Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 509–515 | Cite as

Prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) is of additional predictive value in patients with PI-RADS grade III (intermediate) lesions in the MR-guided re-biopsy setting for prostate cancer

  • S. KaufmannEmail author
  • J. BedkeEmail author
  • S. Gatidis
  • J. Hennenlotter
  • U. Kramer
  • M. Notohamiprodjo
  • K. Nikolaou
  • A. Stenzl
  • S. Kruck
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) improves diagnostic accuracy in re-biopsies of men with prostate cancer (PC) suspicion, but predictive value is limited despite the use of the new Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Prognostic value of the PC-specific biomarker prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) added to the PI-RADS score was evaluated.

Methods

The study was a retrospective analysis of the institutional database for men with MR-guided biopsy (MR-GB) for suspicious lesion in mpMRI and who had an additional pre-MR-GB PCA3 testing for ongoing PC suspicion. All men had ≥1 negative ultrasound GB. Lesions were retrospectively scored by PI-RADS in three MRI sequences (T2w, DCE, and DWI). PCA3 was analyzed with cutoffs of 25 and 35. The prognostic value of mpMRI and PCA3 and the additional value of both were explored.

Results

Tumor detection rate (49 men, mean PSA 10 ng/ml, lesion size 40 mm2) was 45 % (22/49 patients). In the subgroup of PI-RADS IV°, 17/17 patients had PC; in PI-RADS III° (intermediate) 5/15 had PC, and all 5 had a PCA3 >35. PCA3 >35 had no additional prognostic value in the whole cohort. Out of the 10/15 PC negative patients (PI-RADS III°), PCA3 was <35 in 6. The inclusion of PCA3 value in PI-RADS III° patients improved predictive accuracy to 91.8 %.

Conclusion

MpMRI and subsequent grading to PI-RADS significantly improves PC detection in the re-biopsy setting. The diagnostic uncertainty in the PI-RADS intermediate group can be ameliorated by the addition of PCA3 cutoff of 35 to avoid potential unnecessary biopsies.

Keywords

Prostate cancer PCA3 PI-RADS MRI MR-guided biopsy Targeted prostate biopsy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Waltraud Mogk is kindly acknowledged for excellent technical assistance and Jessica Kaufmann for linguistic editing.

Author contribution

Protocol/project development: Kaufmann S, Bedke J, Kruck S, Hennenlotter J. Data collection or management: Kaufmann S, Kramer U, and Hennenlotter J. Data analysis: Kaufmann S, Gatidis S. Manuscript writing: Kaufmann S, Bedke J, Kruck S. Manuscript editing: Kaufmann S, Bedke J, Gatidis S, Hennenlotter J, Kramer U, Notohamiprodjo M, Nikolaou K, Stenzl A, Kruck S. Study Supervision: Bedke J, Kruck S.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

This analysis was approved by the institutional review board (397/2012R) of the University of Tübingen, Germany.

References

  1. 1.
    Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, Werner M, Wagner P, Kruck S, Claussen CD, Stenzl A, Schlemmer HP, Schilling D (2012) MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 30(2):213–218. doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0675-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jeong CW, Ku JH, Moon KC, Hong SK, Byun SS, Cho JY, Kim HH, Kim SH, Lee SE, Kwak C (2012) Can conventional magnetic resonance imaging, prostate needle biopsy, or their combination predict the laterality of clinically localized prostate cancer? Urology 79(6):1322–1327. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.01.080 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C, Brunelle S, Gravis G, Salem N, Walz J (2014) Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol 32(4):847–858. doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1332-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Colleselli D, Schilling D, Lichy MP, Hennenlotter J, Vogel UH, Krueger SA, Kuehs U, Schlemmer HP, Stenzl A, Schwentner C (2010) Topographical sensitivity and specificity of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection. Urol Int 84(4):388–394. doi: 10.1159/000300572 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U, Kuczyk MA, Merseburger AS, Hennenlotter J, Corvin S, Sievert KD, Claussen CD, Stenzl A, Schlemmer HP (2006) MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol 50(4):738–748. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.03.007 (discussion 748–739) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Scheenen T, Futterer J, Bouwense S, van Oort I, Schroder F, Huisman H, Barentsz J (2012) 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 61(1):177–184. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.08.042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Futterer JJ, European Society of Urogenital R (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bussemakers MJ, van Bokhoven A, Verhaegh GW, Smit FP, Karthaus HF, Schalken JA, Debruyne FM, Ru N, Isaacs WB (1999) DD3: a new prostate-specific gene, highly overexpressed in prostate cancer. Cancer Res 59(23):5975–5979PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Busetto GM, De Berardinis E, Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Giovannone R, Rosato S, D’Errigo P, Di Silverio F, Gentile V, Salciccia S (2013) Prostate cancer gene 3 and multiparametric magnetic resonance can reduce unnecessary biopsies: decision curve analysis to evaluate predictive models. Urology 82(6):1355–1360. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.078 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leyten GH, Wierenga EA, Sedelaar JP, van Oort IM, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Schalken JA, Mulders PF (2013) Value of PCA3 to predict biopsy outcome and its potential role in selecting patients for multiparametric MRI. Int J Mol Sci 14(6):11347–11355. doi: 10.3390/ijms140611347 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Porpiglia F, Russo F, Manfredi M, Mele F, Fiori C, Bollito E, Papotti M, Molineris I, Passera R, Regge D (2014) The roles of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, PCA3 and prostate health index-which is the best predictor of prostate cancer after a negative biopsy? J Urol 192(1):60–66. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.01.030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Falco T, Shenouda G, Kaufmann C, Belanger I, Procaccini C, Charrois C, Evans M (2002) Ultrasound imaging for external-beam prostate treatment setup and dosimetric verification. Med Dosim 27(4):271–273. doi: 10.1016/s0958-3947(02)00144-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Hoskin PJ, Kirkham A, Padhani AR, Persad R, Puech P, Punwani S, Sohaib AS, Tombal B, Villers A, van der Meulen J, Emberton M (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 59(4):477–494. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz S et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280(11):969–974. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haese A, de la Taille A, van Poppel H, Marberger M, Stenzl A, Mulders PF, Huland H, Abbou CC, Remzi M, Tinzl M, Feyerabend S, Stillebroer AB, van Gils MP, Schalken JA (2008) Clinical utility of the PCA3 urine assay in European men scheduled for repeat biopsy. Eur Urol 54(5):1081–1088. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.071 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Montironi R, Schulman C, Rigatti P, Montorsi F (2007) Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 52(5):1309–1322. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.08.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zaytoun OM, Stephenson AJ, Fareed K, El-Shafei A, Gao T, Levy D, Jones JS (2012) When serial prostate biopsy is recommended: most cancers detected are clinically insignificant. BJU Int 110(7):987–992. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10958.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Xu S, Kruecker J, Locklin J, Baccala AA Jr, Rastinehad AR, Merino MJ, Shih JH, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL (2011) Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 258(2):488–495. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10100667 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Luca S, Passera R, Bollito E, Milillo A, Scarpa RM, Papotti M, Coda R, Randone DF (2013) Biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathological patterns influence Prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) score. Anticancer Res 33(10):4657–4662PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marks LS, Fradet Y, Deras IL, Blase A, Mathis J, Aubin SM, Cancio AT, Desaulniers M, Ellis WJ, Rittenhouse H, Groskopf J (2007) PCA3 molecular urine assay for prostate cancer in men undergoing repeat biopsy. Urology 69(3):532–535. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.12.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    de la Taille A, Irani J, Graefen M, Chun F, de Reijke T, Kil P, Gontero P, Mottaz A, Haese A (2011) Clinical evaluation of the PCA3 assay in guiding initial biopsy decisions. J Urol 185(6):2119–2125. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.01.075 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gittelman MC, Hertzman B, Bailen J, Williams T, Koziol I, Henderson RJ, Efros M, Bidair M, Ward JF (2013) PCA3 molecular urine test as a predictor of repeat prostate biopsy outcome in men with previous negative biopsies: a prospective multicenter clinical study. J Urol 190(1):64–69. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Poppel H, Haese A, Graefen M, de la Taille A, Irani J, de Reijke T, Remzi M, Marberger M (2012) The relationship between Prostate CAncer gene 3 (PCA3) and prostate cancer significance. BJU Int 109(3):360–366. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10377.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vickers A, Cronin A, Roobol M, Savage C, Peltola M, Pettersson K, Scardino PT, Schroder F, Lilja H (2010) Reducing unnecessary biopsy during prostate cancer screening using a four-kallikrein panel: an independent replication. J Clin Oncol 28(15):2493–2498. doi: 10.1200/jco.2009.24.1968 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sciarra A, Barentsz J, Bjartell A, Eastham J, Hricak H, Panebianco V, Witjes JA (2011) Advances in magnetic resonance imaging: how they are changing the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 59(6):962–977. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Rieker P, Roth W, Fenchel M, Hohenfellner M, Schlemmer HP, Hadaschik BA (2013) 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 112(8):1080–1087. doi: 10.1111/bju.12259 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Portalez D, Mozer P, Cornud F, Renard-Penna R, Misrai V, Thoulouzan M, Malavaud B (2012) Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol 62(6):986–996. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, Somberg MB, Babb JS, Taneja SS (2013) Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(4):W612–W618. doi: 10.2214/ajr.12.10173 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schimmoller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, Lanzman RS, Hiester A, Rabenalt R, Antoch G, Albers P, Blondin D (2013) Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard. Eur Radiol 23(11):3185–3190. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2922-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schimmoller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, Hiester A, Kropil P, Rabenalt R, Albers P, Antoch G, Blondin D (2014) Predictive power of the ESUR scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis verified with targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. Eur J Radiol 83(12):2103–2108. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.08.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyEberhard Karls University TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of UrologyEberhard Karls University TuebingenTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations