Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 3/2020

Open Access 01-03-2020 | Prostate Cancer | Topic Paper

Multivariate risk prediction tools including MRI for individualized biopsy decision in prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions

Authors: Ivo G. Schoots, Monique J. Roobol

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 3/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background and purpose

Individualized risk-adapted algorithms in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis using predictive prebiopsy variables in addition to prostate-specific antigen value may result in a considerable reduction of unnecessary systematic biopsies. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has emerged as a secondary prediction tool that can further improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). This review explores the performance of new MRI risk models for indicating a biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis.

Results and considerations

The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for detecting csPCa varies between 0.64 and 0.91 in biopsy-naïve men, and between 0.78 and 0.93 in men with a previous negative biopsy. The utility of multivariate risk prediction tools including MRI suspicion scores as an extra input parameter has the potential to avoid a notable number of biopsies and detection of clinically insignificant PCa at a low price of missing some csPCa. The trade-off depends on the risk threshold that is chosen. In biopsy-naïve men a net benefit was obtained at a risk threshold of above 10% for csPCa in most MRI risk prediction models. All constructed MRI risk models used (referral) patient cohorts with high prevalence of csPCa. Using more representative cohorts from daily clinical screening, net benefit may attenuate at lower risk thresholds. Strengths and limitations of these models are discussed.

Future directions

To assess their wider applicability, in-depth analysis of mpMRI predictive qualities should be further investigated, in combination with required external validation of these models in a multicenter setting with large prospective datasets.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S et al (2017) Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 71:353–365CrossRefPubMed Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S et al (2017) Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 71:353–365CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Zappa M, Nelen V et al (2014) Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 384:2027–2035CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Zappa M, Nelen V et al (2014) Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 384:2027–2035CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V et al (2018) Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men: the biparametric mri for detection of prostate cancer (bidoc) study. JAMA Netw Open 1:e180219CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V et al (2018) Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men: the biparametric mri for detection of prostate cancer (bidoc) study. JAMA Netw Open 1:e180219CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, et al (2018) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol. pii: S0302-2838(18)30880-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023 CrossRefPubMed van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, et al (2018) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol. pii: S0302-2838(18)30880-7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​eururo.​2018.​11.​023 CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822CrossRefPubMed Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Panebianco V, Barchetti G, Simone G, Del Monte M, Ciardi A, Grompone MD et al (2018) Negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: what’s next? Eur Urol 74:48–54CrossRefPubMed Panebianco V, Barchetti G, Simone G, Del Monte M, Ciardi A, Grompone MD et al (2018) Negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: what’s next? Eur Urol 74:48–54CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, Marconi L, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh RCN et al (2017) What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol 72:250–266CrossRefPubMed Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, Marconi L, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh RCN et al (2017) What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol 72:250–266CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW, Kranse R, Wolters T, van den Bergh RC, Bangma CH et al (2010) A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57:79–85CrossRefPubMed Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW, Kranse R, Wolters T, van den Bergh RC, Bangma CH et al (2010) A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57:79–85CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Ankerst DP, Hoefler J, Bock S, Goodman PJ, Vickers A, Hernandez J et al (2014) Prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- vs high-grade prostate cancer. Urology 83:1362–1367CrossRefPubMed Ankerst DP, Hoefler J, Bock S, Goodman PJ, Vickers A, Hernandez J et al (2014) Prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- vs high-grade prostate cancer. Urology 83:1362–1367CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Nam RK, Toi A, Klotz LH, Trachtenberg J, Jewett MA, Appu S et al (2007) Assessing individual risk for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:3582–3588CrossRefPubMed Nam RK, Toi A, Klotz LH, Trachtenberg J, Jewett MA, Appu S et al (2007) Assessing individual risk for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:3582–3588CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Stephan C, Cammann H, Semjonow A, Diamandis EP, Wymenga LF, Lein M et al (2002) Multicenter evaluation of an artificial neural network to increase the prostate cancer detection rate and reduce unnecessary biopsies. Clin Chem 48:1279–1287CrossRefPubMed Stephan C, Cammann H, Semjonow A, Diamandis EP, Wymenga LF, Lein M et al (2002) Multicenter evaluation of an artificial neural network to increase the prostate cancer detection rate and reduce unnecessary biopsies. Clin Chem 48:1279–1287CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Finne P, Finne R, Bangma C, Hugosson J, Hakama M, Auvinen A et al (2004) Algorithms based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, digital rectal examination and prostate volume reduce false-positive PSA results in prostate cancer screening. Int J Cancer 111:310–315CrossRefPubMed Finne P, Finne R, Bangma C, Hugosson J, Hakama M, Auvinen A et al (2004) Algorithms based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, digital rectal examination and prostate volume reduce false-positive PSA results in prostate cancer screening. Int J Cancer 111:310–315CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Karakiewicz PI, Benayoun S, Kattan MW, Perrotte P, Valiquette L, Scardino PT et al (2005) Development and validation of a nomogram predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy based on patient age, digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen. J Urol 173:1930–1934CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Karakiewicz PI, Benayoun S, Kattan MW, Perrotte P, Valiquette L, Scardino PT et al (2005) Development and validation of a nomogram predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy based on patient age, digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen. J Urol 173:1930–1934CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T et al (2006) Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 49:820–826CrossRefPubMed Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T et al (2006) Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 49:820–826CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JF, Schoots IG, Chiu PK, Osses DF, et al. (2018) Multivariable risk-based patient selection for prostate biopsy after magnetic resonance imaging: improving the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators by combining clinical parameters with the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score. Eur Urol Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JF, Schoots IG, Chiu PK, Osses DF, et al. (2018) Multivariable risk-based patient selection for prostate biopsy after magnetic resonance imaging: improving the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators by combining clinical parameters with the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score. Eur Urol
21.
go back to reference Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C, Freitag MT, Alt CD, Celik K et al (2017) combined clinical parameters and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for advanced risk modeling of prostate cancer-patient-tailored risk stratification can reduce unnecessary biopsies. Eur Urol 72:888–896CrossRefPubMed Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C, Freitag MT, Alt CD, Celik K et al (2017) combined clinical parameters and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for advanced risk modeling of prostate cancer-patient-tailored risk stratification can reduce unnecessary biopsies. Eur Urol 72:888–896CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Rais-Bahrami S, Oto A, Bednarova S, Nix JW et al (2018) A magnetic resonance imaging-based prediction model for prostate biopsy risk stratification. JAMA Oncol 4:678–685CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Rais-Bahrami S, Oto A, Bednarova S, Nix JW et al (2018) A magnetic resonance imaging-based prediction model for prostate biopsy risk stratification. JAMA Oncol 4:678–685CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Fang D, Zhao C, Ren D, Yu W, Wang R, Wang H et al (2016) Could magnetic resonance imaging help to identify the presence of prostate cancer before initial biopsy? The development of nomogram predicting the outcomes of prostate biopsy in the Chinese population. Ann Surg Oncol 23:4284–4292CrossRefPubMed Fang D, Zhao C, Ren D, Yu W, Wang R, Wang H et al (2016) Could magnetic resonance imaging help to identify the presence of prostate cancer before initial biopsy? The development of nomogram predicting the outcomes of prostate biopsy in the Chinese population. Ann Surg Oncol 23:4284–4292CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Bjurlin MA, Rosenkrantz AB, Sarkar S, Lepor H, Huang WC, Huang R et al (2018) Prediction of prostate cancer risk among men undergoing combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy using novel pre-biopsy nomograms that incorporate MRI findings. Urology 112:112–120CrossRefPubMed Bjurlin MA, Rosenkrantz AB, Sarkar S, Lepor H, Huang WC, Huang R et al (2018) Prediction of prostate cancer risk among men undergoing combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy using novel pre-biopsy nomograms that incorporate MRI findings. Urology 112:112–120CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Niu XK, Li J, Das SK, Xiong Y, Yang CB, Peng T (2017) Developing a nomogram based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for forecasting high-grade prostate cancer to reduce unnecessary biopsies within the prostate-specific antigen gray zone. BMC Med Imaging 17:11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Niu XK, Li J, Das SK, Xiong Y, Yang CB, Peng T (2017) Developing a nomogram based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for forecasting high-grade prostate cancer to reduce unnecessary biopsies within the prostate-specific antigen gray zone. BMC Med Imaging 17:11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Truong M, Wang B, Gordetsky JB, Nix JW, Frye TP, Messing EM et al (2018) Multi-institutional nomogram predicting benign prostate pathology on magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion biopsy in men with a prior negative 12-core systematic biopsy. Cancer 124:278–285CrossRefPubMed Truong M, Wang B, Gordetsky JB, Nix JW, Frye TP, Messing EM et al (2018) Multi-institutional nomogram predicting benign prostate pathology on magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion biopsy in men with a prior negative 12-core systematic biopsy. Cancer 124:278–285CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Huang C, Song G, Wang H, Ji G, Li J, Chen Y et al (2018) MultiParametric magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for predicting prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer in men undergoing repeat prostate biopsy. Biomed Res Int 2018:6368309PubMedPubMedCentral Huang C, Song G, Wang H, Ji G, Li J, Chen Y et al (2018) MultiParametric magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for predicting prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer in men undergoing repeat prostate biopsy. Biomed Res Int 2018:6368309PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Lee SM, Liyanage SH, Wulaningsih W, Wolfe K, Carr T, Younis C et al (2017) Toward an MRI-based nomogram for the prediction of transperineal prostate biopsy outcome: a physician and patient decision tool. Urol Oncol 35:664.e11–664.e18CrossRef Lee SM, Liyanage SH, Wulaningsih W, Wolfe K, Carr T, Younis C et al (2017) Toward an MRI-based nomogram for the prediction of transperineal prostate biopsy outcome: a physician and patient decision tool. Urol Oncol 35:664.e11–664.e18CrossRef
29.
go back to reference van Leeuwen PJ, Hayen A, Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R, Bohm M et al (2017) A multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based risk model to determine the risk of significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy. BJU Int 120:774–781CrossRefPubMed van Leeuwen PJ, Hayen A, Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R, Bohm M et al (2017) A multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based risk model to determine the risk of significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy. BJU Int 120:774–781CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Bjurlin MA, Renson A, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong M, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang R, et al. (2018) Predicting benign prostate pathology on magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy in men with a prior negative 12-core systematic biopsy: external validation of a prognostic nomogram. Eur Urol Focus Bjurlin MA, Renson A, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong M, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang R, et al. (2018) Predicting benign prostate pathology on magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy in men with a prior negative 12-core systematic biopsy: external validation of a prognostic nomogram. Eur Urol Focus
31.
go back to reference Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N et al (2010) Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 21:128–138CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N et al (2010) Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 21:128–138CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Gayet M, Mannaerts CK, Nieboer D, Beerlage HP, Wijkstra H, Mulders PFA et al (2018) Prediction of prostate cancer: external validation of the ERSPC risk calculator in a contemporary dutch clinical cohort. Eur Urol Focus 4:228–234CrossRefPubMed Gayet M, Mannaerts CK, Nieboer D, Beerlage HP, Wijkstra H, Mulders PFA et al (2018) Prediction of prostate cancer: external validation of the ERSPC risk calculator in a contemporary dutch clinical cohort. Eur Urol Focus 4:228–234CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Haas M, Gunzel K, Miller K, Hamm B, Cash H, Asbach P (2017) Is the ellipsoid formula the new standard for 3-tesla MRI prostate volume calculation without endorectal coil? Urol Int 98:49–53CrossRefPubMed Haas M, Gunzel K, Miller K, Hamm B, Cash H, Asbach P (2017) Is the ellipsoid formula the new standard for 3-tesla MRI prostate volume calculation without endorectal coil? Urol Int 98:49–53CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Bezinque A, Moriarity A, Farrell C, Peabody H, Noyes SL, Lane BR (2018) Determination of prostate volume: a comparison of contemporary methods. Acad Radiol 25:1582–1587CrossRefPubMed Bezinque A, Moriarity A, Farrell C, Peabody H, Noyes SL, Lane BR (2018) Determination of prostate volume: a comparison of contemporary methods. Acad Radiol 25:1582–1587CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Mannaerts CK, Gayet M, Verbeek JF, Engelbrecht MRW, Savci-Heijink CD, Jager GJ et al (2018) Prostate cancer risk assessment in biopsy-naïve patients: the rotterdam prostate cancer risk calculator in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion biopsy and systematic TRUS biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol 1:109–117CrossRefPubMed Mannaerts CK, Gayet M, Verbeek JF, Engelbrecht MRW, Savci-Heijink CD, Jager GJ et al (2018) Prostate cancer risk assessment in biopsy-naïve patients: the rotterdam prostate cancer risk calculator in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion biopsy and systematic TRUS biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol 1:109–117CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Alberts AR, Schoots IG, Bokhorst LP, van Leenders GJ, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ (2016) Risk-based patient selection for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound-guided random biopsy avoids unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging scans. Eur Urol 69:1129–1134CrossRefPubMed Alberts AR, Schoots IG, Bokhorst LP, van Leenders GJ, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ (2016) Risk-based patient selection for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound-guided random biopsy avoids unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging scans. Eur Urol 69:1129–1134CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Hansen NL, Barrett T, Koo B, Doble A, Gnanapragasam V, Warren A et al (2017) The influence of prostate-specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score 7–10 prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting. BJU Int 119:724–730CrossRefPubMed Hansen NL, Barrett T, Koo B, Doble A, Gnanapragasam V, Warren A et al (2017) The influence of prostate-specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score 7–10 prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting. BJU Int 119:724–730CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Hansen NL, Barrett T, Kesch C, Pepdjonovic L, Bonekamp D, O’Sullivan R et al (2018) Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naive men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BJU Int 122:40–49CrossRefPubMed Hansen NL, Barrett T, Kesch C, Pepdjonovic L, Bonekamp D, O’Sullivan R et al (2018) Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naive men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BJU Int 122:40–49CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, Kesch C, Schlemmer HP, Wieczorek K et al (2017) The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. J Urol 198:575–582CrossRefPubMed Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, Kesch C, Schlemmer HP, Wieczorek K et al (2017) The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. J Urol 198:575–582CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, Konishi T, Hirai M, Kobayashi Y et al (2017) Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naive patients. BJU Int 119:225–233CrossRefPubMed Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, Konishi T, Hirai M, Kobayashi Y et al (2017) Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naive patients. BJU Int 119:225–233CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Felker ER, Raman SS, Margolis DJ, Lu DSK, Shaheen N, Natarajan S et al (2017) Risk stratification among men with prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 category 3 transition zone lesions: is biopsy always necessary? AJR Am J Roentgenol 209:1272–1277CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Felker ER, Raman SS, Margolis DJ, Lu DSK, Shaheen N, Natarajan S et al (2017) Risk stratification among men with prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 category 3 transition zone lesions: is biopsy always necessary? AJR Am J Roentgenol 209:1272–1277CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
go back to reference Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P, Cookson MS, Gomella LG, Troyer D et al (2013) Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol 189:2039–2046CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P, Cookson MS, Gomella LG, Troyer D et al (2013) Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol 189:2039–2046CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
go back to reference Ouzaid I, Xylinas E, Campeggi A, Hoznek A, Vordos D, Abbou CC et al (2013) Contemporary pathologic characteristics and oncologic outcomes of prostate cancers missed by 6- and 12-core biopsy and diagnosed with a 21-core biopsy protocol. World J Urol 31:869–874CrossRefPubMed Ouzaid I, Xylinas E, Campeggi A, Hoznek A, Vordos D, Abbou CC et al (2013) Contemporary pathologic characteristics and oncologic outcomes of prostate cancers missed by 6- and 12-core biopsy and diagnosed with a 21-core biopsy protocol. World J Urol 31:869–874CrossRefPubMed
44.
go back to reference Kranse R, Roobol M, Schroder FH (2008) A graphical device to represent the outcomes of a logistic regression analysis. Prostate 68:1674–1680CrossRefPubMed Kranse R, Roobol M, Schroder FH (2008) A graphical device to represent the outcomes of a logistic regression analysis. Prostate 68:1674–1680CrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS et al (2006) Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the prostate cancer prevention trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:529–534CrossRefPubMed Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS et al (2006) Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the prostate cancer prevention trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:529–534CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Multivariate risk prediction tools including MRI for individualized biopsy decision in prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions
Authors
Ivo G. Schoots
Monique J. Roobol
Publication date
01-03-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02707-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

World Journal of Urology 3/2020 Go to the issue