Improving the Early Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men in the Challenging Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 3 Category

被引:13
|
作者
Morote, Juan [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Campistol, Miriam [2 ]
Triquell, Marina [2 ]
Celma, Anna [1 ,2 ]
Regis, Lucas [1 ,2 ]
de Torres, Ines [2 ,4 ,5 ]
Semidey, Maria E. [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Mast, Richard [3 ]
Santamaria, Anna [2 ]
Planas, Jacques [1 ,2 ]
Trilla, Enrique [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Vall dHebron Hosp, Dept Urol, Passeig Vall dHebron 119-129, Barcelona 08035, Spain
[2] Vall dHebron Res Inst, Prostate Canc Res Grp, Barcelona, Spain
[3] Vall dHebron Hosp, Dept Radiol, Barcelona, Spain
[4] Vall dHebron Hosp, Dept Pathol, Barcelona, Spain
[5] Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
来源
EUROPEAN UROLOGY OPEN SCIENCE | 2022年 / 37卷
关键词
Clinically significant prostate cancer; Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; Proclarix; Prostate-specific antigen density; European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer predictive model; MRI;
D O I
10.1016/j.euros.2021.12.009
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
Background: Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 3 is a challenging scenario for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and some tools can improve the selection of appropriate candidates for prostate biopsy. Objective: To assess the performance of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) model, the new Proclarix test, and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) in selecting candidates for prostate biopsy among men in the PI-RADS 3 category. Design, setting, and participants: We conducted a head-to-head prospective analysis of 567 men suspected of having PCa for whom guided and systematic biopsies were scheduled between January 2018 and March 2020 in a single academic institution. A PI-RADS v.2 category 3 lesion was identified in 169 men (29.8%). Outcome measurement and statistical analysis: csPCa, insignificant PCa (iPCa), and unnecessary biopsy rates were analysed. csPCa was defined as grade group >= 2. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, decision curve analysis curves, and clinical utility curves were plotted. Results and limitations: PCa was detected in 53/169 men (31.4%) with a PI-RADS 3 lesion, identified as csPCa in 25 (14.8%) and iPCa in 28 (16.6%). The area under the ROC curve for csPCa detection was 0.703 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.621-0.768) for Proclarix, 0.657 (95% CI 0.547-0.766) for the ERSPC MRI model, and 0.612 (95% CI 0.497-0.727) for PSAD (p = 0.027). The threshold with the highest sensitivity was 10% for Proclarix, 1.5% for the ERSPC MRI model, and 0.07 ng/ml/cm(3) for PSAD, which yielded sensitivity of 100%, 91%, and 84%, respectively. Some 21.3%, 26.2%, and 7.1% of biopsies would be avoided with Proclarix, PSAD, and the ERSPC MRI model, respectively. Proclarix showed a net benefit over PSAD and the ERSPC MRI model. Both Proclarix and PSAD reduced iPCa overdetection from 16.6% to 11.3%, while the ERSPC MRI model reduced iPCa overdetection to 15.4%. Conclusions: Proclarix was more accurate in selecting appropriate candidates for prostate biopsy among men in the PI-RADS 3 category when compared to PSAD and the ERSPC MRI model. Proclarix detected 100% of csPCa cases and would reduce prostate biopsies by 21.3% and iPCa overdetection by 5.3%. Patient summary: We compared three methods and found that the Proclarix test can optimise the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in men with a score of 3 on the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System for magnetic resonance imaging scans. (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.
引用
收藏
页码:38 / 44
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2: Beyond Prostate Cancer Detection
    Park, Sung Yoon
    Cho, Nam Hoon
    Jung, Dae Chul
    Oh, Young Taik
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2018, 19 (02) : 193 - 200
  • [2] A Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2.1-based predictive model for clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis
    Gelikman, David G.
    Azar, William S.
    Yilmaz, Enis C.
    Lin, Yue
    Shumaker, Luke A.
    Fang, Andrew M.
    Harmon, Stephanie A.
    Huang, Erich P.
    Parikh, Sahil H.
    Hyman, Jason A.
    Schuppe, Kyle
    Nix, Jeffrey W.
    Galgano, Samuel J.
    Merino, Maria J.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Gurram, Sandeep
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Rais-Bahrami, Soroush
    Pinto, Peter A.
    Turkbey, Baris
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2024,
  • [3] Behavior of SelectMDx and Prostate-specific Antigen Density in the Challenging Scenario of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Category 3 Lesions
    Morote, Juan
    Diaz, Fernando
    Celma, Anna
    Planas, Jacques
    Trilla, Enrique
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2022, 81 (01) : 124 - 125
  • [4] Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Associated With Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 (Equivocal) Lesions Identified on Multiparametric Prostate MRI
    Sheridan, Alison D.
    Nath, Sameer K.
    Syed, Jamil S.
    Aneja, Sanjay
    Sprenkle, Preston C.
    Weinreb, Jeffrey C.
    Spektor, Michael
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2018, 210 (02) : 347 - 357
  • [5] CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT PROSTATE CANCER DETECTION RATE OF PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM SCORE 4 IN THE PERIPHERAL ZONE
    Song, Gang
    Sun, Zhoujie
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 207 (05): : E897 - E897
  • [6] PROSTATE IMAGING-REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM VERSION 2 IN COMBINATION WITH CLINICAL PARAMETERS FOR PROSTATE CANCER DETECTION
    Wang, Lei
    Luo, Yi
    Liu, Tongzu
    Deng, Ming
    Wakimoto, Hiroaki
    Huang, Xing
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 209 : E108 - E108
  • [8] Prostate Cancer and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 Lesions Identified at Multiparametric Prostate MRI
    Ortman, Michael
    Kasson, Matthew
    Sidana, Abhinav
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2018, 210 (06) : W268 - W268
  • [9] Assessment of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 false-positive category 4 and 5 lesions in clinically significant prostate cancer
    Xiangyu Wang
    Weizong Liu
    Yi Lei
    Guangyao Wu
    Fan Lin
    Abdominal Radiology, 2021, 46 : 3410 - 3417
  • [10] Assessment of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 false-positive category 4 and 5 lesions in clinically significant prostate cancer
    Wang, Xiangyu
    Liu, Weizong
    Lei, Yi
    Wu, Guangyao
    Lin, Fan
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2021, 46 (07) : 3410 - 3417