Abstract
Background
Prostate cancer risk prediction models and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) are used for individualised pre-biopsy risk assessment. However, biparametric MRI (bpMRI) has emerged as a simpler, more rapid MRI approach (fewer scan sequences, no intravenous contrast-media) to reduce costs and facilitate a more widespread clinical implementation. It is unknown how bpMRI and risk models perform conjointly. Therefore, the objective was to develop a predictive model for significant prostate cancer (sPCa) in biopsy-naive men based on bpMRI findings and clinical parameters.
Methods
Eight hundred and seventy-six biopsy-naive men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen, <50 ng/mL; tumour stage, <T3) underwent pre-biopsy prostate bpMRI (T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted) followed by 10-core standard biopsies (all men) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies of bpMRI-suspicious lesions (suspicion score, ≥3). Prediction models based on bpMRI scores and clinical parameters (age, tumour stage, prostate-specific-antigen [PSA] level, prostatevolume, and PSAdensity) were created to detect sPCa (any biopsy-core with Gleason grade-group, ≥2) and compared by analysing the areas under the curves and decision curves.
Results
Overall, sPCa was detected in 350/876 men (40%) with median (inter-quartile range) age and PSA level of 65 years (60–70) and 7.3 ng/mL (5.5–10.6), respectively. The model defined by bpMRI scores, age, tumour stage, and PSAdensity had the highest discriminatory power (area under the curve, 0.89), showed good calibration on internal bootstrap validation, and resulted in the greatest net benefit on decision curve analysis. Applying a biopsy risk threshold of 20% meant that 42% of men could avoid a biopsy, 50% fewer insignificant cancers were diagnosed, and only 7% of significant cancers (grade-group, ≥2) were missed.
Conclusions
A predictive model based on bpMRI scores and clinical parameters significantly improved risk stratification for sPCa in biopsy-naïve men and could be used for clinical decision-making and counselling men prior to prostate biopsies.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 4 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $64.75 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Roobol MJ, Van Vugt HA, Loeb S, Zhu X, Bul M, Bangma CH, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol. 2012;61:577–83.
Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, et al. Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:529–34.
Foley RW, Maweni RM, Gorman L, Murphy K, Lundon DJ, Durkan G, et al. European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators significantly outperform the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int. 2016;118:706–13.
Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD, Asroff SW, Bailen JL, Cochran JS, et al. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:464–70.
Grönberg H, Adolfsson J, Aly M, Nordström T, Wiklund P, Brandberg Y, et al. Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50–69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1667–76.
Loeb S, Sanda MG, Broyles DL, Shin SS, Bangma CH, Wei JT, et al. The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193:1163–9.
Wei JT, Feng Z, Partin AW, Brown E, Thompson I, Sokoll L, et al. Can urinary PCA3 supplement PSA in the early detection of prostate cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:4066–72.
Loeb S, Shin SS, Broyles DL, Wei JT, Sanda M, Klee G, et al. Prostate Health Index improves multivariable risk prediction of aggressive prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017;120:61–68.
Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG. Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol. 2008;10:262–80.
Ukimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A, Emberton M, Epstein JI, Freedland SJ, et al. Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol. 2013;63:214–30.
Van Der Kwast TH, Roobol MJ. Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10:473–82.
van Leeuwen PJ, Hayen A, Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R, Böhm M, et al. A multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based risk model to determine the risk of significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy. BJU Int. 2017;120:774–81.
Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Rais-Bahrami S, Oto A, Bednarova S, Nix JW, et al. A magnetic resonance imaging–based prediction model for prostate biopsy risk stratification. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:678–85.
Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C, Freitag MT, Alt CD, Celik K, 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;72:888–96.
Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, Schoots IG, Chiu PK, Osses DF, et al. Prediction of high-grade prostate cancer following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators. Eur Urol. 2018;75:310–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.07.031.
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389:815–22.
Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, Lu DY, Kwan L, Marks LS, et al. Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol. 2015;67:569–76.
Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67:627–36.
Thompson JE, van Leeuwen PJ, Moses D, Shnier R, Brenner P, Delprado W, et al. The diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;195:1428–35.
Sherrer RL, Glaser ZA, Gordetsky JB, Nix JW, Porter KK, Rais-Bahrami S. Comparison of biparametric MRI to full multiparametric MRI for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0107-0.
Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Krämer N, Nebelung S, Heidenreich A, Schrading S. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology. 2017;285:493–505.
Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V, Balslev I, Bisbjerg R, Thestrup K-C, et al. Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1:e180219.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244–52.
Nordström T, Akre O, Aly M, Grönberg H, Eklund M. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21:57–63.
Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE, Borsboom GJ, Eijkemans MJ, Vergouwe Y, Habbema JD. Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:774–81.
Fascelli M, Rais-Bahrami S, Sankineni S, Brown AM, George AK, Ho R, et al. Combined biparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen in the detection of prostate cancer: a validation study in a biopsy-naive patient population. Urology. 2016;88:125–34.
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618–29.
Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, Eberhardt SC, Eggener SE, Gaitonde K, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol. 2016;196:1613–8.
El-Shater Bosaily A, Parker C, Brown LC, Gabe R, Hindley RG, Kaplan R, et al. PROMIS—Prostate MR imaging study: a paired validating cohort study evaluating the role of multi-parametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Conte Clin Trials. 2015;42:26–40.
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767–77.
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study. Eur Urol. 2018;75:570–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023.
Kim SJ, Vickers AJ, Hu JC. Challenges in adopting level 1 evidence for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker for prostate cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:1663–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.4160.
Barnett CL, Davenport MS, Montgomery JS, Wei JT, Montie JE, Denton BT. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;122:50–58.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boesen, L., Thomsen, F.B., Nørgaard, N. et al. A predictive model based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters for improved risk assessment and selection of biopsy-naïve men for prostate biopsies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 22, 609–616 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0149-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0149-y
This article is cited by
-
Development and validation of a predictive model based on clinical and MpMRI findings to reduce additional systematic prostate biopsy
Insights into Imaging (2024)
-
A nomogram based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve patients
Cancer Imaging (2023)
-
Development and validation of a nomogram based on biparametric MRI PI-RADS v2.1 and clinical parameters to avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies
BMC Medical Imaging (2023)
-
A risk model for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer based on bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging in a Japanese cohort
Scientific Reports (2021)