scholarly journals Prediction Medicine: Biomarkers, Risk Calculators and Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Risk Stratification Tools in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 1637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniël Osses ◽  
Monique Roobol ◽  
Ivo Schoots
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Diagnostic Strategies ◽  
Novel Biomarkers ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri ◽  
Prostate Health

This review discusses the most recent evidence for currently available risk stratification tools in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), and evaluates diagnostic strategies that combine these tools. Novel blood biomarkers, such as the Prostate Health Index (PHI) and 4Kscore, show similar ability to predict csPCa. Prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) is a urinary biomarker that has inferior prediction of csPCa compared to PHI, but may be combined with other markers like TMPRSS2-ERG to improve its performance. Original risk calculators (RCs) have the advantage of incorporating easy to retrieve clinical variables and being freely accessible as a web tool/mobile application. RCs perform similarly well as most novel biomarkers. New promising risk models including novel (genetic) markers are the SelectMDx and Stockholm-3 model (S3M). Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has evolved as an appealing tool in the diagnostic arsenal with even stratifying abilities, including in the initial biopsy setting. Merging biomarkers, RCs and MRI results in higher performances than their use as standalone tests. In the current era of prostate MRI, the way forward seems to be multivariable risk assessment based on blood and clinical parameters, potentially extended with information from urine samples, as a triaging test for the selection of candidates for MRI and biopsy.

scholarly journals Assessment of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-fusion prostate biopsy with concurrent standard systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy among men requiring repeat biopsy

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Sun ◽  
Andrew Fast ◽  
Iain Kirkpatrick ◽  
Patrick Cho ◽  
Jeffery Saranchuk
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Biopsies ◽  
Secondary Objective ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri ◽  
High Degree

Introduction: The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-fusion biopsy (FB) remains unclear in men with prior negative prostate biopsies. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of FB with concurrent systematic biopsy (SB) in patients requiring repeat prostate biopsies. Methods: Patients with previous negative prostate biopsies requiring repeat biopsies were included. Those without suspicious lesions (≥Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] 3) on MRI were excluded. All patients underwent FB followed by SB. The primary outcome was the sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥7). The secondary objective was identification of potential predictive factors of biopsy performance. Results: A total of 53 patients were included; 41 (77%) patients were found to have clinically significant prostate cancer. FB had a higher detection rate of significant cancer compared to SB (85% vs. 76%, respectively, p=0.20) and lower diagnosis of indolent (Gleason score 3+3=6) cancer (10% vs. 27%, respectively, p=0.05). FB alone missed six (15%) clinically significant cancers, compared to 10 (24%) with SB. SB performance was significantly impaired in patients with anterior lesions and high prostate volumes (p<0.05). There was high degree of pathological discordance between the two approaches, with concordance seen in only 34% of patients. Conclusions: In patients with prior negative biopsies and ongoing suspicion for prostate cancer, a combined approach of FB with SB is needed for optimal detection and risk classification of clinically significant disease. Anterior tumors and large prostates were significant predictors of poor SB performance and an MRI-fusion alone approach in these settings could be considered.

Naive patients with suspicious prostate cancer and positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI): is it time for fusion target biopsy alone?

2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582110237
Author(s):  
Enrico Checcucci ◽  
Sabrina De Cillis ◽  
Daniele Amparore ◽  
Diletta Garrou ◽  
Roberta Aimar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Final Pathology ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objectives: To determine if standard biopsy still has a role in the detection of prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients with positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Materials and methods: We extracted, from our prospective maintained fusion biopsy database, patients from March 2014 to December 2018. The detection rate of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer and complication rate were analysed in a cohort of patients who underwent fusion biopsy alone (group A) or fusion biopsy plus standard biopsy (group B). The International Society of Urological Pathology grade group determined on prostate biopsy with the grade group determined on final pathology among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were compared. Results: Prostate cancer was found in 249/389 (64.01%) and 215/337 (63.8%) patients in groups A and B, respectively ( P=0.98), while the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was 57.8% and 55.1% ( P=0.52). No significant differences in complications were found. No differences in the upgrading rate between biopsy and final pathology finding after radical prostatectomy were recorded. Conclusions: In biopsy-naive patients, with suspected prostate cancer and positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging the addition of standard biopsy to fusion biopsy did not increase significantly the detection rate of prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer. Moreover, the rate of upgrading of the cancer grade group between biopsy and final pathology was not affected by the addition of standard biopsy. Level of evidence: Not applicable for this multicentre audit.

One-year experience of government-funded magnetic resonance imaging prior to prostate biopsy: A case for omitting biopsy in men with a negative magnetic resonance imaging

2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582110043
Author(s):  
Hanna J El-Khoury ◽  
Niranjan J Sathianathen ◽  
Yuxin Jiao ◽  
Reza Farzan ◽  
Dennis Gyomber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objectives: This study aimed to characterise the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) as an adjunct to prostate biopsy, and to assess the effect of the new Australian Medicare rebate on practice at a metropolitan public hospital. Patients and methods: We identified patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy at a single institution over a two-year period. Patients were placed into two groups, depending upon whether their consent was obtained before or after the introduction of the Australian Medicare rebate for mpMRI. We extracted data on mpMRI results and TRUS-guided biopsy histopathology. Descriptive statistics were used to demonstrate baseline patient characteristics as well as MRI and histopathology results. Results: A total of 252 patients were included for analysis, of whom 128 underwent biopsy following the introduction of the Medicare rebate for mpMRI. There was a significant association between Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System v2 (PI-RADS) classification and the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer ( p<0.01). Only one man with PI-RADS ⩽2 was found to have clinically significant prostate cancer. Four men with a PI-RADS 3 lesion were found to have clinically significant cancer. A PI-RADS 4 or 5 lesion was significantly associated with the diagnosis of clinically significant cancer on multivariable analysis. Conclusion: mpMRI is an important adjunct to biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Our findings support the safety of omitting/delaying prostate biopsy in men with negative mpMRI. Level of evidence: Level 3 retrospective case-control study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document