Advertisement

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Defined Prostate-Specific Antigen Density Significantly Improves the Risk Prediction for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer on Biopsy

  • Nisha R. Bhat
    Affiliations
    Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO

    Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
    Search for articles by this author
  • Joel M. Vetter
    Affiliations
    Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO

    Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
    Search for articles by this author
  • Gerald L. Andriole
    Affiliations
    Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO

    Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
    Search for articles by this author
  • Anup S. Shetty
    Affiliations
    Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO

    Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
    Search for articles by this author
  • Joseph E. Ippolito
    Affiliations
    Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO

    Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
    Search for articles by this author
  • Eric H. Kim
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence to: Eric H. Kim, M.D., Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, 4960 Children's Place, Campus Box 8242, St. Louis, MO 63110.
    Affiliations
    Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO

    Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
    Search for articles by this author
Published:December 20, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.12.010

      Abstract

      Objective

      To evaluate the predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-defined prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density and MRI interpretation for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa).

      Methods

      We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database of men who received prostate MRI prior to biopsy at our institution between September 2014 and December 2016, excluding those on active surveillance (n = 372). Logistic regression models to predict clinically significant PCa on biopsy were developed using (1) MRI-defined PSA density; (2) PSA alone; and (3) the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk calculator. Additional logistic regression models were then generated by combining the previous clinical variables with MRI interpretation (ie, prostate imaging reporting and data system [PI-RADS] classification): (1) MRI-defined PSA density + MRI interpretation; (2) PSA + MRI interpretation; and (3) PCPT + MRI interpretation. Receiving operator characteristic curves for each of the 6 models were generated, and the area under the curves (AUC) were compared.

      Results

      MRI-defined PSA density (AUCPSAD = 0.77) significantly outperformed the PSA (AUCPSA = 0.66, P < .01) and PCPT models (AUCPCPT = 0.70, P < .01). When combined with MRI interpretation (ie, PI-RADS classification), the MRI-defined PSA density model (AUCPSAD + MRI = 0.80) significantly outperformed the PSA (AUCPSA + MRI = 0.75, P < .01) and PCPT models (AUCPCPT + MRI = 0.76, P = .01).

      Conclusion

      In addition to the PI-RADS classification, prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging also provides an accurate assessment of prostate volume. By utilizing this additional data to determine MRI-defined PSA density, we find that risk discrimination for clinically significant PCa on biopsy can be significantly improved.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kim EH
        • Andriole GL
        Prostate-specific antigen-based screening: controversy and guidelines.
        BMC Med. 2015; 13https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0296-5
        • Schoots IG
        • Roobol MJ
        • Nieboer D
        • Bangma CH
        • Steyerberg EW
        • Hunink MGM
        Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 68: 438-450https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037
        • Ahmed HU
        • El-Shater Bosaily A
        • Brown LC
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.
        Lancet. 2017; 389: 815-822https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
        • Moore CM
        • Robertson NL
        • Arsanious N
        Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review.
        Eur Urol. 2013; 63: 125
        • Kim EH
        • Vemana G
        • Johnson MH
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted vs. conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: single-institution, matched cohort comparison.
        Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2015; 33: 109.e1-109.e6https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.09.004
        • Radtke JP
        • Schwab C
        • Wolf MB
        • et al.
        Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and MRI–transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 70: 846-853https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.052
        • Siddiqui MM
        • Rais-Bahrami S
        • Turkbey B
        • et al.
        Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
        JAMA. 2015; 313: 390-397https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.17942
        • Itatani R
        • Namimoto T
        • Atsuji S
        • et al.
        Negative predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial MRI studies.
        Eur J Radiol. 2014; 83: 1740-1745https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.06.026
        • Chen CS
        • Wang SS
        • Li JR
        • et al.
        PSA density as a better predictor of prostate cancer than percent-free PSA in a repeat biopsy.
        J Chinese Med Assoc. 2011; 74: 552-555https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcma.2011.10.004
        • Jue JS
        • Barboza MP
        • Prakash NS
        • et al.
        Re-examining Prostate-specific Antigen (PSA) density: defining the optimal PSA range and patients for using PSA density to predict prostate cancer using extended template biopsy.
        Urology. 2017; 105: 123-128https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.04.015
        • Nordström T
        • Akre O
        • Aly M
        • Grönberg H
        • Eklund M
        Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer.
        Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-017-0024-7
        • Weaver JK
        • Kim EH
        • Vetter JM
        • et al.
        Prostate magnetic resonance imaging provides limited incremental value over the memorial sloankettering cancer center preradical prostatectomy nomogram.
        Urology. 2018; 113: 119-128https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.10.051
        • Weinreb JC
        • Barentsz JO
        • Choyke PL
        • et al.
        PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 16-40https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
        • Polanec S
        • Helbich TH
        • Bickel H
        • et al.
        Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1.
        Eur J Radiol. 2016; 85: 1125-1131https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.03.025
        • Ankerst DP
        • Hoefler J
        • Bock S
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- vs high-grade prostate cancer.
        Urology. 2014; 83: 1362-1367https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.035
        • Raaijmakers R
        • Kirkels WJ
        • Roobol MJ
        • Wildhagen MF
        • Schrder FH
        Complication rates and risk factors of 5802 transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsies of the prostate within a population-based screening program.
        Urology. 2002; 60: 826-830https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01958-1
        • Schroder F
        • Hugosson J
        • Roobol MJ
        • et al.
        The European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer - prostate cancer mortality at 13years of follow-up.
        Lancent. 2014; 384: 2027-2035https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0
        • Paterson NR
        • Lavallee LT
        • Nguyen LN
        • et al.
        Prostate volume estimations using magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound compared to radical prostatectomy specimens.
        Can Urol Assoc J. 2016; 10: 264-268https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3236
        • Corcoran NM
        • Casey RG
        • Hong MKH
        • et al.
        The ability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density to predict an upgrade in Gleason score between initial prostate biopsy and prostatectomy diminishes with increasing tumour grade due to reduced PSA secretion per unit tumour volume.
        BJU Int. 2012; 110: 36-42https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10681.x
        • De Rooij M
        • Hamoen EHJ
        • Fütterer JJ
        • Barentsz JO
        • Rovers MM
        Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 202: 343-351https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11046
        • Kim EH
        • Weaver JK
        • Shetty AS
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging provides added value to the prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator for patients with estimated risk of high-grade prostate cancer less than or equal to 10%.
        Urology. 2017; 102: 182-189