Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Urology 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Prostate Cancer | Research

Elucidating the need for prostate cancer risk calculators in conjunction with mpMRI in initial risk assessment before prostate biopsy at a tertiary prostate cancer center

Authors: Philipp Krausewitz, Thomas Büttner, Marthe von Danwitz, Richard Weiten, Alexander Cox, Niklas Klümper, Johannes Stein, Julian Luetkens, Glen Kristiansen, Manuel Ritter, Jörg Ellinger

Published in: BMC Urology | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

Utilizing personalized risk assessment for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) reduces biopsies and overdiagnosis. We validated both multi- and univariate risk models in biopsy-naïve men, with and without the inclusion of mpMRI data for csPCa detection.

Methods

N = 565 men underwent mpMRI-targeted prostate biopsy, and the diagnostic performance of risk calculators (RCs), mpMRI alone, and clinical measures were compared using receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis and decision curve analysis (DCA). Subgroups were stratified based on mpMRI findings and quality.

Results

csPCa was detected in 56.3%. PI-RADS score achieved the highest area under the curve (AUC) when comparing univariate risk models (AUC 0.82, p < 0.001). Multivariate RCs showed only marginal improvement in csPCa detection compared to PI-RADS score alone, with just one of four RCs showing significant superiority. In mpMRI-negative cases, the non-MRI-based RC performed best (AUC 0.80, p = 0.016), with the potential to spare biopsies for 23%. PSA-density and multivariate RCs demonstrated comparable performance for PI-RADS 3 constellation (AUC 0.65 vs. 0.60–0.65, p > 0.5; saved biopsies 16%). In men with suspicious mpMRI, both mpMRI-based RCs and the PI-RADS score predicted csPCa excellently (AUC 0.82–0.79 vs. 0.80, p > 0.05), highlighting superior performance compared to non-MRI-based models (all p < 0.002). Quality-assured imaging consistently improved csPCa risk stratification across all subgroups.

Conclusion

In tertiary centers serving a high-risk population, high-quality mpMRI provides a simple yet effective way to assess the risk of csPCa. Using multivariate RCs reduces multiple biopsies, especially in mpMRI-negative and PI-RADS 3 constellation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. Fifteen-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(17):1547–58.CrossRefPubMed Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. Fifteen-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(17):1547–58.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 Update Part 1 Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):243–62.CrossRefPubMed Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 Update Part 1 Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):243–62.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference 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 (London, England). 2017;389(10071):815–22.CrossRefPubMed 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 (London, England). 2017;389(10071):815–22.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
go back to reference van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):570–8.CrossRefPubMed van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):570–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C, et al. 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. 2017;72(6):888–96.CrossRefPubMed Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C, et al. 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. 2017;72(6):888–96.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, et al. Prediction of high-grade prostate cancer following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: improving the Rotterdam European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators. Eur Urol. 2019;75(2):310–8.CrossRefPubMed Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, et al. Prediction of high-grade prostate cancer following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: improving the Rotterdam European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators. Eur Urol. 2019;75(2):310–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Schoots IG, Roobol MJ. Multivariate risk prediction tools including MRI for individualized biopsy decision in prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions. World J Urol. 2020;38(3):517–29.CrossRefPubMed Schoots IG, Roobol MJ. Multivariate risk prediction tools including MRI for individualized biopsy decision in prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions. World J Urol. 2020;38(3):517–29.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Parekh S, Ratnani P, Falagario U, et al. The Mount Sinai prebiopsy risk calculator for predicting any prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer: development of a risk predictive tool and validation with advanced neural networking, prostate magnetic resonance imaging outcome database, and European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator. European urology open science. 2022;41:45–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Parekh S, Ratnani P, Falagario U, et al. The Mount Sinai prebiopsy risk calculator for predicting any prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer: development of a risk predictive tool and validation with advanced neural networking, prostate magnetic resonance imaging outcome database, and European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator. European urology open science. 2022;41:45–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, et al. Interreader Variability of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 in Detecting and Assessing Prostate Cancer Lesions at Prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;212(6):1197–205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, et al. Interreader Variability of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 in Detecting and Assessing Prostate Cancer Lesions at Prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;212(6):1197–205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference de Rooij M, Israël B, Tummers M, et al. ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(10):5404–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral de Rooij M, Israël B, Tummers M, et al. ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(10):5404–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Deniffel D, Healy GM, Dong X, et al. Avoiding Unnecessary Biopsy: MRI-based Risk Models versus a PI-RADS and PSA Density Strategy for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Radiology. 2021;300(2):369–79.CrossRefPubMed Deniffel D, Healy GM, Dong X, et al. Avoiding Unnecessary Biopsy: MRI-based Risk Models versus a PI-RADS and PSA Density Strategy for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Radiology. 2021;300(2):369–79.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Wagensveld IM, Osses DF, Groenendijk PM, et al. A Prospective Multicenter Comparison Study of Risk-adapted Ultrasound-directed and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Diagnostic Pathways for Suspected Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-naïve Men. Eur Urol. 2022;82(3):318–26.CrossRefPubMed Wagensveld IM, Osses DF, Groenendijk PM, et al. A Prospective Multicenter Comparison Study of Risk-adapted Ultrasound-directed and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Diagnostic Pathways for Suspected Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-naïve Men. Eur Urol. 2022;82(3):318–26.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. European urology. 2019;76(3):340–51.CrossRefPubMed Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. European urology. 2019;76(3):340–51.CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
go back to reference Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Rais-Bahrami S, et al. A Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Prediction Model for Prostate Biopsy Risk Stratification. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(5):678–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Rais-Bahrami S, et al. A Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Prediction Model for Prostate Biopsy Risk Stratification. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(5):678–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Sigle A, Borkowetz A, von Hardenberg J, Drerup M, Kornienko K, Kwe J, Wenzel M, Mandel P, Westhoff N, Rieger C, Hoffmann MA, Ortner G, Mahjoub S; GeSRU Academics Prostate Cancer Group. Prediction of Significant Prostate Cancer in Equivocal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions: A High-volume International Multicenter Study. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9(4):606-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2023.01.020. Sigle A, Borkowetz A, von Hardenberg J, Drerup M, Kornienko K, Kwe J, Wenzel M, Mandel P, Westhoff N, Rieger C, Hoffmann MA, Ortner G, Mahjoub S; GeSRU Academics Prostate Cancer Group. Prediction of Significant Prostate Cancer in Equivocal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions: A High-volume International Multicenter Study. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9(4):606-13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​euf.​2023.​01.​020.
18.
go back to reference Niu X-K, Li J, Das SK, Xiong Y, Yang C-B, Peng T. 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. 2017;17(1):11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Niu X-K, Li J, Das SK, Xiong Y, Yang C-B, Peng T. 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. 2017;17(1):11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Rezaee ME, Macura KJ, Trock BJ, Herati A, Pavlovich CP, Han M, Stoianovici D. Likelihood of sampling prostate cancer at systematic biopsy as a function of gland volume and number of cores. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00780-1. Epub ahead of print. Rezaee ME, Macura KJ, Trock BJ, Herati A, Pavlovich CP, Han M, Stoianovici D. Likelihood of sampling prostate cancer at systematic biopsy as a function of gland volume and number of cores. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41391-023-00780-1. Epub ahead of print.
20.
go back to reference Volz Y, Apfelbeck M, Pyrgidis N, et al. The Impact of Prostate Volume on the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System (PI-RADS) in a Real-World Setting. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland). 2023;13(16):2677.PubMed Volz Y, Apfelbeck M, Pyrgidis N, et al. The Impact of Prostate Volume on the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System (PI-RADS) in a Real-World Setting. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland). 2023;13(16):2677.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Al HusseinAl Awamlh B, Marks LS, Sonn GA, et al. Multicenter analysis of clinical and MRI characteristics associated with detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in PI-RADS (v2.0) category 3 lesions. Urol Oncol. 2020;38(7):637–637.CrossRef Al HusseinAl Awamlh B, Marks LS, Sonn GA, et al. Multicenter analysis of clinical and MRI characteristics associated with detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in PI-RADS (v2.0) category 3 lesions. Urol Oncol. 2020;38(7):637–637.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S, et al. What Are We Missing? False-Negative Cancers at Multiparametric MR Imaging of the Prostate. Radiology. 2018;286(1):186–95.CrossRefPubMed Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S, et al. What Are We Missing? False-Negative Cancers at Multiparametric MR Imaging of the Prostate. Radiology. 2018;286(1):186–95.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Krausewitz P, Bundschuh RA, Gaertner FC, et al. DEPROMP Trial: the additive value of PSMA-PET/CT-guided biopsy for prostate cancer management in biopsy naïve men-study protocol for a randomized trial. Trials. 2023;24(1):167.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Krausewitz P, Bundschuh RA, Gaertner FC, et al. DEPROMP Trial: the additive value of PSMA-PET/CT-guided biopsy for prostate cancer management in biopsy naïve men-study protocol for a randomized trial. Trials. 2023;24(1):167.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Guo S, Zhang J, Wang Y, Jiao J, Li Z, Cui C, Chen J, Yang W, Ma S, Wu P, Jing Y, Wen W, Kang F, Wang J, Qin W. Avoiding unnecessary biopsy: the combination of PRIMARY score with prostate-specific antigen density for prostate biopsy decision. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00782-z. Epub ahead of print. Guo S, Zhang J, Wang Y, Jiao J, Li Z, Cui C, Chen J, Yang W, Ma S, Wu P, Jing Y, Wen W, Kang F, Wang J, Qin W. Avoiding unnecessary biopsy: the combination of PRIMARY score with prostate-specific antigen density for prostate biopsy decision. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41391-023-00782-z. Epub ahead of print.
25.
go back to reference Zambon A, Nguyen TA, Fourcade A, Segalen T, Saout K, Deruelle C, Joulin V, Tissot V, Doucet L, Fournier G, Valeri A. Which protocol for prostate biopsies in patients with a positive MRI? Interest of systematic biopsies by sectors. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00770-3. Epub ahead of print. Zambon A, Nguyen TA, Fourcade A, Segalen T, Saout K, Deruelle C, Joulin V, Tissot V, Doucet L, Fournier G, Valeri A. Which protocol for prostate biopsies in patients with a positive MRI? Interest of systematic biopsies by sectors. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41391-023-00770-3. Epub ahead of print.
26.
go back to reference Krausewitz P, Fostitsch D, Weiten R, et al. Current role of systematic biopsy in diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in primary combined MRI-targeted biopsy: a high-volume single-center study. World J Urol. 2023;41(1):19–25.CrossRefPubMed Krausewitz P, Fostitsch D, Weiten R, et al. Current role of systematic biopsy in diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in primary combined MRI-targeted biopsy: a high-volume single-center study. World J Urol. 2023;41(1):19–25.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Elucidating the need for prostate cancer risk calculators in conjunction with mpMRI in initial risk assessment before prostate biopsy at a tertiary prostate cancer center
Authors
Philipp Krausewitz
Thomas Büttner
Marthe von Danwitz
Richard Weiten
Alexander Cox
Niklas Klümper
Johannes Stein
Julian Luetkens
Glen Kristiansen
Manuel Ritter
Jörg Ellinger
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Urology / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2490
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-024-01460-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

BMC Urology 1/2024 Go to the issue