Multiparametric MRI followed by targeted prostate biopsy for men with suspected prostate cancer: A clinical decision analysis

BMJ Open

Volumn 4, Issue 6, 2014, Pages

  Willis, Sarah R ^a   Ahmed, Hashim U ^b,c   Moore, Caroline M ^b,c   Donaldson, Ian ^b,c   Emberton, Mark ^b,c   Miners, Alec H ^a   Van Der Meulen, Jan ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON HOSPITALS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MRI TARGETED BIOPSY; MULTIPARAMETRIC MRI; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND BIOPSY; UNCERTAINTY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DECISION TREE; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR;

DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DECISION TREES; HUMANS; IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84903176027     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004895     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Wolf AM, Wender RC, Etzioni RB, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:70-98.
2. Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 2009;302:1685-92.
3. Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, et al. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 2011;186:458-64.
4. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, et al . Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993;71(Suppl 3):933-8. (Pubitemid 23049614)
5. Goto Y, Ohori M, Arakawa A, et al. Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies. J Urol 1996;156:1059-63. (Pubitemid 26269829)
6. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014;65:124-37.
7. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment (CG 175). London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2014.
8. Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme. Undertaking a transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate. 2006. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs. uk/prostate/pcrmp01.pdf
9. Lee DJ, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management and diagnosis of prostate cancer: current applications and strategies. Curr Urol Rep 2014;15:390.
10. Emberton M. Has magnetic resonance-guided biopsy of the prostate become the standard of care? Eur Urol 2013;64:720-1.
11. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013;63:125-40.
12. Mowatt G, Scotland G, Boachie C, et al. The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2013;17:1-281.
13. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, et al . Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage t1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994;271:368-74. (Pubitemid 24037911)
14. Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J, et al. Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;190:1380-6.
15. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, et al. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 2006;175:1605-12.
16. Lecornet E, Ahmed HU, Hu Y, et al. The accuracy of different biopsy strategies for the detection of clinically important prostate cancer: a computer simulation. J Urol 2012;188:974-80.
17. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 2011;108(8 Pt 2):E171-8.
18. Park BK, Park JW, Park SY, et al. Prospective evaluation of 3-T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy. Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:W876-81.
19. Kasivisvanathan V, Dufour R, Moore CM, et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;189:860-6.
20. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:343-51.
21. Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 2014.
22. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64:713-19.
23. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS Trial. Eur Urol 2013.
24. PROstate MRI Imaging Study (PROMIS). Current Controlled Trials web site. ISRCTN16082556/16082556. http://www.controlled-trials.com/
25. Department of Health. National schedules of reference costs: financial year 2011 to 2012. London: Department of Health, 2013. https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/2010-11-reference-costs-publication
26. de Rooij M, Crienen S, Witjes JA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health care perspective. Eur Urol 2013.
27. Willis S, Miners A, van der Meulen J, Reply to de Rooij M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health care perspective. [eLetter]. Eur Urol 2014.
28. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:W1-12.
29. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, et al. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 2013;64:544-52.