1
|
Lee KL, Caglic I, Liao PH, Kessler DA, Guo CY, Barrett T. PI-QUAL version 2 image quality categorisation and inter-reader agreement compared to version 1. Eur Radiol 2024:10.1007/s00330-024-11233-1. [PMID: 39609284 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-11233-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2024] [Revised: 10/21/2024] [Accepted: 10/26/2024] [Indexed: 11/30/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) was developed to standardise the evaluation of prostate MRI quality and has recently been updated to version 2. This study aims to assess inter-reader agreement for PI-QUAL v1 and v2 scores and investigates changes in MRI quality score categories. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study retrospectively analysed 350 multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) scans. Two expert uroradiologists independently assessed mpMRI quality using PI-QUAL v1 and v2 guidelines. Biparametric MRI (bpMRI) categorisation based on PI-QUAL v2 included only T2WI and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) results. Inter-reader agreement was determined using percentage agreement and kappa, and categorisation comparisons were made using the chi-square test. RESULTS Substantial inter-reader agreement was observed for the overall PI-QUAL v1 score (κ = 0.64) and moderate agreement for v2 mpMRI (κ = 0.54) and v2 bpMRI scores (κ = 0.57). Inter-reader agreements on individual sequences were similar between v1 and v2 (kappa for individual sequences: T2WI, 0.46 and 0.49; DWI, 0.66 and 0.70; DCE, 0.71 and 0.61). Quality levels shifted from predominantly "optimal" in v1 (65%) down to "acceptable" using v2 (55%); p < 0.001. The addition of DCE increased the proportion of cases with at least "adequate" quality at mpMRI (64%) compared to bpMRI (30%); p < 0.001. CONCLUSION This study shows consistent inter-reader agreement between PI-QUAL v1 and v2, encompassing overall and individual sequence categorisation. A notable shift from "optimal" to "acceptable" quality was demonstrated when moving from v1 to v2, with DCE tending improving quality from "inadequate" (bpMRI) to "acceptable" (mpMRI). KEY POINTS Question What are the agreement levels of image quality of prostate MRI by using PI-QUAL v1 and v2? Findings Inter-reader agreement based on PI-QUAL v1 and v2 is comparable. Dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) enables an overall shift from inadequate quality (at bpMRI) to acceptable quality (mpMRI). Clinical relevance The inter-reader agreement on PI-QUAL v1 and v2 is equivalent. PI-QUAL v2 assesses prostate bpMRI as well as mpMRI quality. Transitioning from inadequate to acceptable between v2-bpMRI and v2-mpMRI highlights the role of DCE as an "image quality safety net."
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kang-Lung Lee
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
- School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Iztok Caglic
- Department of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| | - Po-Hsiang Liao
- School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
- Division of biostatistics and data science, Institute of Public Health, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Dimitri A Kessler
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Barcelona Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Lab (BCN-AIM), Facultat de Matemàtques i Informàtica, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Chao-Yu Guo
- Division of biostatistics and data science, Institute of Public Health, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
- Department of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Park SH, Choi MH, Lee YJ, Jung SE. Rationale for adopting a combination of monoparametric MRI with the prostate-specific antigen in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer: comparison with standard biparametric and multiparametric MRI. Br J Radiol 2024; 97:1775-1781. [PMID: 39212614 DOI: 10.1093/bjr/tqae134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2024] [Revised: 07/23/2024] [Accepted: 07/27/2024] [Indexed: 09/04/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare prostate monoparametric MRI (monoMRI), which uses only diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), with biparametric (bpMRI) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in detecting clinically significant cancer (CSC) and to evaluate the effect of the combination of monoMRI results and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. METHODS In this study, 193 patients (average age 70.5 years; average PSA 7.9 ng/mL) underwent prebiopsy MRI and subsequent prostate biopsy from January 2020 to February 2022. Two radiologists independently reviewed the 3 MRI protocols using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Interreader agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and diagnostic performance was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The Youden index was used to determine the new cutoff value of PSA for detecting CSCs in patients with negative monoMRI results. RESULTS CSC was confirmed in 109 patients (56.5%). The interreader agreement on monoMRI (ICC = 0.798) was comparable to that on bpMRI and mpMRI (ICC = 0.751 and 0.714, respectively). ROC curve analysis of the 3 protocols revealed no difference in detecting CSCs (P > 0.05). Applying a new PSA cutoff value (9.5 and 7.4 ng/mL, respectively) in monoMRI-negative patients improved the sensitivity of monoMRI from 89.9% to 96.3% for Reader 1, and from 95.4% to 99.1% for Reader 2. CONCLUSIONS MonoMRI based solely on DWI demonstrated similar diagnostic performance to bpMRI and mpMRI in detecting CSCs, and the combination of PSA level with monoMRI has the potential to effectively triage patients with a high likelihood of CSCs. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Monoparametric MRI conducted only with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), may show comparable performance to biparametric and multiparametric MRI in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. In patients with negative monoparametric MRI results, implementing a new PSA cutoff value to determine the need for a biopsy could decrease the number of missed prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seung Hyun Park
- Department of Radiology, Eunpyeong St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 03312, Republic of Korea
| | - Moon Hyung Choi
- Department of Radiology, Eunpyeong St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 03312, Republic of Korea
| | - Young Joon Lee
- Department of Radiology, Eunpyeong St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 03312, Republic of Korea
| | - Seung Eun Jung
- Department of Radiology, Eunpyeong St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 03312, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Erkan A, Gur Ozcan SG, Erkan M, Barali D, Koc A. Predictive ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting prostate cancer and its clinical significance in MRI-targeted biopsy for prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) ≥3 lesions. Clin Radiol 2024; 80:106731. [PMID: 39536595 DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2024.10.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2024] [Revised: 08/12/2024] [Accepted: 10/14/2024] [Indexed: 11/16/2024]
Abstract
AIM Identifying the index lesion in prostate cancer (PCa) is vital for its treatment. Therefore, various coefficients and parameters are used to improve the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This study aimed to analyze MRI data, utilized as a triage test before prostate biopsy, to identify independent risk factors affecting negative biopsy results in PCa and investigate the ability of these factors to predict clinically significant and insignificant PCa (csPCa and ciPCa, respectively). MATERIALS AND METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 364 patients with a prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) v2.1 score of 3 or higher, who underwent cognitive MRI-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB). Of the patients, 226 (62.1%) had benign lesions, 75 (20.6%) were diagnosed with ciPCa, and 63 (17.3%) with csPCa. The study assessed patients' demographic, biochemical, and radiologic characteristics, including apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and ADC coefficient of variation (ADCCoV) values. RESULTS The multivariate analysis performed to differentiate PCa from benign pathologies revealed that only MRI parameters, specifically the presence of PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions (odds ratio [OR]: 12, p < 0.001 and OR: 73, p = 0.008, respectively), a lower ADC value (OR: 0.996, p = 0.041) and a higher ADCCoV value (OR: 1.07, p = 0.003) were independent risk factors. No MRI findings had significant predictive power for csPCa, with total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (OR: 1.17, p = 0.019) found to be the only independent risk factor. CONCLUSION The results of this study suggest that data obtained from MRI can predict PCa but not csPCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Erkan
- University of Health Sciences, Bursa Yuksek Ihtisas Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Bursa, Turkey.
| | - S G Gur Ozcan
- University of Health Sciences, Bursa Yuksek Ihtisas Training and Research Hospital, Department of Radiology, Bursa, Turkey
| | - M Erkan
- University of Health Sciences, Bursa Yuksek Ihtisas Training and Research Hospital, Department of Radiology, Bursa, Turkey
| | - D Barali
- University of Health Sciences, Bursa Yuksek Ihtisas Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Bursa, Turkey
| | - A Koc
- University of Health Sciences, Bursa Yuksek Ihtisas Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Bursa, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Caglic I, Sushentsev N, Syer T, Lee KL, Barrett T. Biparametric MRI in prostate cancer during active surveillance: is it safe? Eur Radiol 2024; 34:6217-6226. [PMID: 38656709 PMCID: PMC11399179 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10770-z] [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: 02/02/2024] [Revised: 03/13/2024] [Accepted: 03/22/2024] [Indexed: 04/26/2024]
Abstract
Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred option for patients presenting with low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer. MRI now plays a crucial role for baseline assessment and ongoing monitoring of AS. The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations aid radiological assessment of progression; however, current guidelines do not advise on MRI protocols nor on frequency. Biparametric (bp) imaging without contrast administration offers advantages such as reduced costs and increased throughput, with similar outcomes to multiparametric (mp) MRI shown in the biopsy naïve setting. In AS follow-up, the paradigm shifts from MRI lesion detection to assessment of progression, and patients have the further safety net of continuing clinical surveillance. As such, bpMRI may be appropriate in clinically stable patients on routine AS follow-up pathways; however, there is currently limited published evidence for this approach. It should be noted that mpMRI may be mandated in certain patients and potentially offers additional advantages, including improving image quality, new lesion detection, and staging accuracy. Recently developed AI solutions have enabled higher quality and faster scanning protocols, which may help mitigate against disadvantages of bpMRI. In this article, we explore the current role of MRI in AS and address the need for contrast-enhanced sequences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Active surveillance is the preferred plan for patients with lower-risk prostate cancer, and MRI plays a crucial role in patient selection and monitoring; however, current guidelines do not currently recommend how or when to perform MRI in follow-up. KEY POINTS: Noncontrast biparametric MRI has reduced costs and increased throughput and may be appropriate for monitoring stable patients. Multiparametric MRI may be mandated in certain patients, and contrast potentially offers additional advantages. AI solutions enable higher quality, faster scanning protocols, and could mitigate the disadvantages of biparametric imaging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Iztok Caglic
- Department of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Nikita Sushentsev
- Department of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Tom Syer
- Department of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Kang-Lung Lee
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
- Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
- School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Harding TA, Martin RM, Merriel SW, Jones R, O'Sullivan JM, Kirby M, Olajide O, Norman A, Bhatt J, Hulson O, Martins T, Gnanapragasam VJ, Aning J, Burgess M, Rosario DJ, Pashayan N, Tesfai A, Norori N, Rylance A, Seggie A. Optimising the use of the prostate- specific antigen blood test in asymptomatic men for early prostate cancer detection in primary care: report from a UK clinical consensus. Br J Gen Pract 2024; 74:e534-e543. [PMID: 39038964 PMCID: PMC11289937 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp.2023.0586] [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: 11/21/2023] [Accepted: 03/27/2024] [Indexed: 07/24/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Screening is not recommended for prostate cancer in the UK. Asymptomatic men aged ≥50 years can request a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test following counselling on potential harms and benefits. There are areas of clinical uncertainty among GPs, resulting in the content and quality of counselling varying. AIM To produce a consensus that can influence guidelines for UK primary care on the optimal use of the PSA test in asymptomatic men for early prostate cancer detection. DESIGN AND SETTING Prostate Cancer UK facilitated a RAND/UCLA consensus. METHOD Statements covering five topics were developed with a subgroup of experts. A panel of 15 experts in prostate cancer scored (round one) statements on a scale of one (strongly disagree) to nine (strongly agree). Panellists met to discuss statements before rescoring (round two). A lived experience panel of seven men scored a subset of statements with outcomes fed into the main panel. RESULTS Of the initial 94 statements reviewed by the expert panel, a final 48/85 (56%) achieved consensus. In the absence of screening, there was consensus on proactive approaches to initiate discussions about the PSA test with men who were at higher-than-average risk. CONCLUSION Improvements in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway may have reduced some of the harms associated with PSA testing; however, several areas of uncertainty remain in relation to screening, including optimal PSA thresholds for referral and intervals for retesting. There is consensus on proactive approaches to testing in higher-than-average risk groups. This should prompt a review of current guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas A Harding
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | - Richard M Martin
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | | | - Robert Jones
- School of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow
| | - Joe M O'Sullivan
- Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast
| | - Mike Kirby
- British Society for Sexual Medicine, Bygrave, Hertfordshire
| | - Oluwabunmi Olajide
- GP training programme director, Barking, Dagenham & Havering GP Vocational Training Scheme
| | | | - Jaimin Bhatt
- Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow; honorary clinical senior lecturer, University of Glasgow, Glasgow
| | | | - Tanimola Martins
- University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter
| | | | - Jonathan Aning
- Bristol Urological Institute, North Bristol NHS Trust and Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | | | - Derek J Rosario
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge; honorary professor of applied cancer research, Department of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Woernle A, Englman C, Dickinson L, Kirkham A, Punwani S, Haider A, Freeman A, Kasivisivanathan V, Emberton M, Hines J, Moore CM, Allen C, Giganti F. Picture Perfect: The Status of Image Quality in Prostate MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2024; 59:1930-1952. [PMID: 37804007 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.29025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2023] [Revised: 09/07/2023] [Accepted: 09/08/2023] [Indexed: 10/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard imaging modality for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Image quality is a fundamental prerequisite for the ability to detect clinically significant disease. In this critical review, we separate the issue of image quality into quality improvement and quality assessment. Beginning with the evolution of technical recommendations for scan acquisition, we investigate the role of patient preparation, scanner factors, and more advanced sequences, including those featuring Artificial Intelligence (AI), in determining image quality. As means of quality appraisal, the published literature on scoring systems (including the Prostate Imaging Quality score), is evaluated. Finally, the application of AI and teaching courses as ways to facilitate quality assessment are discussed, encouraging the implementation of future image quality initiatives along the PCa diagnostic and monitoring pathway. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandre Woernle
- Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Cameron Englman
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Louise Dickinson
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Alex Kirkham
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK
| | - Aiman Haider
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Veeru Kasivisivanathan
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - John Hines
- Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- North East London Cancer Alliance & North Central London Cancer Alliance Urology, London, UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clare Allen
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Miszewski K, Skrobisz K, Miszewska L, Matuszewski M. Interpreting Prostate MRI Reports in the Era of Increasing Prostate MRI Utilization: A Urologist's Perspective. Diagnostics (Basel) 2024; 14:1060. [PMID: 38786358 PMCID: PMC11120165 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14101060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2024] [Revised: 05/16/2024] [Accepted: 05/16/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024] Open
Abstract
Multi-parametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) is crucial for diagnosing, staging, and assessing treatment response in individuals with prostate cancer. Radiologists, through an accurate and standardized interpretation of mpMRI, stratify patients who may benefit from more invasive treatment or exclude patients who may be harmed by overtreatment. The integration of prostate MRI into the diagnostic pathway is anticipated to generate a substantial surge in the demand for high-quality mpMRI, estimated at approximately two million additional prostate MRI scans annually in Europe. In this review we examine the immediate impact on healthcare, particularly focusing on the workload and evolving roles of radiologists and urologists tasked with the interpretation of these reports and consequential decisions regarding prostate biopsies. We investigate important questions that influence how prostate MRI reports are handled. The discussion aims to provide insights into the collaboration needed for effective reporting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin Miszewski
- Department of Urology, Gdańsk Medical University, Mariana Smoluchowskiego 17 Street, 80-214 Gdańsk, Poland
| | - Katarzyna Skrobisz
- Department of Radiology, Gdańsk Medical University, Mariana Smoluchowskiego 17 Street, 80-214 Gdańsk, Poland
| | - Laura Miszewska
- Student Scientific Association, Gdańsk Medical University, Mariana Smoluchowskiego 17 Street, 80-214 Gdańsk, Poland
| | - Marcin Matuszewski
- Department of Urology, Gdańsk Medical University, Mariana Smoluchowskiego 17 Street, 80-214 Gdańsk, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Hofmann BM, Brandsaeter IØ, Andersen ER, Porthun J, Kjelle E. Temporal and geographical variations in diagnostic imaging in Norway. BMC Health Serv Res 2024; 24:463. [PMID: 38610021 PMCID: PMC11015609 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-10869-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2023] [Accepted: 03/14/2024] [Indexed: 04/14/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Unwarranted temporal and geographical variations are acknowledged as a profound problem for equal access and justice in the provision of health services. Even more, they challenge the quality, safety, and efficiency of such services. This is highly relevant for imaging services. OBJECTIVE To analyse the temporal and geographical variation in the number of diagnostic images in Norway from 2013 to 2021. METHODS Data on outpatient imaging provided by the Norwegian Health Economics Administration (HELFO) and inpatient data afforded by fourteen hospital trusts and hospitals in Norway. Data include the total number of imaging examinations according to the Norwegian Classification of Radiological Procedures (NCRP). Analyses were performed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS More than 37 million examinations were performed in Norway during 2013-2021 giving an average of 4.2 million examinations per year. In 2021 there was performed and average of 0.8 examinations per person and 2.2 examinations per person for the age group > 80. There was a 9% increase in the total number of examinations from 2013 to 2015 and a small and stable decrease of 0.5% per year from 2015 to 2021 (with the exception of 2020 due to the pandemic). On average 71% of all examinations were outpatient examinations and 32% were conducted at private imaging centres. There were substantial variations between the health regions, with Region South-East having 53.1% more examinations per inhabitant than Region West. The geographical variation was even more outspoken when comparing catchment areas, where Oslo University Hospital Trust had twice as many examinations per inhabitant than Finnmark Hospital Trust. CONCLUSION As the population in Norway is homogeneous it is difficult to attribute the variations to socio-economic or demographic factors. Unwarranted and supply-sensitive variations are challenging for healthcare systems where equal access and justice traditionally are core values.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bjørn Morten Hofmann
- Department of Health Sciences Gjøvik, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), NTNU Gjøvik, PO Box 191, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway.
- Centre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, PO Box 1130, 0318, Blindern, Oslo, Norway.
| | - Ingrid Øfsti Brandsaeter
- Department of Health Sciences Gjøvik, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), NTNU Gjøvik, PO Box 191, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway
| | - Eivind Richter Andersen
- Department of Health Sciences Gjøvik, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), NTNU Gjøvik, PO Box 191, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway
| | - Jan Porthun
- Department of Health Sciences Gjøvik, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), NTNU Gjøvik, PO Box 191, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway
| | - Elin Kjelle
- Department of Health Sciences Gjøvik, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), NTNU Gjøvik, PO Box 191, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Tesfai A, Norori N, Harding TA, Wong YH, Hobbs MD. The impact of pre-biopsy MRI and additional testing on prostate cancer screening outcomes: A rapid review. BJUI COMPASS 2024; 5:426-438. [PMID: 38633829 PMCID: PMC11019254 DOI: 10.1002/bco2.321] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2023] [Accepted: 11/26/2023] [Indexed: 04/19/2024] Open
Abstract
Objective This work aims to examine the latest evidence on the impact of pre-biopsy MRI, in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, on health outcomes and quality of life. Methods We conducted a literature search including PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases, with a limited scan of (i) guidelines and (ii) references from trial reports, from January 2005 to 25th January 2023. Two independent reviewers selected randomised controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies which met our inclusion criteria. Results One hundred thirty-seven articles were identified, and seven trial articles were selected. Trial interventions were as follows: (i) PSA blood test, (ii) additional tests such as pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and Biparametric MRI (bpMRI), and (iii) MRI targeted biopsy and standard biopsy. Compared with standard biopsy, MRI-based interventions led to increased detection of clinically significant cancers in three studies and decreased detection of clinically insignificant cancer (Gleason grade 3 + 3) in four studies. However, PROstate Magnetic resonance Imaging Study (PROMIS) and Stockholm3 with MRI (STHLM3-MRI) studies reported different trends depending on the scenario studied in PROMIS (MRI triage and MRI directed biopsy vs. MRI triage and standard biopsy) and thresholds used in STHLM3-MRI (≥0·11 and ≥0·15). MRI also helped 8%-49% of men avoid biopsy, in six out of seven studies, but not in STHLM3-MRI at ≥0.11. Interestingly, the proportion of men who experienced sepsis and UTI was low across studies. Conclusion This review found that a combination of approaches, centred on the use of pre-biopsy MRI, may improve the detection of clinically significant cancers and reduce (i) the diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancers and (ii) unnecessary biopsies, compared with PSA testing and standard biopsy alone. However, the impact of such interventions on longer term outcomes such as prostate cancer-specific mortality has not yet been assessed.
Collapse
|
10
|
Rajendran I, Lee KL, Thavaraja L, Barrett T. Risk stratification of prostate cancer with MRI and prostate-specific antigen density-based tool for personalized decision making. Br J Radiol 2024; 97:113-119. [PMID: 38263825 PMCID: PMC11027333 DOI: 10.1093/bjr/tqad027] [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: 07/04/2023] [Revised: 09/22/2023] [Accepted: 10/03/2023] [Indexed: 01/25/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES MRI is now established for initial prostate cancer diagnosis; however, there is no standardized pathway to avoid unnecessary biopsy in low-risk patients. Our study aimed to test previously proposed MRI-focussed and risk-adapted biopsy decision models on a real-world dataset. METHODS Single-centre retrospective study performed on 2055 biopsy naïve patients undergoing MRI. Diagnostic pathways included "biopsy all", "MRI-focussed" and two risk-based MRI-directed pathways. Risk thresholds were based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density as low (<0.10 ng mL-2), intermediate (0.10-0.15 ng mL-2), high (0.15-0.20 ng mL-2), or very high-risk (>0.20 ng mL-2). The outcome measures included rates of biopsy avoidance, detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), missed csPCa, and overdiagnosis of insignificant prostate cancer (iPCa). RESULTS Overall cancer rate was 39.9% (819/2055), with csPCa (Grade-Group ≥2) detection of 30.3% (623/2055). In men with a negative MRI (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, PI-RADS 1-2), the risk of cancer was 1.2%, 2.6%, 9.0%, and 12.9% in the low, intermediate, high, and very high groups, respectively; for PI-RADS score 3 lesions, the rates were 10.5%, 14.3%, 25.0%, and 33.3%, respectively. MRI-guided pathway and risk-based pathway with a low threshold missed only 1.6% csPCa with a biopsy-avoidance rate of 54.4%, and the risk-based pathway with a higher threshold avoided 62.9% (1292/2055) of biopsies with 2.9% (61/2055) missed csPCa detection. Decision curve analysis found that the "risk-based low threshold" pathway has the highest net benefit for probability thresholds between 3.6% and 13.9%. CONCLUSION Combined MRI and PSA-density risk-based pathways can be a helpful decision-making tool enabling high csPCa detection rates with the benefit of biopsy avoidance and reduced iPCa detection. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE This real-world dataset from a large UK-based cohort confirms that combining MRI scoring with PSA density for risk stratification enables safe biopsy avoidance and limits the over-diagnosis of insignificant cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ishwariya Rajendran
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom
| | - Kang-Lung Lee
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom
- Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 11217, Taiwan
- School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112304, Taiwan
| | - Liness Thavaraja
- School of Medicine, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge CB2 0SP, United Kingdom
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Lophatananon A, Light A, Burns-Cox N, Maccormick A, John J, Otti V, McGrath J, Archer P, Anning J, McCracken S, Page T, Muir K, Gnanapragasam VJ. Re-evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of PSA as a referral test to detect clinically significant prostate cancer in contemporary MRI-based image-guided biopsy pathways. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL UROLOGY 2023; 16:264-273. [PMID: 37614642 PMCID: PMC7614972 DOI: 10.1177/20514158211059057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/25/2023]
Abstract
Introduction Modern image-guided biopsy pathways at diagnostic centres have greatly refined the investigations of men referred with suspected prostate cancer. However, the referral criteria from primary care are still based on historical prostate-specific antigen (PSA) cut-offs and age-referenced thresholds. Here, we tested whether better contemporary pathways and biopsy methods had improved the predictive utility value of PSA referral thresholds. Methods PSA referral thresholds, age-referenced ranges and PSA density (PSAd) were assessed for positive predictive value (PPV) in detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa - histological ⩾ Grade Group 2). Data were analysed from men referred to three diagnostics centres who used multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-guided prostate biopsies for disease characterisation. Findings were validated in a separate multicentre cohort. Results: Data from 2767 men were included in this study. The median age, PSA and PSAd were 66.4 years, 7.3 ng/mL and 0.1 ng/mL2, respectively. Biopsy detected csPCa was found in 38.7%. The overall area under the curve (AUC) for PSA was 0.68 which is similar to historical performance. A PSA threshold of ⩾ 3 ng/mL had a PPV of 40.3%, but this was age dependent (PPV: 24.8%, 32.7% and 56.8% in men 50-59 years, 60-69 years and ⩾ 70 years, respectively). Different PSA cut-offs and age-reference ranges failed to demonstrate better performance. PSAd demonstrated improved AUC (0.78 vs 0.68, p < 0.0001) and improved PPV compared to PSA. A PSAd of ⩾ 0.10 had a PPV of 48.2% and similar negative predictive value (NPV) to PSA ⩾ 3 ng/mL and out-performed PSA age-reference ranges. This improved performance was recapitulated in a separate multi-centre cohort (n = 541). Conclusion The introduction of MRI-based image-guided biopsy pathways does not appear to have altered PSA diagnostic test characteristics to positively detect csPCa. We find no added value to PSA age-referenced ranges, while PSAd offers better PPV and the potential for a single clinically useful threshold (⩾0.10) for all age groups. Level of evidence IV.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Artitaya Lophatananon
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care Centre, University of Manchester, UK
| | - Alexander Light
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, UK
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | | | | | - Joseph John
- Department of Urology, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust and University of Exeter, UK
| | - Vanessa Otti
- Department of Urology, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust and University of Exeter, UK
| | - John McGrath
- Department of Urology, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust and University of Exeter, UK
| | - Pete Archer
- Department of Urology, Southend Hospital, UK
| | | | - Stuart McCracken
- Department of Urology, South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Trust, UK
| | - Toby Page
- Department of Urology, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
| | - Ken Muir
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care Centre, University of Manchester, UK
| | - Vincent J Gnanapragasam
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, UK
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK
- Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Stevens WM, Parchment-Smith C, Melling PP, Smith JT. Making an art into a science: a mathematical "Likert tool" can change PI-RADS (v2) scores into Likert scores when reporting multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer. Acta Radiol 2023; 64:1245-1254. [PMID: 35815700 DOI: 10.1177/02841851221112194] [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] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND When reporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for prostate cancer, UK national guidelines recommend allocating both Likert and PI-RAD scores. Likert scores have been shown to better predict clinically significant cancer (csPCa) but are subjective and lack standardization. PURPOSE To compare differences in outcomes between the scoring systems and create a mathematical tool that can help to objectively allocate Likert scores. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 791 patients referred with query prostate cancer between 2017 and 2019 were prospectively allocated PI-RADS and Likert scores by a single experienced reporter. Histology results were used to compare the predictive accuracy of both scoring systems. A "Likert tool" was created based on a logistic regression of features found to be predictors of csPCa in a cohort of 2018-2019 patients (n = 411). Its performance was evaluated. RESULTS Assuming a policy whereby patients with a PI-RADS/Likert score of ≥3 are biopsied, Likert scoring (sensitivity 0.92, specificity 0.77) would have resulted in 107 fewer biopsies and 20.3% higher cancer yields than the PI-RADS score (sensitivity 0.99, specificity 0.43). Thirteen patients would have avoided over-diagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (iPCa). Similar outcomes (111 fewer biopsies, 22.3% increase in cancer yield, iPCa diagnosis avoided in 16 patients) could be seen when the "Likert tool" was applied to the same patient cohort (sensitivity 0.93, specificity 0.79) and to a separate cohort (n = 380). CONCLUSION PI-RADS and Likert scores are different. A "Likert tool" could reduce inter-reporter variability, decrease the number of patients unnecessarily biopsied, increase csPCa yield, and decrease over-diagnosis of iPCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William Mark Stevens
- Bradford Royal Infirmary, 1906Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | | | - Philip Peter Melling
- Department of Information and Insight, Digital Informatics team, 4472Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - Jonathan Timothy Smith
- Department of Radiology, 4472Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Leapman MS, Thiel CL, Gordon IO, Nolte AC, Perecman A, Loeb S, Overcash M, Sherman JD. Environmental Impact of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol 2023; 83:463-471. [PMID: 36635108 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.12.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2022] [Revised: 11/17/2022] [Accepted: 12/09/2022] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Reducing low-value clinical care is an important strategy to mitigate environmental pollution caused by health care. OBJECTIVE To estimate the environmental impacts associated with prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We performed a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of prostate biopsy. Data included materials and energy inventory, patient and staff travel contributed by prostate MRI, transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy, and pathology analysis. We compared environmental emissions across five clinical scenarios: multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate with targeted and systematic biopsies (baseline), mpMRI with targeted biopsy cores only, systematic biopsy without MRI, mpMRI with systematic biopsy, and biparametric MRI (bpMRI) with targeted and systematic biopsies. We estimated the environmental impacts associated with reducing the overall number and varying the approach of a prostate biopsy by using MRI as a triage strategy or by omitting MRI. The study involved academic medical centers in the USA, outpatient urology clinics, health care facilities, medical staff, and patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalents, CO2e), and equivalents of coal and gasoline burned were measured. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS In the USA, a single transrectal prostate biopsy procedure including prostate MRI, and targeted and systematic biopsies emits an estimated 80.7 kg CO2e. An approach of MRI targeted cores alone without a systematic biopsy generated 76.2 kg CO2e, a systematic 12-core biopsy without mpMRI generated 36.2 kg CO2e, and bpMRI with targeted and systematic biopsies generated 70.5 kg CO2e; mpMRI alone contributed 42.7 kg CO2e (54.3% of baseline scenario). Energy was the largest contributor, with an estimated 38.1 kg CO2e, followed by staff travel (20.7 kg CO2e) and supply production (11.4 kg CO2e). Performing 100 000 fewer unnecessary biopsies would avoid 8.1 million kg CO2e, the equivalent of 4.1 million liters of gasoline consumed. Per 100 000 patients, the use of prostate MRI to triage prostate biopsy and guide targeted biopsy cores would save the equivalent of 1.4 million kg of CO2 emissions, the equivalent of 700 000 l of gasoline consumed. This analysis was limited to prostate MRI and biopsy, and does not account for downstream clinical management. CONCLUSIONS A prostate biopsy contributes a calculable environmental footprint. Modifying or reducing the number of biopsies performed through existing evidence-based approaches would decrease health care pollution from the procedure. PATIENT SUMMARY We estimated that prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a prostate biopsy procedure emits the equivalent of 80.7 kg of carbon dioxide. Performing fewer unnecessary prostate biopsies or using prostate MRI as a tool to decide which patients should have a prostate biopsy would reduce procedural greenhouse gas emissions and health care pollution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael S Leapman
- Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
| | - Cassandra L Thiel
- Department of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Department of Ophthalmology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | | | | | | | - Stacy Loeb
- Department of Urology, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA; Departments of Urology and Population Health, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA; Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Jodi D Sherman
- Department of Anesthesiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Lophatananon A, Byrne MHV, Barrett T, Warren A, Muir K, Dokubo I, Georgiades F, Sheba M, Bibby L, Gnanapragasam VJ. Assessing the impact of MRI based diagnostics on pre-treatment disease classification and prognostic model performance in men diagnosed with new prostate cancer from an unscreened population. BMC Cancer 2022; 22:878. [PMID: 35953766 PMCID: PMC9367076 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09955-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2022] [Accepted: 07/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Pre-treatment risk and prognostic groups are the cornerstone for deciding management in non-metastatic prostate cancer. All however, were developed in the pre-MRI era. Here we compared categorisation of cancers using either only clinical parameters or with MRI enhanced information in men referred for suspected prostate cancer from an unscreened population. Patient and methods Data from men referred from primary care to our diagnostic service and with both clinical (digital rectal examination [DRE] and systematic biopsies) and MRI enhanced attributes (MRI stage and combined systematic/targeted biopsies) were used for this study. Clinical vs MRI data were contrasted for clinico-pathological and risk group re-distribution using the European Association of Urology (EAU), American Urological Association (AUA) and UK National Institute for Health Care Excellence (NICE) Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) models. Differences were retrofitted to a population cohort with long-term prostate cancer mortality (PCM) outcomes to simulate impact on model performance. We further contrasted individualised overall survival (OS) predictions using the Predict Prostate algorithm. Results Data from 370 men were included (median age 66y). Pre-biopsy MRI stage reassignments occurred in 7.8% (versus DRE). Image-guided biopsies increased Grade Group 2 and ≥ Grade Group 3 assignments in 2.7% and 2.9% respectively. The main change in risk groups was more high-risk cancers (6.2% increase in the EAU and AUA system, 4.3% increase in CPG4 and 1.9% CPG5). When extrapolated to a historical population-based cohort (n = 10,139) the redistribution resulted in generally lower concordance indices for PCM. The 5-tier NICE-CPG system outperformed the 4-tier AUA and 3-tier EAU models (C Index 0.70 versus 0.65 and 0.64). Using an individualised prognostic model, changes in predicted OS were small (median difference 1% and 2% at 10- and 15-years’ respectively). Similarly, estimated treatment survival benefit changes were minimal (1% at both 10- and 15-years’ time frame). Conclusion MRI guided diagnostics does change pre-treatment risk groups assignments but the overall prognostic impact appears modest in men referred from unscreened populations. Particularly, when using more granular tiers or individualised prognostic models. Existing risk and prognostic models can continue to be used to counsel men about treatment option until long term survival outcomes are available.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09955-w.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Artitaya Lophatananon
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Matthew H V Byrne
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Anne Warren
- Department of Pathology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Kenneth Muir
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Ibifuro Dokubo
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Fanos Georgiades
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.,Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Mostafa Sheba
- Kasr Al Any School of Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
| | - Lisa Bibby
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Vincent J Gnanapragasam
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. .,Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. .,Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23:428-438. [DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00016-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2021] [Revised: 12/18/2021] [Accepted: 12/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
|
16
|
Zhou X, Qiu S, Jin K, Yuan Q, Jin D, Zhang Z, Zheng X, Li J, Wei Q, Yang L. Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival Among Patients With Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy Based on the Competing Risk Model: Population-Based Study. Front Surg 2021; 8:770169. [PMID: 34901145 PMCID: PMC8660757 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.770169] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2021] [Accepted: 11/08/2021] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction: We aimed to develop an easy-to-use individual survival prognostication tool based on competing risk analyses to predict the risk of 5-year cancer-specific death after radical prostatectomy for patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: We obtained the data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004–2016). The main variables obtained included age at diagnosis, marital status, race, pathological extension, regional lymphonode status, prostate specific antigen level, pathological Gleason Score. In order to reveal the independent prognostic factors. The cumulative incidence function was used as the univariable competing risk analyses and The Fine and Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard approach was used as the multivariable competing risk analyses. With these factors, a nomogram and risk stratification based on the nomogram was established. Concordance index (C-index) and calibration curves were used for validation. Results: A total of 95,812 patients were included and divided into training cohort (n = 67,072) and validation cohort (n = 28,740). Seven independent prognostic factors including age, race, marital status, pathological extension, regional lymphonode status, PSA level, and pathological GS were used to construct the nomogram. In the training cohort, the C-index was 0.828 (%95CI, 0.812–0.844), and the C-index was 0.838 (%95CI, 0.813–0.863) in the validation cohort. The results of the cumulative incidence function showed that the discrimination of risk stratification based on nomogram is better than that of the risk stratification system based on D'Amico risk stratification. Conclusions: We successfully developed the first competing risk nomogram to predict the risk of cancer-specific death after surgery for patients with PCa. It has the potential to help clinicians improve post-operative management of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xianghong Zhou
- Department of Urology, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics and Center of Biomedical Big Data, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Shi Qiu
- Department of Urology, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics and Center of Biomedical Big Data, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Kun Jin
- Department of Urology, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics and Center of Biomedical Big Data, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Qiming Yuan
- Department of Urology, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics and Center of Biomedical Big Data, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Di Jin
- Department of Urology, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics and Center of Biomedical Big Data, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Zilong Zhang
- Department of Urology, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics and Center of Biomedical Big Data, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Xiaonan Zheng
- Department of Urology, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics and Center of Biomedical Big Data, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Jiakun Li
- Department of Urology, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics and Center of Biomedical Big Data, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Qiang Wei
- Department of Urology, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics and Center of Biomedical Big Data, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Lu Yang
- Department of Urology, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics and Center of Biomedical Big Data, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Leapman MS, Wang R, Park H, Yu JB, Sprenkle PC, Cooperberg MR, Gross CP, Ma X. Changes in Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Relative to the Revised US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation on Prostate Cancer Screening. JAMA Oncol 2021; 8:41-47. [PMID: 34762100 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.5143] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
Importance In April 2017, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) published a draft guideline that reversed its 2012 guidance advising against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer in all men (grade D), instead endorsing individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C). Objective To evaluate changes in rates of PSA testing after revisions in the USPSTF guideline on prostate cancer screening. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study used deidentified claims data from Blue Cross Blue Shield beneficiaries aged 40 to 89 years from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2019. Exposures Publication of the USPSTF's draft (April 2017) and final (May 2018) recommendation on prostate cancer screening. Main Outcomes and Measures Age-adjusted rates of PSA testing in bimonthly periods were calculated, and PSA testing rates from calendar years before (January 1 to December 31, 2016) and after (January 1 to December 31, 2019) the guideline change were compared. Interrupted time series analyses were used to evaluate the association of the draft (April 2017) and published (May 2018) USPSTF guideline with rates of PSA testing. Changes in rates of PSA testing were further evaluated among beneficiaries within the age categories reflected in the guideline: 40 to 54 years, 55 to 69 years, and 70 to 89 years. Results The median number of eligible beneficiaries for each bimonthly period was 8 087 565 (range, 6 407 602-8 747 308), and the median age of all included eligible beneficiaries was 53 years (IQR, 47-59 years). Between 2016 and 2019, the mean (SD) rate of PSA testing increased from 32.5 (1.1) to 36.5 (1.1) tests per 100 person-years, a relative increase of 12.5% (95% CI, 1.1%-24.4%). During the same period, mean (SD) rates of PSA testing increased from 20.6 (0.8) to 22.7 (0.9) tests per 100 person-years among men aged 40 to 54 years (relative increase, 10.1%; 95% CI, -2.8% to 23.7%), from 49.8 (1.9) to 55.8 (1.8) tests per 100 person-years among men aged 55 to 69 years (relative increase, 12.1%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 25.2%), and from 38.0 (1.4) to 44.2 (1.4) tests per 100 person-years among men aged 70 to 89 years (relative increase, 16.2%; 95% CI, 4.2%-29.0%). Interrupted time series analysis revealed a significantly increasing trend of PSA testing after April 2017 among all beneficiaries (0.30 tests per 100 person-years for each bimonthly period; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance This large national cohort study found that rates of PSA testing increased after the USPSTF's draft statement in 2017, reversing trends seen after earlier guidance against PSA testing for all patients. Increased testing was also observed among older men, who may be less likely to benefit from prostate cancer screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael S Leapman
- Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.,Yale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Rong Wang
- Yale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, New Haven, Connecticut.,Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Henry Park
- Yale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, New Haven, Connecticut.,Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - James B Yu
- Yale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, New Haven, Connecticut.,Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | | | - Matthew R Cooperberg
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco
| | - Cary P Gross
- Yale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, New Haven, Connecticut.,Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Xiaomei Ma
- Yale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, New Haven, Connecticut.,Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Schick F, Pieper CC, Kupczyk P, Almansour H, Keller G, Springer F, Mürtz P, Endler C, Sprinkart AM, Kaufmann S, Herrmann J, Attenberger UI. 1.5 vs 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Review of Favorite Clinical Applications for Both Field Strengths-Part 1. Invest Radiol 2021; 56:680-691. [PMID: 34324464 DOI: 10.1097/rli.0000000000000812] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
ABSTRACT Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems with a field strength of 3 T have been offered by all leading manufacturers for approximately 2 decades and are increasingly used in clinical diagnostics despite higher costs. Technologically, MRI systems operating at 3 T have reached a high standard in recent years, as well as the 1.5-T devices that have been in use for a longer time. For modern MRI systems with 3 T, more complexity is required, especially for the magnet and the radiofrequency (RF) system (with multichannel transmission). Many clinical applications benefit greatly from the higher field strength due to the higher signal yield (eg, imaging of the brain or extremities), but there are also applications where the disadvantages of 3 T might outweigh the advantages (eg, lung imaging or examinations in the presence of implants). This review describes some technical features of modern 1.5-T and 3-T whole-body MRI systems, and reports on the experience of using both types of devices in different clinical settings, with all sections written by specialist radiologists in the respective fields.This first part of the review includes an overview of the general physicotechnical aspects of both field strengths and elaborates the special conditions of diffusion imaging. Many relevant aspects in the application areas of musculoskeletal imaging, abdominal imaging, and prostate diagnostics are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fritz Schick
- From the Section of Experimental Radiology, Department of Radiology, Diagnostic, and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen
| | | | - Patrick Kupczyk
- Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn
| | - Haidara Almansour
- Department of Radiology, Diagnostic, and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Gabriel Keller
- Department of Radiology, Diagnostic, and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Fabian Springer
- Department of Radiology, Diagnostic, and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Petra Mürtz
- Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn
| | - Christoph Endler
- Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn
| | - Alois M Sprinkart
- Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn
| | - Sascha Kaufmann
- Department of Radiology, Diagnostic, and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Judith Herrmann
- Department of Radiology, Diagnostic, and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Ulrike I Attenberger
- Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Colarieti A, Thiruchelvam N, Barrett T. Evaluation of image-based prognostic parameters of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: A literature review. Int J Urol 2021; 28:890-897. [PMID: 34101272 DOI: 10.1111/iju.14609] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2020] [Accepted: 05/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the second most common male cancer, and radical prostatectomy is a highly effective treatment for intermediate and high-risk disease. However, post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence remains a major functional side-effect in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Despite recent improvements in preoperative imaging quality and surgical techniques, it remains challenging to predict or prevent occurrence of this complication. The aim of this research was to review the current published literature on pre- and postoperative imaging evaluation of the prostate and pelvic structures, to identify added value in the prediction of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence. A computerized bibliographic search of the PubMed library was carried out to identify imaging-based articles evaluating the pelvic floor and surrounding structures pre- and/or postradical prostatectomy to predict post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence. A total of 32 articles were included. Of these, 29 papers assessed the importance of magnetic resonance imaging evaluation, with a total of 16 parameters evaluated. The most common parameters were intravesical protrusion, the membranous urethral length, prostatic volume and periurethral fibrosis. Preoperative membranous urethral length and its preservation after surgery showed the strongest correlation with urinary incontinence. Three studies evaluated ultrasound, with all carried out postoperatively. This technique benefits from a dynamic evaluation, and the results are promising for proximal urethral hypermobility and the degree of bladder neck funneling on the Valsalva maneuver. Several imaging studies evaluated the predictors of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence, with preoperative membranous urethral length offering the most promise. However, the current literature is limited by the single-center nature of studies, and the heterogeneity in patient populations and methodologies used.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Colarieti
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.,Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Nikesh Thiruchelvam
- Department of, Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of, Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.,CamPARI Clinic, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
El-Khoury HJ, Sathianathen NJ, Jiao Y, Farzan R, Gyomber D, Niall O, Satasivam P. 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. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL UROLOGY 2021. [DOI: 10.1177/20514158211004334] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Yuxin Jiao
- Department of Surgery, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Northern Health, Australia
| | - Reza Farzan
- Healthcare Imaging, Department of Radiology, Northern Health, Australia
| | | | - Owen Niall
- Department of Urology, Northern Health, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Sushentsev N, Kaggie JD, Slough RA, Carmo B, Barrett T. Reproducibility of magnetic resonance fingerprinting-based T1 mapping of the healthy prostate at 1.5 and 3.0 T: A proof-of-concept study. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0245970. [PMID: 33513165 PMCID: PMC7846281 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245970] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2020] [Accepted: 01/11/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Facilitating clinical translation of quantitative imaging techniques has been suggested as means of improving interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. One such technique, magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF), has significant competitive advantages over conventional mapping techniques in terms of its multi-site reproducibility, short scanning time and inherent robustness to motion. It has also been shown to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer when added to standard mpMRI sequences, however, the existing studies have all been conducted on 3.0 T MRI systems, limiting the technique's use on 1.5 T MRI scanners that are still more widely used for prostate imaging across the globe. The aim of this proof-of-concept study was, therefore, to evaluate the cross-system reproducibility of prostate MRF T1 in healthy volunteers (HVs) using 1.5 and 3.0 T MRI systems. The initial validation of MRF T1 against gold standard inversion recovery fast spin echo (IR-FSE) T1 in the ISMRM/NIST MRI system revealed a strong linear correlation between phantom-derived MRF and IR-FSE T1 values was observed at both field strengths (R2 = 0.998 at 1.5T and R2 = 0.993 at 3T; p = < 0.0001 for both). In young HVs, inter-scanner CVs demonstrated marginal differences across all tissues with the highest difference of 3% observed in fat (2% at 1.5T vs 5% at 3T). At both field strengths, MRF T1 could confidently differentiate prostate peripheral zone from transition zone, which highlights the high quantitative potential of the technique given the known difficulty of tissue differentiation in this age group. The high cross-system reproducibility of MRF T1 relaxometry of the healthy prostate observed in this preliminary study, therefore, supports the technique's prospective clinical validation as part of larger trials employing 1.5 T MRI systems, which are still widely used clinically for routine mpMRI of the prostate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nikita Sushentsev
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
- * E-mail:
| | - Joshua D. Kaggie
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Rhys A. Slough
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Bruno Carmo
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
- CamPARI Prostate Cancer Group, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Chen Y, Ruan M, Zhou B, Hu X, Wang H, Liu H, Liu J, Song G. Cutoff Values of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 Score in Men With Prostate-specific Antigen Level 4 to 10 ng/mL: Importance of Lesion Location. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2021; 19:288-295. [PMID: 33632569 DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2020.12.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2020] [Revised: 12/18/2020] [Accepted: 12/26/2020] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has been shown to have a good performance in predicting cancer among patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 4 to 10 ng/mL. However, lesion location on mpMRI has never been separately considered. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with PSA level of 4 to 10 ng/mL were prospectively enrolled and underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Patient information was collected, and logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the predictive factors of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Patients were grouped by lesion location to determine the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 cutoff value in predicting csPCa. RESULTS Among 222 patients, 121 were diagnosed with PCa and 92 had csPCa. Age, prostate volume, PSA density, location (peripheral zone, csPCa only), and PI-RADS v2.1 score were correlated with PCa and csPCa, and PI-RADS v2.1 score was the best predictor. A PI-RADS v2.1 score of 4 was the best cutoff value for predicting csPCa in patients with lesions only in the transitional zone with respect to the Youden index (0.5896) and negative predictive value (93.10%) with acceptable sensitivity (81.82%) and specificity (77.14%). An adjustment of the cutoff value to 3 for lesions in the peripheral zone would increase the negative predictive value (92.00%) and decrease the false negative rate (2.90%) with an acceptable sensitivity (97.10%) and specificity (30.67%). CONCLUSION PI-RADS v2.1 score is an effective predictor of csPCa in patients with PSA levels of 4 to 10 ng/mL. Patients with transitional zone or peripheral zone lesions should undergo biopsy if the PI-RADS v2.1 score is ≥ 4 or ≥ 3, respectively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuanchong Chen
- Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China; Institute of Urology, Peking University, Beijing, China; National Urological Cancer Center of China, Beijing, China
| | - Mingjian Ruan
- Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China; Institute of Urology, Peking University, Beijing, China; National Urological Cancer Center of China, Beijing, China
| | - Binyi Zhou
- Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China; Institute of Urology, Peking University, Beijing, China; National Urological Cancer Center of China, Beijing, China
| | - Xuege Hu
- Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China; Institute of Urology, Peking University, Beijing, China; National Urological Cancer Center of China, Beijing, China
| | - Hao Wang
- Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China; Institute of Urology, Peking University, Beijing, China; National Urological Cancer Center of China, Beijing, China
| | - Hua Liu
- Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China; Institute of Urology, Peking University, Beijing, China; National Urological Cancer Center of China, Beijing, China
| | - Jia Liu
- Department of Radiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Gang Song
- Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China; Institute of Urology, Peking University, Beijing, China; National Urological Cancer Center of China, Beijing, China.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Stroman L, Cathcart P, Lamb A, Challacombe B, Popert R. A cross-section of UK prostate cancer diagnostics during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era - a shifting paradigm? BJU Int 2021; 127:30-34. [PMID: 32981180 PMCID: PMC7537303 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15259] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Alastair Lamb
- Nuffield Department of Surgical SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Abstract
The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines set out the minimal technical requirements for the acquisition of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate. However, the rapid diffusion of this technique has inevitably led to variability in scan quality among centres across the UK and the world. Suboptimal image acquisition reduces the sensitivity and specificity of this technique for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and results in clinicians losing confidence in the technique.Two expert panels, one from the UK and one from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)/EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI), have stressed the importance to establish quality criteria for the acquisition of mpMRI of the prostate. A first attempt to address this issue has been the publication of the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score, which assesses the mpMRI quality against a set of objective criteria (PI-RADS guidelines) together with criteria obtained from the image.PI-QUAL represents the first step towards the standardisation of a scoring system to assess the quality of prostate mpMRI prior to reporting and allows clinicians to have more confidence in using the scan to determine patient care. Further refinements after robust consensus among experts at an international level need to be agreed before its widespread adoption in the clinical setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Giganti
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Clare Allen
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Kim L, Boxall N, George A, Burling K, Acher P, Aning J, McCracken S, Page T, Gnanapragasam VJ. Clinical utility and cost modelling of the phi test to triage referrals into image-based diagnostic services for suspected prostate cancer: the PRIM (Phi to RefIne Mri) study. BMC Med 2020; 18:95. [PMID: 32299423 PMCID: PMC7164355 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-020-01548-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2019] [Accepted: 03/03/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The clinical pathway to detect and diagnose prostate cancer has been revolutionised by the use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI pre-biopsy). mpMRI however remains a resource-intensive test and is highly operator dependent with variable effectiveness with regard to its negative predictive value. Here we tested the use of the phi assay in standard clinical practice to pre-select men at the highest risk of harbouring significant cancer and hence refine the use of mpMRI and biopsies. METHODS A prospective five-centre study recruited men being investigated through an mpMRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Test statistics for PSA, PSA density (PSAd) and phi were assessed for detecting significant cancers using 2 definitions: ≥ Grade Group (GG2) and ≥ Cambridge Prognostic Groups (CPG) 3. Cost modelling and decision curve analysis (DCA) was simultaneously performed. RESULTS A total of 545 men were recruited and studied with a median age, PSA and phi of 66 years, 8.0 ng/ml and 44 respectively. Overall, ≥ GG2 and ≥ CPG3 cancer detection rates were 64% (349/545), 47% (256/545) and 32% (174/545) respectively. There was no difference across centres for patient demographics or cancer detection rates. The overall area under the curve (AUC) for predicting ≥ GG2 cancers was 0.70 for PSA and 0.82 for phi. AUCs for ≥ CPG3 cancers were 0.81 and 0.87 for PSA and phi respectively. AUC values for phi did not differ between centres suggesting reliability of the test in different diagnostic settings. Pre-referral phi cut-offs between 20 and 30 had NPVs of 0.85-0.90 for ≥ GG2 cancers and 0.94-1.0 for ≥ CPG3 cancers. A strategy of mpMRI in all and biopsy only positive lesions reduced unnecessary biopsies by 35% but missed 9% of ≥ GG2 and 5% of ≥ CPG3 cancers. Using PH ≥ 30 to rule out referrals missed 8% and 5% of ≥ GG2 and ≥ CPG3 cancers (and reduced unnecessary biopsies by 40%). This was achieved however with 25% fewer mpMRI. Pathways incorporating PSAd missed fewer cancers but necessitated more unnecessary biopsies. The phi strategy had the lowest mean costs with DCA demonstrating net clinical benefit over a range of thresholds. CONCLUSION phi as a triaging test may be an effective way to reduce mpMRI and biopsies without compromising detection of significant prostate cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lois Kim
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Nicholas Boxall
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Anne George
- Urological Malignancies Programme CRUK & Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, University of Cambridge Box 193, Cambridge Biomedical Campus Cambridge CB20QQ, Cambridge, UK
| | - Keith Burling
- NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Core Biochemical Assay Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Pete Acher
- Department of Urology, Southend Hospital, Essex, UK
| | - Jonathan Aning
- Department of Urology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Stuart McCracken
- Department of Urology, South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Trust, Sunderland, UK
| | - Toby Page
- Department of Urology, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Vincent J Gnanapragasam
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals Trust, Cambridge, UK. .,Urological Malignancies Programme CRUK & Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, University of Cambridge Box 193, Cambridge Biomedical Campus Cambridge CB20QQ, Cambridge, UK. .,Academic Urology Group, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
|
27
|
Re: can prostate cancer be NICE? A reply. Clin Radiol 2020; 75:233-234. [DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2019.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2019] [Accepted: 12/05/2019] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
|
28
|
|
29
|
Barrett T, Rajesh A. Special issue on prostate imaging. Clin Radiol 2019; 74:821-822. [PMID: 31345556 DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2019.06.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2019] [Accepted: 06/27/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- T Barrett
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
| | - A Rajesh
- Department of Radiology, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK
| |
Collapse
|