Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients

BJU International

Volumn 119, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 225-233

  Washino, Satoshi ^a   Okochi, Tomohisa ^a   Saito, Kimitoshi ^a   Konishi, Tsuzumi ^a   Hirai, Masaru ^a   Kobayashi, Yutaka ^a   Miyagawa, Tomoaki ^a  

^a JICHI MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

MRI; PI RADS score; prostate biopsy; PSA density

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

AGED; ANTIGEN DETECTION; ARTICLE; BIOPSY TECHNIQUE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM SCORING SYSTEM; PROSTATE VOLUME; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REFERENCE VALUE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; BLOOD; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLE BIOPSY; ORGAN SIZE; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR;

AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORGAN SIZE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84963701423     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.13465     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 1079–92
2. Roobol MJ, Kranse R, Bangma CH et al. Screening for prostate cancer: results of the Rotterdam Section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 530–9
3. 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; 66: 22–9
4. Trabulsi EJ, Halpern EJ, Gomella LG. Ultrasonography and biopsy of the prostate. In: Wein AJ (ed.), Campbell-Walsh Urology, 10th edn. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2011: 2735–47
5. Pinkhasov GI, Lin Y-K, Palmerola R et al. Complications following prostate needle biopsy requiring hospital admission or emergency department visits - experience from 1000 consecutive cases. BJU Int 2012; 110: 369–74
6. Zaytoun OM, Anil T, Moussa AS, Jianbo L, Fareed K, Jones JS. Morbidity of prostate biopsy after simplified versus complex preparation protocols: assessment of risk factors. Urology 2011; 77: 910–4
7. Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Muellner A, Hricak H. MR imaging of the prostate in clinical practice. MAGMA 2008; 21: 379–92
8. 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
9. Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C et al. 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. J Urol 2014; 192: 1374–9
10. de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 343–51
11. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746–57
12. Grey ADR, Chana MS, Popert R, Wolfe K, Liyanage SH, Acher PL. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scoring in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting. BJU Int 2015; 115: 728–35
13. Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T et al. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 2011; 186: 458–64
14. Ochiai A, Troncoso P, Chen ME, Lloreta J, Babaian RJ. The relationship between tumor volume and the number of positive cores in men undergoing multisite extended biopsy: implication for expectant management. J Urol 2005; 174: 2164–8
15. Nakanishi H, Wang X, Ochiai A et al. A nomogram for predicting low-volume/low-grade prostate cancer - A tool in selecting patients for active surveillance. Cancer 2007; 110: 2441–7
16. Kato RB, Srougi V, Salvadori FA, Ayres PP, Leite KM, Srougi M. Pretreatment tumor volume estimation based on total serum psa in patients with localized prostate cancer. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2008; 63: 759–62
17. Corcoran NM, Casey RG, Hong MKH et al. The ability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density to predict an upgrade in Gleason score between initial prostate biopsy and prostatectomy diminishes with increasing tumour grade due to reduced PSA secretion per unit tumour volume. BJU Int 2012; 110: 36–42
18. Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Rieker P et al. Histology core-specific evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standardised scoring system of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. BJU Int 2013; 112: 1080–7
19. Veneziano S, Pavlica P, Compagnone G, Martorana G. Usefulness of the (F/T)/PSA density ratio to detect prostate cancer. Urol Int 2005; 74: 13–8
20. De Castro HAS, Iared W, Shigueoka DC, Mourão JE, Ajzen S. Contribution of PSA density in the prediction of prostate cancer in patients with PSA values between 2.6 and 10.0 ng/ml. Radiol Bras 2011;44:205–9.
21. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 291–303
22. Kotb AF, Tanguay S, Luz MA, Kassouf W, Aprikian AG. Relationship between initial PSA density with future PSA kinetics and repeat biopsies in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2011; 14: 53–7
23. Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Yu X, Antenor JAV, Suarez BK, Catalona WJ. Prostate specific antigen density correlates with features of prostate cancer aggressiveness. J Urol 2007; 177: 505–9
24. Kosaka T, Mizuno R, Shinojima T et al. The implications of prostate-specific antigen density to predict clinically significant prostate cancer in men ≤ 50 years. Am J Clin Exp Urol 2014; 2: 332–6
25. Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Partin AW. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors - A contemporary analysis. Cancer 2004; 101: 2001–5
26. Tomlins SA. Urine PCA3 and TMPRSS2: ERG using cancer-specific markers to detect cancer. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 543–5
27. Shah RB, Bentley J, Jeffery Z, DeMarzo AM. Heterogeneity of PTEN and ERG expression in prostate cancer on core needle biopsies: implications for cancer risk stratification and biomarker sampling. Hum Pathol 2015; 46: 698–706
28. Mithal P, Allott E, Gerber L et al. PTEN loss in biopsy tissue predicts poor clinical outcomes in prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2014; 21: 1209–14
29. Lotan TL, Carvalho FLF, Peskoe SB et al. PTEN loss is associated with upgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy. Mod Pathol 2015; 28: 128–37
30. 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: W876–81
31. 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: E171–8
32. Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 177–84
33. 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 2014; 66: 343–51
34. Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A et al. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 2013; 189: 493–9
35. Cool DW, Zhang X, Romagnoli C, Izawa JI, Romano WM, Fenster A. Evaluation of MRI-TRUS fusion versus cognitive registration accuracy for MRI-targeted, TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204: 83–91