Top

Published in:

01-06-2021 | Prostate Cancer | Original Article

The predictive value of the prostate health index vs. multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in prostate biopsy

Authors: Jiří Stejskal, Vanda Adamcová, Miroslav Záleský, Vojtěch Novák, Otakar Čapoun, Vojtěch Fiala, Olga Dolejšová, Hana Sedláčková, Štěpán Veselý, Roman Zachoval

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 6/2021

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the ability of Prostate Health Index (PHI) to diagnose csPCa, with that of total PSA, PSA density (PSAD) and the multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMRI) of the prostate.

Methods

We analysed a group of 395 men planned for a prostate biopsy who underwent a mpMRI of the prostate evaluated using the PIRADS v1 criteria. All patients had their PHI measured before prostate biopsy. In patients with an mpMRI suspicious lesions, an mpMRI/ultrasound software fusion-guided biopsy was performed first, with 12 core systematic biopsy performed in all patients. A ROC analysis was performed for PCa detection for total PSA, PSAD, PIRADS score and PHI; with an AUC curve calculated for all criteria and a combination of PIRADS score and PHI. Subsequent sub-analyses included patients undergoing first and repeat biopsy.

Results

The AUC for predicting the presence of csPCa in all patients was 59.5 for total PSA, 69.7 for PHI, 64.9 for PSAD and 62.5 for PIRADS. In biopsy naive patients it was 61.6 for total PSA, 68.9 for PHI, 64.6 for PSAD and 63.1 for PIRADS. In patients with previous negative biopsy the AUC for total PSA, PHI, PSAD and PIRADS was 55.4, 71.2, 64.4 and 69.3, respectively. Adding of PHI to PIRADS increased significantly (p = 0.007) the accuracy for prediction of csPCa.

Conclusion

Prostate Health Index could serve as a tool in predicting csPCa. When compared to the mpMRI, it shows comparable results. The PHI cannot, however, help us guide prostate biopsies in any way, and its main use may, therefore, be in pre-MRI or pre-biopsy triage.

Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2018) EAU - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2018. In: European Association of Urology Guidelines, 2018th edn. European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands

Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG (2008) Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol 10:262–280PubMedPubMedCentral

Shaw GL, Thomas BC, Dawson SN et al (2014) Identification of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer is not accurate in unscreened men. Br J Cancer 110:2405–2411. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2014.192CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Thompson JE, van Leeuwen PJ, Moses D et al (2016) The diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer. J Urol 195:1428–1435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.140CrossRefPubMed

Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1CrossRefPubMed

Loeb S, Catalona WJ (2014) The Prostate Health index: a new test for the detection of prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol 6:74–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287213513488CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Le BV, Griffin CR, Loeb S et al (2010) [-2]Proenzyme prostate specific antigen is more accurate than total and free prostate specific antigen in differentiating prostate cancer from benign disease in a prospective prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 183:1355–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.056CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG et al (2011) A Multicenter study of [-2] pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0–10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. J Urol 185:1650–1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.032CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Filella X, Giménez N (2013) Evaluation of [-2] proPSA and Prostate Health Index (phi) for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 51:729–739. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2012-0410CrossRefPubMed

11.

Loeb S, Shin SS, Broyles DL et al (2017) Prostate Health Index improves multivariable risk prediction of aggressive prostate cancer. BJU Int 120:61–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13676CrossRefPubMed

12.

White J, Shenoy BV, Tutrone RF et al (2018) Clinical utility of the Prostate Health Index (phi) for biopsy decision management in a large group urology practice setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21:78–84. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-017-0008-7CrossRefPubMed

13.

Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D et al (2016) Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 280:793–804. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152542CrossRefPubMed

14.

Zhao C, Gao G, Fang D et al (2016) The efficiency of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) using PI-RADS Version 2 in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Imaging 40:885–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.04.010CrossRefPubMed

15.

Druskin SC, Tosoian JJ, Young A et al (2018) Combining Prostate Health Index density, magnetic resonance imaging and prior negative biopsy status to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. BJU Int 121:619–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14098CrossRefPubMed

16.

Drost F-JH, Osses DF, Nieboer D et al (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D et al (2015) 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 68:438–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037CrossRefPubMed

18.

Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P et al (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68:1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.013CrossRefPubMed

19.

Matoso A, Epstein JI (2019) Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings. Histopathology 74:135–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13712CrossRefPubMed

20.

Shah ZK, Elias SN, Abaza R et al (2015) Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 22:467–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.11.007CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Park BK, Kim B, Kim CK et al (2007) Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31:534–538. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rct.0000250108.85799.e1CrossRefPubMed

22.

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052CrossRefPubMed

23.

Auer T, Edlinger M, Bektic J et al (2017) Performance of PI-RADS version 1 versus version 2 regarding the relation with histopathological results. World J Urol 35:687–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1920-5CrossRefPubMed

24.

Becker AS, Cornelius A, Reiner CS et al (2017) Direct comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and version 1 regarding interreader agreement and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 94:58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.07.016CrossRefPubMed

25.

Krishna S, McInnes M, Lim C et al (2017) Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system versions 1 and 2 for the detection of peripheral zone gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 Cancers. Am J Roentgenol 209:W365–W373. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.17964CrossRef

26.

Gaur S, Harmon S, Mehralivand S et al (2018) Prospective comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and qualitative in-house categorization system in detection of prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 48:1326–1335. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26025CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Simmons LAM, Kanthabalan A, Arya M et al (2018) Accuracy of transperineal targeted prostate biopsies, visual estimation and image fusion in men needing repeat biopsy in the PICTURE trial. J Urol 200:1227–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.001CrossRefPubMed

28.

Vaché T, Bratan F, Mège-Lechevallier F et al (2014) Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology 272:446–455. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14131584CrossRefPubMed

Title: The predictive value of the prostate health index vs. multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in prostate biopsy
Authors: Jiří Stejskal
Vanda Adamcová
Miroslav Záleský
Vojtěch Novák
Otakar Čapoun
Vojtěch Fiala
Olga Dolejšová
Hana Sedláčková
Štěpán Veselý
Roman Zachoval
Publication date: 01-06-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Prostate Cancer
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Prostate Cancer
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 6/2021
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03397-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

The predictive value of the prostate health index vs. multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in prostate biopsy

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2021

Vacuum-assisted mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a new perspective in fragments clearance and intrarenal pressure control

Evaluation of 30-day complication rates following vaginal anterior compartment repair with and without graft augmentation in a propensity score matched cohort

Bladder lesions as incidental findings during transurethral resection of the prostate: prevalence, diagnosis, and pathological findings

An adaptive randomized clinical trial in interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome evaluating efficacy of ASP3652 and the relationship between disease characteristics and Hunner’s lesions

Consultation of kidney stones: aspects of intracorporeal lithotripsy

Preoperative diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of FEPs of ureters in children: a 13-year retrospective study based on data at a large pediatric medical center