Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Novel Prediction Tool Based on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Determine the Biopsy Strategy for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with PSA Levels Less than 50 ng/ml

  • Urologic Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To develop and internally validate nomograms to help choose the optimal biopsy strategy among no biopsy, targeted biopsy (TB) only, or TB plus systematic biopsy (SB).

Patients and Methods

This retrospective study included a total of 385 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided TB and/or SB at our institute after undergoing multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) between 2015 and 2018. We developed models to predict clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) based on suspicious lesions from a TB result and based on the whole prostate gland from the results of TB plus SB or SB only. Nomograms were generated using logistic regression and evaluated using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, calibration curves and decision analysis. The results were validated using ROC curve and calibration on 177 patients from 2018 to 2019 at the same institute.

Results

In the multivariate analyses, prostate-specific antigen level, prostate volume, and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score were predictors of csPCa in both nomograms. Age was also included in the model for suspicious lesions, while obesity was included in the model for the whole gland. The area under the curve (AUC) in the ROC analyses of the prediction models was 0.755 for suspicious lesions and 0.887 for the whole gland. Both models performed well in the calibration and decision analyses. In the validation cohort, the ROC curve described the AUCs of 0.723 and 0.917 for the nomogram of suspicious lesions and nomogram of the whole gland, respectively. Also, the calibration curve detected low error rates for both models.

Conclusion

Nomograms with excellent discriminative ability were developed and validated. These nomograms can be used to select the optimal biopsy strategy for individual patients in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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(1):124–137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study. J Urol. 2014;192(1):67–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. C.Weinreb. J, O.Barentsz. J, L.Choyke. P, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015. Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Abd-Alazeez M, Kirkham A, Ahmed HU, et al. Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate mapping biopsies as the reference standard. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014;17(1):40–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, et al. Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus standard pathway: results from a randomized prospective study in biopsy-naive patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):282–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol. 2014;65(4):809–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer. 2016;122(6):884–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Calio BP, Sidana A, Sugano D, et al. Risk of upgrading from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy pathology—does saturation biopsy of index lesion during multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy help? J Urol. 2018;199(4):976–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Hofbauer SL, Maxeiner A, Kittner B, et al. Validation of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2018;200(4):767–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Radtke JP, Kuru TH, 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. 2015;193(1):87–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):149–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sathianathen NJ, Warlick CA, Weight CJ, et al. A clinical prediction tool to determine the need for concurrent systematic sampling at the time of magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy. BJU Int. 2018;123:612–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. van Leeuwen PJ, Hayen A, Thompson JE, et al. A multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based risk model to determine the risk of significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy. BJU Int. 2017;120(6):774–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Truong M, Wang B, Gordetsky JB, et al. Multi-institutional nomogram predicting benign prostate pathology on magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion biopsy in men with a prior negative 12-core systematic biopsy. Cancer. 2018;124(2):278–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yudong Cao, Min Cao, Yuke Chen, et al. The combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2) and periprostatic fat thickness on multi-parametric MRI to predict the presence of prostate cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8:44040–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee SM, Liyanage SH, Wulaningsih W, et al. Toward an MRI-based nomogram for the prediction of transperineal prostate biopsy outcome: a physician and patient decision tool. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(11):664e611–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Guo LH, Wu R, Xu HX, et al. Comparison between ultrasound guided transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective, randomized, and controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16089.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Singh PB, Anele C, Dalton E, et al. Prostate cancer tumour features on template prostate-mapping biopsies: implications for focal therapy. Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):12–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Osses D, van Asten J, Kieft GD, Tijsterman J. Prostate cancer detection rates of magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy related to prostate imaging reporting and data system score. World J Urol. 2017;35:207–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hamoen EHJ, de Rooij M, Alfred Witjes J, Barentsz J, M Rovers M. Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;67:1112–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JG, et al. Results of targeted biopsy in men with magnetic resonance imaging lesions classified equivocal, likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;73:353–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo GD, Galia A, Fraggetta F, Pennisi M. Is it time to perform only magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores? our experience with 1,032 men who underwent prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2018;200(4):774–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pepe P, Aragona F. Morbidity after transperineal prostate biopsy in 3000 patients undergoing 12 vs 18 vs more than 24 needle cores. Urology. 2013;81(6):1142–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Scattoni V, Roscigno M, Raber M, et al. Initial extended transrectal prostate biopsy—are more prostate cancers detected with 18 cores than with 12 cores? J Urol. 2008;179(4):1327–31 (discussion 1331).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Abd TT, Goodman M, Hall J, et al. Comparison of 12-core versus 8-core prostate biopsy: multivariate analysis of large series of US veterans. Urology. 2011;77(3):541–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard-Penna R, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy—prospective multicenter study. Radiology. 2013;268(2):461–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, et al. The FUTURE trial: a multicenter randomised controlled trial on target biopsy techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol. 2018;75:582–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C, et al. Combined clinical parameters and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for advanced risk modeling of prostate cancer-patient-tailored risk stratification can reduce unnecessary biopsies. Eur Urol. 2017;72(6):888–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Program for Chinese National Natural Science Fund (81602220) and Chinese Shanghai Municipal Planning Commission of science and Research Fund (201540182).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

    Bi-Ming He & Hai-Feng Wang

  2. Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China

    Bi-Ming He, Zhen-Kai Shi, Hu-Sheng Li, Heng-Zhi Lin, Ying-Hao Sun & Hai-Feng Wang

  3. Department of Radiology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China

    Qing-Song Yang & Jian-Ping Lu

Authors
  1. Bi-Ming He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhen-Kai Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hu-Sheng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Heng-Zhi Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qing-Song Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jian-Ping Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ying-Hao Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hai-Feng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ying-Hao Sun or Hai-Feng Wang.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

He, BM., Shi, ZK., Li, HS. et al. A Novel Prediction Tool Based on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Determine the Biopsy Strategy for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with PSA Levels Less than 50 ng/ml. Ann Surg Oncol 27, 1284–1295 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-08111-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-08111-2

Search

Navigation