Predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve and prior negative biopsy men with a negative prostate MRI: improving MRI-based screening with a novel risk calculator

A Systematic Review of Family History, Race/Ethnicity, and Genetic Risk on Prostate Cancer Detection and Outcomes: Considerations in PSA-based Screening

AIM

To investigate the role of family history, race/ethnicity, and genetics in prostate cancer (PCa) screening.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of articles from January 2013 through September 2023 that focused on the association of race/ethnicity and genetic factors on PCa detection. Of 10,815 studies, we identified 43 that fulfilled our pre-determined PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome) criteria.

RESULTS

Men with ≥1 first-degree relative(s) with PCa are at increased risk of PCa, even with negative imaging and/or benign prostate biopsy. Black men have higher PCa risk, while Asian men have lower risk. Most of the differences in risks are attributable to environmental and socioeconomic factors; however, genetic differences may play a role. Among numerous pathogenic variants that increase PCa risk, BRCA2, MSH2, and HOXB13 mutations confer the highest risk of PCa. Polygenic risk score (PRS) models identify men at higher PCa risk for a given age and PSA; these models improve when considering other clinical factors and when the model population matches the study population's ancestry.

CONCLUSIONS

Family history of PCa, race/ethnicity, pathogenic variants (particularly BRCA2, MSH2, and HOXB13), and PRS are associated with increased PCa risk and should be considered in shared decision-making to determine PCa screening regimens.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Biopsy Findings in Suspected Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Multiple strategies integrating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical data have been proposed to determine the need for a prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (Gleason score ≥3 + 4). However, inconsistencies across different strategies create challenges for drawing a definitive conclusion.

Objective

To determine the optimal prostate biopsy decision-making strategy for avoiding unnecessary biopsies and minimizing the risk of missing csPCa by combining MRI Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) and clinical data.

Data Sources

PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 1, 2022.

Study Selection

English-language studies that evaluated men with suspected but not confirmed csPCa who underwent MRI PI-RADS followed by prostate biopsy were included. Each study had proposed a biopsy plan by combining PI-RADS and clinical data.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Studies were independently assessed for eligibility for inclusion. Quality of studies was appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Mixed-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression models with multimodel inference were performed. Reporting of this study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Independent risk factors of csPCa were determined by performing meta-regression between the rate of csPCa and PI-RADS and clinical parameters. Yields of different biopsy strategies were assessed by performing diagnostic meta-analysis.

Results

The analyses included 72 studies comprising 36 366 patients. Univariable meta-regression showed that PI-RADS 4 (β-coefficient [SE], 7.82 [3.85]; P = .045) and PI-RADS 5 (β-coefficient [SE], 23.18 [4.46]; P < .001) lesions, but not PI-RADS 3 lesions (β-coefficient [SE], -4.08 [3.06]; P = .19), were significantly associated with a higher risk of csPCa. When considered jointly in a multivariable model, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) was the only clinical variable significantly associated with csPCa (β-coefficient [SE], 15.50 [5.14]; P < .001) besides PI-RADS 5 (β-coefficient [SE], 9.19 [3.33]; P < .001). Avoiding biopsy in patients with lesions with PI-RADS category of 3 or less and PSAD less than 0.10 (vs <0.15) ng/mL2 resulted in reducing 30% (vs 48%) of unnecessary biopsies (compared with performing biopsy in all suspected patients), with an estimated sensitivity of 97% (vs 95%) and number needed to harm of 17 (vs 15).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that in patients with suspected csPCa, patient-tailored prostate biopsy decisions based on PI-RADS and PSAD could prevent unnecessary procedures while maintaining high sensitivity.

Accommodating heterogeneous missing data patterns for prostate cancer risk prediction

BACKGROUND

We compared six commonly used logistic regression methods for accommodating missing risk factor data from multiple heterogeneous cohorts, in which some cohorts do not collect some risk factors at all, and developed an online risk prediction tool that accommodates missing risk factors from the end-user.

METHODS

Ten North American and European cohorts from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) were used for fitting a risk prediction tool for clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as Gleason grade group ≥ 2 on standard TRUS prostate biopsy. One large European PBCG cohort was withheld for external validation, where calibration-in-the-large (CIL), calibration curves, and area-underneath-the-receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were evaluated. Ten-fold leave-one-cohort-internal validation further validated the optimal missing data approach.

RESULTS

Among 12,703 biopsies from 10 training cohorts, 3,597 (28%) had clinically significant prostate cancer, compared to 1,757 of 5,540 (32%) in the external validation cohort. In external validation, the available cases method that pooled individual patient data containing all risk factors input by an end-user had best CIL, under-predicting risks as percentages by 2.9% on average, and obtained an AUC of 75.7%. Imputation had the worst CIL (-13.3%). The available cases method was further validated as optimal in internal cross-validation and thus used for development of an online risk tool. For end-users of the risk tool, two risk factors were mandatory: serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and age, and ten were optional: digital rectal exam, prostate volume, prior negative biopsy, 5-alpha-reductase-inhibitor use, prior PSA screen, African ancestry, Hispanic ethnicity, first-degree prostate-, breast-, and second-degree prostate-cancer family history.

CONCLUSION

Developers of clinical risk prediction tools should optimize use of available data and sources even in the presence of high amounts of missing data and offer options for users with missing risk factors.