Cargando…

The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for clinically significant prostate cancer and to determine whether applying Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score could improve the diagnostic pathway be...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tezcan, Sehnaz, Ulu Ozturk, Funda, Bekar, Ulku, Ozturk, Erdem
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Turkish Association of Urology 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10192785/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37877859
http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.220199
_version_ 1785043701172535296
author Tezcan, Sehnaz
Ulu Ozturk, Funda
Bekar, Ulku
Ozturk, Erdem
author_facet Tezcan, Sehnaz
Ulu Ozturk, Funda
Bekar, Ulku
Ozturk, Erdem
author_sort Tezcan, Sehnaz
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for clinically significant prostate cancer and to determine whether applying Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score could improve the diagnostic pathway besides the biochemical characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 199 patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging were included. Logistic regression analyses and receiver operating characteristic curve were performed to determine independent predictors and to compare diagnostic performance of indicators for clinically significant prostate cancer. Two models were established. In model 1, the diagnostic performance of prostate-specific antigen- and prostate-specific antigen density-derived parameters were evaluated. In model 2, the prediction potential of model 1 plus Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score was analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were positive for clinically significant prostate cancer by histopathological analysis (32.1%). In model 1, a prostate-specific antigen density >0.15 was labeled as the strongest predictor of malignancy. In model 2, a prostate-specific antigen density >0.15, a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥3, and a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥4 demonstrated the strongest association with malignancy. Among these parameters, a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥4 (P = .003) was found to be the most robust predictor for malignancy, followed by a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥3 (P = .012). The multivariate analysis revealed higher accuracy in model 2 (76.9%) than in model 1 (67.8%). The area under curve values with respect to prostate-specific antigen, prostate-specific antigen density, model 1, and model 2 were 0.632, 0.741, 0.656, and 0.798, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results indicated that Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score and prostate-specific antigen density are independent predictors for the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. Both prostate-specific antigen density and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score should be risen to prominence in the decision of biopsy instead of PSA.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10192785
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Turkish Association of Urology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101927852023-05-19 The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Tezcan, Sehnaz Ulu Ozturk, Funda Bekar, Ulku Ozturk, Erdem Urol Res Pract Original Article OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for clinically significant prostate cancer and to determine whether applying Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score could improve the diagnostic pathway besides the biochemical characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 199 patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging were included. Logistic regression analyses and receiver operating characteristic curve were performed to determine independent predictors and to compare diagnostic performance of indicators for clinically significant prostate cancer. Two models were established. In model 1, the diagnostic performance of prostate-specific antigen- and prostate-specific antigen density-derived parameters were evaluated. In model 2, the prediction potential of model 1 plus Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score was analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were positive for clinically significant prostate cancer by histopathological analysis (32.1%). In model 1, a prostate-specific antigen density >0.15 was labeled as the strongest predictor of malignancy. In model 2, a prostate-specific antigen density >0.15, a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥3, and a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥4 demonstrated the strongest association with malignancy. Among these parameters, a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥4 (P = .003) was found to be the most robust predictor for malignancy, followed by a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems score ≥3 (P = .012). The multivariate analysis revealed higher accuracy in model 2 (76.9%) than in model 1 (67.8%). The area under curve values with respect to prostate-specific antigen, prostate-specific antigen density, model 1, and model 2 were 0.632, 0.741, 0.656, and 0.798, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results indicated that Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score and prostate-specific antigen density are independent predictors for the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. Both prostate-specific antigen density and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2.1 score should be risen to prominence in the decision of biopsy instead of PSA. Turkish Association of Urology 2023-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10192785/ /pubmed/37877859 http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.220199 Text en 2023 authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Content of this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
spellingShingle Original Article
Tezcan, Sehnaz
Ulu Ozturk, Funda
Bekar, Ulku
Ozturk, Erdem
The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
title The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
title_full The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
title_fullStr The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
title_full_unstemmed The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
title_short The Impact of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
title_sort impact of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 and prostate-specific antigen density in the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10192785/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37877859
http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.220199
work_keys_str_mv AT tezcansehnaz theimpactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer
AT uluozturkfunda theimpactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer
AT bekarulku theimpactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer
AT ozturkerdem theimpactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer
AT tezcansehnaz impactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer
AT uluozturkfunda impactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer
AT bekarulku impactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer
AT ozturkerdem impactofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion21andprostatespecificantigendensityinthepredictionofclinicallysignificantprostatecancer