ;
Rais-Bahrami, Soroush ;
Truong, Matthew ;
Rosenkrantz, Andrew B. ;
Huang, Richard ;
Taneja, Samir S. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2019, 5 (05) :815-822