Combined Clinical Parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Advanced Risk Modeling of Prostate Cancer—Patient-tailored Risk Stratification Can Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies

European Urology

Volumn 72, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 888-896

  Radtke, Jan Philipp ^a,b   Wiesenfarth, Manuel ^b   Kesch, Claudia ^a   Freitag, Martin T ^b   Alt, Celine D ^c   Celik, Kamil ^a   Distler, Florian ^a,e   Roth, Wilfried ^d,f   Wieczorek, Kathrin ^d   Stock, Christian ^a   Duensing, Stefan ^a   Roethke, Matthias C ^b   Teber, Dogu ^a   Schlemmer, Heinz Peter ^b   Hohenfellner, Markus ^a   Bonekamp, David ^a   Hadaschik, Boris A ^a,g  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b GERMAN CANCER RESEARCH CENTER DKFZ   (Germany)

^c HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^e Paracelsus Medical University Nuremberg   (Germany)

^f UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER MAINZ   (Germany)

^g UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ESSEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; Risk model; Risk stratification

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; ADVANCED CANCER; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RISK; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE VOLUME; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; AGE; BIOPSY; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ORGAN SIZE; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURE;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; BIOPSY; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NEOPLASM GRADING; ORGAN SIZE; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; ROC CURVE; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES;

EID: 85017202980     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: 18737560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.039     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Schröder, F.H., Hugosson, J., Carlsson, S., et al. Screening for prostate cancer decreases the risk of developing metastatic disease: findings from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Eur Urol 62 (2012), 745–752.
2. Schröder, F.H., Hugosson, J., Roobol, M.J., et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 384 (2014), 2027–2035.
3. Roobol, M.J., Steyerberg, E.W., Kranse, R., et al. A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57 (2010), 79–85.
4. Shaw, G.L., Thomas, B.C., Dawson, S.N., et al. Identification of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer is not accurate in unscreened men. Br J Cancer 110 (2014), 2405–2411.
5. Ahmed, H.U., El-Shater Bosaily, A., Brown, L.C., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 6736 (2017), 32401–32411.
6. Barentsz, J.O., Richenberg, J., Clements, R., et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22 (2012), 746–757.
7. Weinreb, J.C., Barentsz, J.O., Choyke, P.L., et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69 (2016), 16–40.
8. Radtke, J.P., Schwab, C., Wolf, M.B., et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI–transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol 70 (2016), 846–853.
9. Baco, E., Ukimura, O., Rud, E., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol 67 (2015), 787–794.
10. Siddiqui, M.M., Rais-Bahrami, S., Turkbey, B., et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion–guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313 (2015), 390–397.
11. Roobol, M.J., Schröder, F.H., Hugosson, J., et al. Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group. World J Urol 30 (2012), 149–155.
12. Mendhiratta, N., Rosenkrantz, A.B., Meng, X., et al. MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy in a consecutive cohort of men with no previous biopsy: reduction of over-detection through improved risk stratification. J Urol 194 (2015), 1601–1606.
13. Meng, X., Rosenkrantz, A.B., Mendhiratta, N., et al. Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion–targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol 69 (2016), 512–517.
14. Vargas, H.A., Hötker, A.M., Goldman, D.A., et al. Updated Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 26 (2016), 1606–1612.
15. Radtke, J.P., Kuru, T.H., Boxler, S., et al. Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol 193 (2015), 87–94.
16. Roobol, M.J., van Vugt, H.A., Loeb, S., et al. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol 61 (2012), 577–583.
17. Moore, C.M., 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 64 (2013), 544–552.
18. Vickers, A.J., Cronin, A.M., Elkin, E.B., Gonen, M., Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, 8, 2008, 53.
19. Gerds TA. ModelGood: validation of risk prediction models. R package version 1.0.9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ModelGood 2014.
20. Harrell Jr F. rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. R package version 5.1-0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rms 2017.
21. Bossuyt, P.M., Reitsma, J.B., Bruns, D.E., et al. Towards complete and, accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Radiology 226 (2003), 24–28.
22. Louie, K.S., Seigneurin, A., Cathcart, P., Sasieni, P., Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening?. A meta- analysis. Ann Oncol 26 (2015), 848–864.
23. van Vugt, H.A., Roobol, M.J., Kranse, R., et al. Prediction of prostate cancer in unscreened men: external validation of a risk calculator. Eur J Cancer 47 (2011), 903–909.
24. Alberts, A.R., Schoots, I.G., Bokhorst, L.P., van Leenders, G.J., Bangma, C.H., Roobol, M.J., Risk-based patient selection for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound-guided random biopsy avoids unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging scans. Eur Urol 69 (2016), 1129–1134.
25. Poyet, C., Nieboer, D., Bhindi, B., et al. Prostate cancer risk prediction using the novel versions of the European Randomised Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk calculators: independent validation and comparison in a contemporary Europe. BJU Int 117 (2015), 401–408.
26. Renard-Penna, R., Mozer, P., Cornud, F., et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System and Likert scoring system: multiparametric MR imaging validation study to screen patients for initial biopsy. Radiology 275 (2015), 458–468.
27. Woo, S., Suh, C.H., Kim, S.Y., Cho, J.Y., Kim, S.H., Diagnostic performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 72 (2017), 177–188.
28. Auer, T., Edlinger, M., Bektic, J., et al. Performance of PI-RADS version 1 versus version 2 regarding the relation with histopathological results. World J Urol 35 (2017), 687–693.
29. Rosenkrantz, A.B., Ginocchio, L.A., Cornfeld, D., et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 280 (2016), 793–804.
30. De Rooij, M., Crienen, S., Witjes, J.A., Barentsz, J.O., Rovers, M.M., Grutters, J.P.C., 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 66 (2014), 430–436.