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

Diagnostic Performance of Prostate-specific Antigen Density for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Era of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

There has been a dramatic increase in the use of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnostic workup. With prostate volume calculated from MRI, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) now is a ready-to-use parameter for prostate cancer (PCa) risk stratification before prostate biopsy, especially among patients with negative MRI or equivocal lesions.

OBJECTIVE

In this review, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of PSAD for clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa) among patients who received MRI before prostate biopsy.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Two investigators performed a systematic review according of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria. Studies (published between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2021) reporting the diagnostic performance (outcomes) of PSAD (intervention) for CSPCa among men who received prebiopsy prostate MRI and subsequent prostate biopsy (patients), using biopsy pathology as the gold standard (comparison), were eligible for inclusion.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 1536 papers were identified in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Of these, 248 studies were reviewed in detail and 39 were qualified. The pooled sensitivity (SENS) and specificity (SPEC) for diagnosing CSPCa among patients with positive MRI were, respectively, 0.87 and 0.35 for PSAD of 0.1 ng/ml/ml, 0.74 and 0.61 for PSAD of 0.15 ng/ml/ml, and 0.51 and 0.81 for PSAD of 0.2 ng/ml/ml. The pooled SENS and SPEC for diagnosing CSPCa among patients with negative MRI were, respectively, 0.85 and 0.36 for PSAD of 0.1 ng/ml/ml, 0.60 and 0.66 for PSAD of 0.15 ng/ml/ml, and 0.33 and 0.84 for PSAD of 0.2 ng/ml/ml. The pooled SENS and SPEC among patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 or Likert 3 lesions were, respectively, 0.87 and 0.39 for PSAD of 0.1 ng/ml/ml, 0.61 and 0.69 for PSAD of 0.15 ng/ml/ml, and 0.42 and 0.82 for PSAD of 0.2 ng/ml/ml. The post-test probability for CSPCa among patients with negative MRI was 6% if PSAD was <0.15 ng/ml/ml and dropped to 4% if PSAD was <0.10 ng/ml/ml.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, we quantitatively evaluated the diagnosis performance of PSAD for CSPCa in combination with prostate MRI. It demonstrated a complementary performance and predictive value, especially among patients with negative MRI and PI-RADS 3 or Likert 3 lesions. Integration of PSAD into decision-making for prostate biopsy may facilitate improved risk-adjusted care.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Prostate-specific antigen density is a ready-to-use parameter in the era of increased magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) use in clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa) diagnosis. Findings suggest that the chance of having CSPCa was very low (4% or 6% for those with negative prebiopsy MRI or Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (Likert) score 3 lesion, respectively, if the PSAD was <0.10 ng/ml/ml), which may lower the need for biopsy in these patients.

Natural History of Patients with Prostate MRI Likert 1-3 and Development of RosCaP: a Multivariate Risk Score for Clinically Significant Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Clinically significant prostate cancer (csCaP) with Gleason ≥3 + 4 is found in 10% negative prebiopsy multiparametric (mp) MRI cases and varies widely for equivocal mpMRI cases. The objective of this study was to investigate long-term outcomes of patients with negative and equivocal mpMRIs and to develop a predictive score for csCaP risk stratification in this group.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent an upfront mpMRI between May 2015 and March 2018 with an MRI score Likert 1 to 3 were included in the study. Patients had either a CaP diagnosis at MRI-targeted biopsy or were not diagnosed and attended follow-up in the community. Outcomes were analysed through the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox Model. Regression coefficients of significant variables were used to develop a Risk of significant Cancer of the Prostate score (RosCaP).

RESULTS

At first assessment 281/469 patients had mpMRI only and 188/469 mpMRI and biopsy, 26 csCaP were found at biopsy, including 10/26 in Likert 3 patients. 12/371 patients discharged without CaP after first assessment were diagnosed with csCaP during a median of 34.2 months' follow-up, 11/12 diagnosis occurred in patients omitting initial biopsy. csCaP diagnosis-free survival was 95.7% in the MRI group and 99.1% in the biopsy group. From these outcomes, a continuous RosCaP score was developed: RosCaP = 0.083 x Age - 0.202 x (1/PSA Density) + 0.786 (if Likert 3), and 4 risk classes were proposed. Limitations include retrospective design and absence of external validation.

CONCLUSION

Age, PSA Density and MRI Likert score were significantly associated to the risk of csCaP and utilised to devise the novel RosCap predictive score focused to support risk assessment in patients with negative or equivocal mpMRI results.

MRI determined prostate volume and the incidence of prostate cancer on MRI-fusion biopsy: a systemic review of reported data for the last 20 years

PURPOSE

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a precise, systemic and advantageous imaging technique when compared to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) which is very operator dependent. The negative correlation between prostate volume and the incidence of prostate cancer (PCa) obtained by TRUS biopsy has been well documented in the literature. The purpose of this systemic review is analyzing the reported MRI-fusion study results on prostate biopsies regarding any correlation between prostate volume and the incidence of PCa.

METHODS

After defining the inclusion and exclusion criteria an in-depth review were performed between 01.01.2000 and 02.08.2022 using the PubMed database and applying the "PRISMA" guidelines.

RESULTS

Twelve studies qualified, and all showed an inverse/negative relationship between prostate volume and incidence of PCa. Sample sizes ranged from 33 to 2767 patients in single and multi-institutional studies. All studies showed a statistically significant inverse relationship with a p value < 0.05. The graph summarizing all of studies and using Fisher's method revealed a highly significant combined p level of 0.00001. Additionally, not one single study was found showing the contrary (a positive correlation between prostate size and the incidence of PCa).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first systemic review of reported MRI-Fusion data on the incidence of PCa in correlation with prostate volume. This MRI review confirms previous TRUS-biopsy studies which demonstrated an inverse relationship between prostate volume and the incidence of PCa, and thus further supports the hypothesis that large prostates size may be protective against PCa when compared to smaller prostates.

Urinary symptoms and prostate cancer-the misconception that may be preventing earlier presentation and better survival outcomes

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is an epidemic of the modern age, and despite efforts to improve awareness, it remains the case that mortality has hardly altered over the decades, driven largely by late presentation. There is a strong public perception that male urinary symptoms is one of the key indicators of prostate cancer, and this continues to be part of messaging from national guidelines and media health campaigns. This narrative, however, is not based on evidence and may be seriously hampering efforts to encourage early presentation.

DISCUSSION

Anatomically, prostate cancer most often arises in the peripheral zone, while urinary symptoms result from compression of the urethra by prostatic enlargement more centrally. Biopsy studies show that mean prostate volume is actually lower in men found to have (early) prostate cancer compared to those with benign biopsies. This inverse relationship between prostate size and the probability of cancer is so strong that PSA density (PSA corrected for prostate volume) is known to be significantly more accurate in predicting a positive biopsy than PSA alone. Thus, this disconnect between scientific evidence and the current perception is very striking. There is also evidence that using symptoms for investigating possible cancer may lead to higher proportions of men presenting with locally advanced or metastatic disease compared to PSA testing or screening programmes. Concerns about overwhelming health care services if men are encouraged to get tested without symptoms may also be overstated, with recent newer approaches to reduce over-investigation and treatment. In this article, we explore the link between urinary symptoms and prostate cancer and propose that public and professional messaging needs to change.

CONCLUSION

If rates of earlier diagnosis are to improve, we call for strong clear messaging that prostate cancer is a silent disease especially in the curable stages and men should come forward for testing regardless of whether or not they have symptoms. This should be done in parallel with other ongoing efforts to raise awareness including targeting men at highest risk due to racial ancestry or family history. While the current resurgence in interest and debate about prostate cancer screening is timely, change of this message by guideline bodies, charities and the media can be a first simple step to improving earlier presentation and hence cures rates.

Diagnostic value of the abnormal digital rectal examination in the modern MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathway

Objective

Currently the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends an abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) as a standalone referral criterion for suspected prostate cancer. Unlike referrals for a raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) which are triaged directly to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), an abnormal DRE requires re-examination in a secondary clinic first. Here, we investigated the ongoing value of the abnormal DRE as a referral criterion.

Methods

This study is a retrospective review of patients referred to secondary care for suspected prostate cancer based on an abnormal DRE over a 15-month period at a single UK hospital (n = 158). Age, PSA, primary and repeat DRE findings and eventual diagnosis were collated.

Results

A concurrent raised PSA was present in 65/158 (41%). Concordance between primary and secondary care DRE was only 72/158 (46%). The overall and significant cancer detection rate was 26/158 (16%) and 22/158 (14%), respectively. Among men with a concurrent raised PSA, 19/65 (29%) had significant cancer found, whereas with an abnormal primary care DRE and normal PSA (n = 93), only 3/93 (3%) had a significant cancer. Mandating a PSA before referral for an abnormal DRE would have redirected 65/158 (41%) of men to MRI first, negating the need for a repeat DRE (p < 0.0001). This finding was recapitulated in a second prospective validation cohort (n = 30) with 9/30 (30%) redirected to MRI first.

Conclusions

This is one of the first studies to investigate the value of the DRE in contemporary practice. We propose that PSA is used to triage men with an abnormal DRE to MRI without needing a repeat DRE. If the PSA is normal, the diagnostic yield is low but may still warrant a repeat DRE to assess the need for further investigations. Additional multicentre studies are required to further validate our findings.

Level of evidence

4.

Alternatives for MRI in Prostate Cancer Diagnostics-Review of Current Ultrasound-Based Techniques

Simple Summary

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common solid malignant tumor in men worldwide with various clinical manifestations. Due to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of a clinically insignificant disease, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is recommended for every patient before performing prostate biopsy. However, the diagnostic pathway currently has many limitations and is still far from ideal. Therefore, further alternatives need to be investigated. As the novel ultrasound-based techniques, such as shear wave elastography, contrast-enhanced ultrasound or high frequency micro-ultrasound are able to, overcome the limitations of magnetic resonance imaging presenting good performance in recent studies, we have summarized and compared the results of each technique in the detection of PCa. Furthermore, we analyzed the future perspectives for ultrasound modalities that may soon significantly improve their diagnostic value.

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to present the current role of ultrasound-based techniques in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer (PCa). With overdiagnosis and overtreatment of a clinically insignificant PCa over the past years, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) started to be recommended for every patient suspected of PCa before performing a biopsy. It enabled targeted sampling of the suspicious prostate regions, improving the accuracy of the traditional systematic biopsy. However, mpMRI is associated with high costs, relatively low availability, long and separate procedure, or exposure to the contrast agent. The novel ultrasound modalities, such as shear wave elastography (SWE), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), or high frequency micro-ultrasound (MicroUS), may be capable of maintaining the performance of mpMRI without its limitations. Moreover, the real-time lesion visualization during biopsy would significantly simplify the diagnostic process. Another value of these new techniques is the ability to enhance the performance of mpMRI by creating the image fusion of multiple modalities. Such models might be further analyzed by artificial intelligence to mark the regions of interest for investigators and help to decide about the biopsy indications. The dynamic development and promising results of new ultrasound-based techniques should encourage researchers to thoroughly study their utilization in prostate imaging.