Cargando…

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables: Which is the best combination to predict reclassification in active surveillance patients?

INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: We tested the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in disease reclassification and whether the combination of mpMRI and clinicopathological variables could represent the most accurate approach to predict the risk of reclassification during active...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Roscigno, Marco, Stabile, Armando, Lughezzani, Giovanni, Pepe, Pietro, Dell’Atti, Lucio, Naselli, Angelo, Naspro, Richard, Nicolai, Maria, La Croce, Giovanni, Muhannad, Aljoulani, Perugini, Giovanna, Guazzoni, Giorgio, Montorsi, Francesco, Balzarini, Luca, Sironi, Sandro, Da Pozzo, Luigi F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Asian Pacific Prostate Society 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7767935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33425794
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2020.05.003
_version_ 1783629072126967808
author Roscigno, Marco
Stabile, Armando
Lughezzani, Giovanni
Pepe, Pietro
Dell’Atti, Lucio
Naselli, Angelo
Naspro, Richard
Nicolai, Maria
La Croce, Giovanni
Muhannad, Aljoulani
Perugini, Giovanna
Guazzoni, Giorgio
Montorsi, Francesco
Balzarini, Luca
Sironi, Sandro
Da Pozzo, Luigi F.
author_facet Roscigno, Marco
Stabile, Armando
Lughezzani, Giovanni
Pepe, Pietro
Dell’Atti, Lucio
Naselli, Angelo
Naspro, Richard
Nicolai, Maria
La Croce, Giovanni
Muhannad, Aljoulani
Perugini, Giovanna
Guazzoni, Giorgio
Montorsi, Francesco
Balzarini, Luca
Sironi, Sandro
Da Pozzo, Luigi F.
author_sort Roscigno, Marco
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: We tested the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in disease reclassification and whether the combination of mpMRI and clinicopathological variables could represent the most accurate approach to predict the risk of reclassification during active surveillance. MATERIALS & METHODS: Three-hundred eighty-nine patients (pts) underwent mpMRI and subsequent confirmatory or follow-up biopsy according to the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol. Pts with negative (−) mpMRI underwent systematic random biopsy. Pts with positive (+) mpMRI [Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 (PI-RADS-V2) score ≥3] underwent targeted + systematic random biopsies. Multivariate analyses were used to create three models predicting the probability of reclassification [International Society of Urological Pathology ≥ Grade Group 2 (GG2)]: a basic model including only clinical variables (age, prostate-specific antigen density, and number of positive cores at baseline), an Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) model including only the PI-RADS score, and a full model including both the previous ones. The predictive accuracy (PA) of each model was quantified using the area under the curve. RESULTS: mpMRI negative (−) was recorded in 127 (32.6%) pts; mpMRI positive (+) was recorded in 262 pts: 72 (18.5%) had PI-RADS 3, 150 (38.6%) PI-RADS 4, and 40 (10.3%) PI-RADS 5 lesions. At a median follow-up of 12 months, 125 pts (32%) were reclassified to GG2 prostate cancer. The rate of reclassification to GG2 prostate cancer was 17%, 35%, 38%, and 52% for mpMRI (−), PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5, respectively (P < 0.001). The PA was 69% and 64% in the basic and MRI models, respectively. The full model had the best PA of 74%: older age (P = 0.023; Odds ratio (OR) = 1.040), prostate-specific antigen density (P = 0.037; OR = 1.324), number of positive cores at baseline (P = 0.001; OR = 1.441), and PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 (overall P = 0.001; OR = 2.458, 3.007, and 3.898, respectively) were independent predictors of reclassification. CONCLUSIONS: Disease reclassification increased according to the PI-RADS score increase, at confirmatory or follow-up biopsy. However, a no-negligible rate of reclassification was found also in cases of mpMRI (−). The combination of mpMRI and clinicopathological variables still represents the most accurate approach to pts on active surveillance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7767935
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Asian Pacific Prostate Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77679352021-01-07 Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables: Which is the best combination to predict reclassification in active surveillance patients? Roscigno, Marco Stabile, Armando Lughezzani, Giovanni Pepe, Pietro Dell’Atti, Lucio Naselli, Angelo Naspro, Richard Nicolai, Maria La Croce, Giovanni Muhannad, Aljoulani Perugini, Giovanna Guazzoni, Giorgio Montorsi, Francesco Balzarini, Luca Sironi, Sandro Da Pozzo, Luigi F. Prostate Int Research Article INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: We tested the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in disease reclassification and whether the combination of mpMRI and clinicopathological variables could represent the most accurate approach to predict the risk of reclassification during active surveillance. MATERIALS & METHODS: Three-hundred eighty-nine patients (pts) underwent mpMRI and subsequent confirmatory or follow-up biopsy according to the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol. Pts with negative (−) mpMRI underwent systematic random biopsy. Pts with positive (+) mpMRI [Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 (PI-RADS-V2) score ≥3] underwent targeted + systematic random biopsies. Multivariate analyses were used to create three models predicting the probability of reclassification [International Society of Urological Pathology ≥ Grade Group 2 (GG2)]: a basic model including only clinical variables (age, prostate-specific antigen density, and number of positive cores at baseline), an Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) model including only the PI-RADS score, and a full model including both the previous ones. The predictive accuracy (PA) of each model was quantified using the area under the curve. RESULTS: mpMRI negative (−) was recorded in 127 (32.6%) pts; mpMRI positive (+) was recorded in 262 pts: 72 (18.5%) had PI-RADS 3, 150 (38.6%) PI-RADS 4, and 40 (10.3%) PI-RADS 5 lesions. At a median follow-up of 12 months, 125 pts (32%) were reclassified to GG2 prostate cancer. The rate of reclassification to GG2 prostate cancer was 17%, 35%, 38%, and 52% for mpMRI (−), PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5, respectively (P < 0.001). The PA was 69% and 64% in the basic and MRI models, respectively. The full model had the best PA of 74%: older age (P = 0.023; Odds ratio (OR) = 1.040), prostate-specific antigen density (P = 0.037; OR = 1.324), number of positive cores at baseline (P = 0.001; OR = 1.441), and PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 (overall P = 0.001; OR = 2.458, 3.007, and 3.898, respectively) were independent predictors of reclassification. CONCLUSIONS: Disease reclassification increased according to the PI-RADS score increase, at confirmatory or follow-up biopsy. However, a no-negligible rate of reclassification was found also in cases of mpMRI (−). The combination of mpMRI and clinicopathological variables still represents the most accurate approach to pts on active surveillance. Asian Pacific Prostate Society 2020-12 2020-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7767935/ /pubmed/33425794 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2020.05.003 Text en © 2020 Asian Pacific Prostate Society. Published by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research Article
Roscigno, Marco
Stabile, Armando
Lughezzani, Giovanni
Pepe, Pietro
Dell’Atti, Lucio
Naselli, Angelo
Naspro, Richard
Nicolai, Maria
La Croce, Giovanni
Muhannad, Aljoulani
Perugini, Giovanna
Guazzoni, Giorgio
Montorsi, Francesco
Balzarini, Luca
Sironi, Sandro
Da Pozzo, Luigi F.
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables: Which is the best combination to predict reclassification in active surveillance patients?
title Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables: Which is the best combination to predict reclassification in active surveillance patients?
title_full Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables: Which is the best combination to predict reclassification in active surveillance patients?
title_fullStr Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables: Which is the best combination to predict reclassification in active surveillance patients?
title_full_unstemmed Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables: Which is the best combination to predict reclassification in active surveillance patients?
title_short Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables: Which is the best combination to predict reclassification in active surveillance patients?
title_sort multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables: which is the best combination to predict reclassification in active surveillance patients?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7767935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33425794
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2020.05.003
work_keys_str_mv AT roscignomarco multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT stabilearmando multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT lughezzanigiovanni multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT pepepietro multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT dellattilucio multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT naselliangelo multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT nasprorichard multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT nicolaimaria multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT lacrocegiovanni multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT muhannadaljoulani multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT peruginigiovanna multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT guazzonigiorgio multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT montorsifrancesco multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT balzariniluca multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT sironisandro multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients
AT dapozzoluigif multiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingandclinicalvariableswhichisthebestcombinationtopredictreclassificationinactivesurveillancepatients