1
|
Diamand R, Guenzel K, Jabbour T, Baudewyns A, Bourgeno HA, Lefebvre Y, Ferriero M, Simone G, Fourcade A, Fournier G, Bui AP, Taha F, Oderda M, Gontero P, Rysankova K, Bernal-Gomez A, Mastrorosa A, Roche JB, Fiard G, Abou Zahr R, Ploussard G, Windisch O, Novello Q, Benamran D, Delavar G, Anract J, Barry Delongchamps N, Halinski A, Dariane C, Vlahopoulos L, Assenmacher G, Roumeguère T, Peltier A. External validation and comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-based risk prediction models for prostate biopsy stratification. World J Urol 2024; 42:372. [PMID: 38866949 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-05068-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2024] [Accepted: 05/15/2024] [Indexed: 06/14/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a promising tool for risk assessment, potentially reducing the burden of unnecessary prostate biopsies. Risk prediction models that incorporate MRI data have gained attention, but their external validation and comparison are essential for guiding clinical practice. The aim is to externally validate and compare risk prediction models for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). METHODS A cohort of 4606 patients across fifteen European tertiary referral centers were identified from a prospective maintained database between January 2016 and April 2023. Transrectal or transperineal image-fusion MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies for PI-RADS score of ≥ 3 or ≥ 2 depending on patient characteristics and physician preferences. Probabilities for csPCa, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade ≥ 2, were calculated for each patients using eight models. Performance was characterized by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration, and net benefit. Subgroup analyses were performed across various clinically relevant subgroups. RESULTS Overall, csPCa was detected in 2154 (47%) patients. The models exhibited satisfactory performance, demonstrating good discrimination (AUC ranging from 0.75 to 0.78, p < 0.001), adequate calibration, and high net benefit. The model described by Alberts showed the highest clinical utility for threshold probabilities between 10 and 20%. Subgroup analyses highlighted variations in models' performance, particularly when stratified according to PSA level, biopsy technique and PI-RADS version. CONCLUSIONS We report a comprehensive external validation of risk prediction models for csPCa diagnosis in patients who underwent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies. The model by Alberts demonstrated superior clinical utility and should be favored when determining the need for a prostate biopsy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Romain Diamand
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Jules Bordet Institute, HUB, Rue Meylemeersch 90, 1070, Brussels, Belgium.
| | - Karsten Guenzel
- Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin, Germany
| | - Teddy Jabbour
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Jules Bordet Institute, HUB, Rue Meylemeersch 90, 1070, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Arthur Baudewyns
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Jules Bordet Institute, HUB, Rue Meylemeersch 90, 1070, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Henri-Alexandre Bourgeno
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Jules Bordet Institute, HUB, Rue Meylemeersch 90, 1070, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Yolène Lefebvre
- Department of Radiology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Giuseppe Simone
- Department of Urology, IRCCS "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Alexandre Fourcade
- Department of Urology, Hôpital Cavale Blanche, CHRU Brest, Brest, France
| | - Georges Fournier
- Department of Urology, Hôpital Cavale Blanche, CHRU Brest, Brest, France
| | | | - Fayek Taha
- Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims, Reims, France
| | - Marco Oderda
- Department of Urology, Città Della Salute E Della Scienza Di Torino, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Paolo Gontero
- Department of Urology, Città Della Salute E Della Scienza Di Torino, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Katerina Rysankova
- Department of Urology and Surgical Studies, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Ostrava, Ostrava University, Ostrava, Czech Republic
| | | | | | | | - Gaelle Fiard
- Department of Urology, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC, Grenoble, France
| | - Rawad Abou Zahr
- Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint Fonsegrives, France
| | | | - Olivier Windisch
- Department of Urology, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Quentin Novello
- Department of Urology, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Benamran
- Department of Urology, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Gina Delavar
- Departement of Urology, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France
| | - Julien Anract
- Departement of Urology, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France
| | | | - Adam Halinski
- Department of Urology, Private Medical Center, Klinika Wisniowa", Zielona Góra, Poland
| | - Charles Dariane
- Department of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | | | | | - Thierry Roumeguère
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Jules Bordet Institute, HUB, Rue Meylemeersch 90, 1070, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Alexandre Peltier
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Jules Bordet Institute, HUB, Rue Meylemeersch 90, 1070, Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Albers P, Bennett J, Evans M, Martin ES, Wang B, Broomfield S, Martín AM, Tu W, Fung C, Kinnaird A. Value of Incremental Biopsy Cores for Microultrasound Targeted Prostate Biopsies. Urology 2024; 184:142-148. [PMID: 38052325 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2023.11.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2023] [Revised: 11/14/2023] [Accepted: 11/22/2023] [Indexed: 12/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the optimal number of cores needed during microultrasound-informed prostate biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, defined as Gleason Grade Group ≥2). METHODS A retrospective review of 1011 consecutive patients between September 2021 and July 2023 at our institution were identified; 536 underwent microultrasound biopsy and 475 underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound (US) targeted biopsy. Lesions were given a Prostate Risk Identification using Microultrasound (PRI-MUS) score, with lesions PRI-MUS ≥3 targeted. MRI lesions were scored with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and lesions PI-RADS ≥3 were targeted. The primary outcome is the detection of csPCa stratified by number of cores. RESULTS One hundred thirty-eight patients underwent targeted biopsies for microultrasound only lesions, 182 for microultrasound and MRI lesions and 426 underwent MRI/US for MRI lesions. The first targeted core detected 78.0% (46/59), 77.8% (63/81), and 78.8% (216/274) of csPCa for microultrasound, microultrasound+MRI, and MRI/US, respectively. Comparing first to third core, there was not a significant difference in overall detection of csPCa by microultrasound, though MRI/US was significantly different (28.4% vs 36.4% P = .12, 32.5% vs 41.8% P = .06, 42.5% vs 53.9% P < .001 for microultrasound, microultrasound+MRI, and MRI/US, respectively). PI-RADS 3 and PRI-MUS 3 lesions had lower first core detection rates compared to PI-RADS 5 and PRI-MUS 5 lesions (44.4% vs 85.4% P = .01, 65.2% vs 81.4% P = .14, 60% vs 83.1% P = .07 for microultrasound, microultrasound+MRI, and MRI/US, respectively). CONCLUSION A three-core targeted biopsy per microultrasound lesion improves detection rate of csPCa and should be considered to improve diagnostic accuracy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick Albers
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Jacob Bennett
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Moira Evans
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Ella St Martin
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Betty Wang
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Stacey Broomfield
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Anaïs Medina Martín
- Alberta Prostate Cancer Research Initiative (APCaRI), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Wendy Tu
- Department of Radiology & Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Christopher Fung
- Department of Radiology & Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Adam Kinnaird
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Alberta Prostate Cancer Research Initiative (APCaRI), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Cancer Research Institute of Northern Alberta (CRINA), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Alberta Centre for Urologic Research and Excellence (ACURE), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|