Development and validation of a predictive model for determining clinically significant prostate cancer in men with negative magnetic resonance imaging after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy

被引:5
|
作者
Liu, Gang [1 ]
Zhu, Yuze [1 ]
Yao, Zichuan [2 ]
Jiang, Yunzhong [2 ]
Wu, Bin [1 ]
Bai, Song [1 ]
机构
[1] China Med Univ, Dept Urol, Shengjing Hosp, 36 SanHao St, Shenyang 110004, Liaoning, Peoples R China
[2] China Med Univ, Dept Radiol, Shengjing Hosp, Shenyang, Peoples R China
关键词
biopsy; negative MRI; nomogram; prostate cancer; URINARY-TRACT SYMPTOMS; ANTIGEN PSA DENSITY; DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY; HYPERPLASIA; ASSOCIATION; GUIDELINES; MRI;
D O I
10.1002/pros.24193
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background The interpretation of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening results for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (International Society of Urological Pathology grade >= group 2) is debatable and poses a clinical dilemma for urologists. No nomograms have been developed to predict csPCa in such populations. In this study, we aimed to develop and validate a model for predicting the probability of csPCa in men with negative MRI (PI-RADS score 1-2) results after transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic prostate biopsy. Methods The development cohort consisted of 728 patients with negative MRI results who underwent subsequent prostate biopsy at our center between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017. The patients' clinicopathologic data were recorded. The Lasso regression was used for data dimension reduction and feature selection, then multivariable binary logistic regression was used to build a predictive model with regression coefficients. The model was validated in an independent cohort of 334 consecutive patients from January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2020. The performance of the predictive model was assessed with respect to discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis. Results The predictors incorporated in this model included age, history of previous negative prostate biopsy, prostate specific antigen density (PSAD), and lower urinary tract symptoms, with PSAD being the strongest predictor. The model showed good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.875 (95% confidence interval, 0.816-0.933) and good calibration (unreliability test, p = .540). Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the model was clinically useful. Conclusion This study presents a good nomogram that can aid pre-biopsy risk stratification for the detection of csPCa, and that may help inform biopsy decisions in patients with negative MRI results.
引用
收藏
页码:983 / 991
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Magnetic Resonance - Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy
    Argun, Omer Burak
    Obek, Can
    Kural, Ali Riza
    UROONKOLOJI BULTENI-BULLETIN OF UROONCOLOGY, 2016, 15 (02): : 76 - 79
  • [22] Hospital admissions after transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate in men diagnosed with prostate cancer: A database analysis in England
    Anastasiadis, Eleni
    van der Meulen, Jan
    Emberton, Mark
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2015, 22 (02) : 181 - 186
  • [23] Prospective Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided In-bore Prostate Biopsy versus Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy Naive Men with Elevated Prostate Specific Antigen
    Quentin, Michael
    Blondin, Dirk
    Arsov, Christian
    Schimmoeller, Lars
    Hiester, Andreas
    Godehardt, Erhard
    Albers, Peter
    Antoch, Gerald
    Rabenalt, Robert
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 192 (05) : 1374 - 1379
  • [24] Cost-Effectiveness of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy Versus Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review
    Rezapour, Aziz
    Alipour, Vahid
    Moradi, Najmeh
    Arabloo, Jalal
    VALUE IN HEALTH REGIONAL ISSUES, 2022, 30 : 31 - 38
  • [25] Development and validation of a predictive model for diagnosing prostate cancer after transperineal prostate biopsy
    Ren, Wenming
    Xu, Yujie
    Yang, Congcong
    Cheng, Li
    Yao, Peng
    Fu, Shimin
    Han, Jie
    Zhuo, Dong
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2022, 12
  • [26] Predictors of prostate cancer on repeat transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic prostate biopsy
    Park, SJ
    Miyake, H
    Hara, I
    Eto, H
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2003, 10 (02) : 68 - 71
  • [27] Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasonography fusion targeted prostate biopsy finds more significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive Japanese men compared with the standard biopsy
    Fujii, Shinsuke
    Hayashi, Tetsutaro
    Honda, Yukiko
    Terada, Hiroaki
    Akita, Ryuji
    Kitamura, Naoyuki
    Ueda, Eikoh
    Han, Xiangrui
    Ueno, Takeshi
    Miyamoto, Shunsuke
    Kitano, Hiroyuki
    Inoue, Shogo
    Teishima, Jun
    Abdi, Hamidreza
    Awai, Kazuo
    Takeshima, Yukio
    Sentani, Kazuhiro
    Yasui, Wataru
    Matsubara, Akio
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 27 (02) : 140 - 146
  • [28] Risk of Prostate Cancer after a Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Biopsy
    Kinnaird, Adam
    Sharma, Vidit
    Chuang, Ryan
    Priester, Alan
    Tran, Elizabeth
    Barsa, Danielle E.
    Delfin, Merdie
    Kwan, Lorna
    Sisk, Anthony
    Felker, Ely
    Marks, Leonard S.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 204 (06) : 1180 - 1186
  • [29] Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Predictive Models for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Triquell, Marina
    Campistol, Miriam
    Celma, Ana
    Regis, Lucas
    Cuadras, Merce
    Planas, Jacques
    Trilla, Enrique
    Morote, Juan
    CANCERS, 2022, 14 (19)
  • [30] Reasons for missing clinically significant prostate cancer by targeted magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy
    Klingebiel, M.
    Arsov, C.
    Ullrich, T.
    Quentin, M.
    Al-Monajjed, R.
    Mally, D.
    Sawicki, L. M.
    Hiester, A.
    Esposito, I
    Albers, P.
    Antoch, G.
    Schimmoeller, L.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2021, 137