1
|
Haj-Mirzaian A, Burk KS, Lacson R, Glazer DI, Saini S, Kibel AS, Khorasani R. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Biopsy Findings in Suspected Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e244258. [PMID: 38551559 PMCID: PMC10980971 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.4258] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2023] [Accepted: 02/02/2024] [Indexed: 04/01/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arya Haj-Mirzaian
- Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kristine S. Burk
- Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Ronilda Lacson
- Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Daniel I. Glazer
- Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Sanjay Saini
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Adam S. Kibel
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Ramin Khorasani
- Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ringe KI, Wang J, Deng Y, Pi S, Geahchan A, Taouli B, Bashir MR. Abbreviated MRI Protocols in the Abdomen and Pelvis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2024; 59:58-69. [PMID: 37144673 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28764] [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: 01/26/2023] [Revised: 04/13/2023] [Accepted: 04/13/2023] [Indexed: 05/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Abbreviated MRI (AMRI) protocols rely on the acquisition of a limited number of sequences tailored to a specific question. The main objective of AMRI protocols is to reduce exam duration and costs, while maintaining an acceptable diagnostic performance. AMRI is of increasing interest in the radiology community; however, challenges limiting clinical adoption remain. In this review, we will address main abdominal and pelvic applications of AMRI in the liver, pancreas, kidney, and prostate, including diagnostic performance, pitfalls, limitations, and cost effectiveness will also be discussed. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy Stage: 3.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina I Ringe
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Jin Wang
- Department of Radiology, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Ying Deng
- Department of Radiology, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Shan Pi
- Department of Radiology, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Amine Geahchan
- Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
| | - Bachir Taouli
- Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
| | - Mustafa R Bashir
- Department of Radiology, Center for Advanced Magnetic Resonance Development, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Predictive Models for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14194747. [PMID: 36230670 PMCID: PMC9562712 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14194747] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2022] [Revised: 09/21/2022] [Accepted: 09/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has allowed the early detection of PCa to evolve towards clinically significant PCa (csPCa), decreasing unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdetection of insignificant tumours. MRI identifies suspicious lesions of csPCa, predicting the semi-quantitative risk through the prostate imaging report and data system (PI-RADS), and enables guided biopsies, increasing the sensitivity of csPCa. Predictive models that individualise the risk of csPCa have also evolved adding PI-RADS score (MRI-PMs), improving the selection of candidates for prostate biopsy beyond the PI-RADS category. During the last five years, many MRI-PMs have been developed. Our objective is to analyse the current developed MRI-PMs and define their clinical usefulness through a systematic review. We have found high heterogeneity between MRI technique, PI-RADS versions, biopsy schemes and approaches, and csPCa definitions. MRI-PMs outperform the selection of candidates for prostate biopsy beyond MRI alone and PMs based on clinical predictors. However, few developed MRI-PMs are externally validated or have available risk calculators (RCs), which constitute the appropriate requirements used in routine clinical practice. Abstract MRI can identify suspicious lesions, providing the semi-quantitative risk of csPCa through the Prostate Imaging-Report and Data System (PI-RADS). Predictive models of clinical variables that individualise the risk of csPCa have been developed by adding PI-RADS score (MRI-PMs). Our objective is to analyse the current developed MRI-PMs and define their clinical usefulness. A systematic review was performed after a literature search performed by two independent investigators in PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases, with the Medical Subjects Headings (MESH): predictive model, nomogram, risk model, magnetic resonance imaging, PI-RADS, prostate cancer, and prostate biopsy. This review was made following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria and studied eligibility based on the Participants, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes (PICO) strategy. Among 723 initial identified registers, 18 studies were finally selected. Warp analysis of selected studies was performed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Clinical predictors in addition to the PI-RADS score in developed MRI-PMs were age, PCa family history, digital rectal examination, biopsy status (initial vs. repeat), ethnicity, serum PSA, prostate volume measured by MRI, or calculated PSA density. All MRI-PMs improved the prediction of csPCa made by clinical predictors or imaging alone and achieved most areas under the curve between 0.78 and 0.92. Among 18 developed MRI-PMs, 7 had any external validation, and two RCs were available. The updated PI-RADS version 2 was exclusively used in 11 MRI-PMs. The performance of MRI-PMs according to PI-RADS was only analysed in a single study. We conclude that MRI-PMs improve the selection of candidates for prostate biopsy beyond the PI-RADS category. However, few developed MRI-PMs meet the appropriate requirements in routine clinical practice.
Collapse
|
4
|
Comparative Analysis of PSA Density and an MRI-Based Predictive Model to Improve the Selection of Candidates for Prostate Biopsy. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14102374. [PMID: 35625978 PMCID: PMC9139805 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14102374] [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: 04/06/2022] [Revised: 04/28/2022] [Accepted: 05/09/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
This study is a head-to-head comparison between mPSAD and MRI-PMbdex. The MRI-PMbdex was created from 2432 men with suspected PCa; this cohort comprised the development and external validation cohorts of the Barcelona MRI predictive model. Pre-biopsy 3-Tesla multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and 2 to 4-core transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies for suspicious lesions and/or 12-core TRUS systematic biopsies were scheduled. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa), defined as Gleason-based Grade Group 2 or higher, was detected in 934 men (38.4%). The area under the curve was 0.893 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.880−0.906) for MRI-PMbdex and 0.764 (95% CI: 0.774−0.783) for mPSAD, with p < 0.001. MRI-PMbdex showed net benefit over biopsy in all men when the probability of csPCa was greater than 2%, while mPSAD did the same when the probability of csPCa was greater than 18%. Thresholds of 13.5% for MRI-PMbdex and 0.628 ng/mL2 for mPSAD had 95% sensitivity for csPCa and presented 51.1% specificity for MRI-PMbdex and 19.6% specificity for mPSAD, with p < 0.001. MRI-PMbdex exhibited net benefit over mPSAD in men with prostate imaging report and data system (PI-RADS) <4, while neither exhibited any benefit in men with PI-RADS 5. Hence, we can conclude that MRI-PMbdex is more accurate than mPSAD for the proper selection of candidates for prostate biopsy among men with suspected PCa, with the exception of men with a PI-RAD S 5 score, for whom neither tool exhibited clinical guidance to determine the need for biopsy.
Collapse
|
5
|
Efficacy of Tadalafil in Penile Rehabilitation Started Before Nerve-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Double-Blind Pilot Study. Sex Med 2022; 10:100508. [PMID: 35395569 PMCID: PMC9177888 DOI: 10.1016/j.esxm.2022.100508] [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: 11/23/2021] [Revised: 02/16/2022] [Accepted: 02/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Despite the widespread practice of nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (nsRARP) for the treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa), erectile dysfunction remains a significant sequela of radical prostatectomy. Aim This study aimed to compare the efficacy of tadalafil 5 mg once daily for erectile function recovery in patients who underwent nsRARP according to the timing of rehabilitation initiation. Methods In this double-blind, prospective pilot study, a total of 41 patients who underwent nsRARP were randomly assigned into 2 groups according to the timing of rehabilitation initiation. In the preRARP group (n = 20), tadalafil was started 2 weeks before nsRARP, and in the postRARP group (n = 21), it was started 4 weeks after nsRARP. Erectile function recovery after nsRARP was defined as an International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score of ≥17. Outcomes The measures of EF recovery were the changes in IIEF-5 score. Results The rate of erectile function recovery at 12-month follow-up was 80.0% and 71.4% in the preRARP and postRARP groups, respectively. The mean differences between baseline and postoperative IIEF-5 scores at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up were −11.7 ± 3.2, −7.4 ± 3.2, −5.6 ± 1.5, and −4.1 ± 1.1 in the preRARP group and −14.7 ± 4.7, −12.0 ± 5.0, −9.7 ± 3.9, and −6.0 ± 3.1 in the postRARP group, respectively (1-month, P = .259; 3-months, P = .077; 6-months, P = .014; 12-months, P = .007). Clinical implications Preoperative tadalafil 5 mg once a day could be used effectively and safely as a strategy for penile rehabilitation after nsRARP. Strengths and Limitations This study is the first prospective trial of penile rehabilitation with tadalafil 5 mg once a day prior to nsRARP. This is a pilot study with the limitations of a small sample; further and large-scale studies with multiple cohorts, such as an untreated control group and an early immediate rehabilitation group for EF recovery, are needed. Conclusion This study suggests that preoperative penile rehabilitation using tadalafil may lead to better erectile function recovery than postoperative penile rehabilitation using tadalafil. Noh T, Shim JS, Kang SG, et al. Efficacy of Tadalafil in Penile Rehabilitation Started Before Nerve-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Double-Blind Pilot Study. Sex Med 2022;10:100508.
Collapse
|
6
|
Morote J, Borque-Fernando A, Triquell M, Celma A, Regis L, Escobar M, Mast R, de Torres IM, Semidey ME, Abascal JM, Sola C, Servian P, Salvador D, Santamaría A, Planas J, Esteban LM, Trilla E. The Barcelona Predictive Model of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14061589. [PMID: 35326740 PMCID: PMC8946272 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14061589] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2022] [Revised: 03/15/2022] [Accepted: 03/16/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
A new and externally validated MRI-PM for csPCa was developed in the metropolitan area of Barcelona, and a web-RC designed with the new option of selecting the csPCa probability threshold. The development cohort comprised 1486 men scheduled to undergo a 3-tesla multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and guided and/or systematic biopsies in one academic institution of Barcelona. The external validation cohort comprised 946 men in whom the same diagnostic approach was carried out as in the development cohort, in two other academic institutions of the same metropolitan area. CsPCa was detected in 36.9% of men in the development cohort and 40.8% in the external validation cohort (p = 0.054). The area under the curve of mpMRI increased from 0.842 to 0.897 in the developed MRI-PM (p < 0.001), and from 0.743 to 0.858 in the external validation cohort (p < 0.001). A selected 15% threshold avoided 40.1% of prostate biopsies and missed 5.4% of the 36.9% csPCa detected in the development cohort. In men with PI-RADS <3, 4.3% would be biopsied and 32.3% of all existing 4.2% of csPCa would be detected. In men with PI-RADS 3, 62% of prostate biopsies would be avoided and 28% of all existing 12.4% of csPCa would be undetected. In men with PI-RADS 4, 4% of prostate biopsies would be avoided and 0.6% of all existing 43.1% of csPCa would be undetected. In men with PI-RADS 5, 0.6% of prostate biopsies would be avoided and none of the existing 42.0% of csPCa would be undetected. The Barcelona MRI-PM presented good performance on the overall population; however, its clinical usefulness varied regarding the PI-RADS category. The selection of csPCa probability thresholds in the designed RC may facilitate external validation and outperformance of MRI-PMs in specific PI-RADS categories.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juan Morote
- Department of Urology, Vall d’Hebron Hospital, 08035 Barcelona, Spain; (M.T.); (A.C.); (L.R.); (J.P.); (E.T.)
- Department of Surgery, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +34-9327-46009
| | - Angel Borque-Fernando
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, IIS-Aragon, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain;
| | - Marina Triquell
- Department of Urology, Vall d’Hebron Hospital, 08035 Barcelona, Spain; (M.T.); (A.C.); (L.R.); (J.P.); (E.T.)
- Department of Surgery, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Anna Celma
- Department of Urology, Vall d’Hebron Hospital, 08035 Barcelona, Spain; (M.T.); (A.C.); (L.R.); (J.P.); (E.T.)
- Department of Surgery, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Lucas Regis
- Department of Urology, Vall d’Hebron Hospital, 08035 Barcelona, Spain; (M.T.); (A.C.); (L.R.); (J.P.); (E.T.)
- Department of Surgery, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Manel Escobar
- Department of Radiology, Vall d´Hebron Hospital, 08035 Barcelona, Spain; (M.E.); (R.M.)
| | - Richard Mast
- Department of Radiology, Vall d´Hebron Hospital, 08035 Barcelona, Spain; (M.E.); (R.M.)
| | - Inés M. de Torres
- Department of Pathology, Vall d´Hebron Hospital, 08035 Barcelona, Spain; (I.M.d.T.); (M.E.S.)
- Department of Morphological Sciences, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
| | - María E. Semidey
- Department of Pathology, Vall d´Hebron Hospital, 08035 Barcelona, Spain; (I.M.d.T.); (M.E.S.)
- Department of Morphological Sciences, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
| | - José M. Abascal
- Department of Urology, Parc de Salut Mar, 08003 Barcelona, Spain; (J.M.A.); (C.S.)
| | - Carles Sola
- Department of Urology, Parc de Salut Mar, 08003 Barcelona, Spain; (J.M.A.); (C.S.)
| | - Pol Servian
- Department of Urology, Hospital Germans Trias I Pujol, 08916 Badalona, Spain; (P.S.); (D.S.)
| | - Daniel Salvador
- Department of Urology, Hospital Germans Trias I Pujol, 08916 Badalona, Spain; (P.S.); (D.S.)
| | - Anna Santamaría
- Urology Research Group, Vall d´ Hebron Research Institute, 08035 Barcelona, Spain;
| | - Jacques Planas
- Department of Urology, Vall d’Hebron Hospital, 08035 Barcelona, Spain; (M.T.); (A.C.); (L.R.); (J.P.); (E.T.)
| | - Luis M. Esteban
- Department of Applied Mathematics, Escuela Universitaria Politécnica La Almunia, Universidad de Zaragoza, 50100 Zaragoza, Spain;
| | - Enrique Trilla
- Department of Urology, Vall d’Hebron Hospital, 08035 Barcelona, Spain; (M.T.); (A.C.); (L.R.); (J.P.); (E.T.)
- Department of Surgery, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|