Cargando…
Evaluation of PSA and PSA Density in a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Diagnostic Pathway for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The INNOVATE Trial
SIMPLE SUMMARY: As we start to see the increased, routine, use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to inform prostate cancer diagnosis and image-guided biopsy, data collected from University College London Hospital describes the expected diagnostic outcomes of PSA and PSA Density i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8074769/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33924255 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13081985 |
_version_ | 1783684416368803840 |
---|---|
author | Pye, Hayley Singh, Saurabh Norris, Joseph M. Carmona Echeverria, Lina M. Stavrinides, Vasilis Grey, Alistair Dinneen, Eoin Pilavachi, Elly Clemente, Joey Heavey, Susan Stopka-Farooqui, Urszula Simpson, Benjamin S. Bonet-Carne, Elisenda Patel, Dominic Barker, Peter Burling, Keith Stevens, Nicola Ng, Tony Panagiotaki, Eleftheria Hawkes, David Alexander, Daniel C. Rodriguez-Justo, Manuel Haider, Aiman Freeman, Alex Kirkham, Alex Atkinson, David Allen, Clare Shaw, Greg Beeston, Teresita Brizmohun Appayya, Mrishta Latifoltojar, Arash Johnston, Edward W. Emberton, Mark Moore, Caroline M. Ahmed, Hashim U. Punwani, Shonit Whitaker, Hayley C. |
author_facet | Pye, Hayley Singh, Saurabh Norris, Joseph M. Carmona Echeverria, Lina M. Stavrinides, Vasilis Grey, Alistair Dinneen, Eoin Pilavachi, Elly Clemente, Joey Heavey, Susan Stopka-Farooqui, Urszula Simpson, Benjamin S. Bonet-Carne, Elisenda Patel, Dominic Barker, Peter Burling, Keith Stevens, Nicola Ng, Tony Panagiotaki, Eleftheria Hawkes, David Alexander, Daniel C. Rodriguez-Justo, Manuel Haider, Aiman Freeman, Alex Kirkham, Alex Atkinson, David Allen, Clare Shaw, Greg Beeston, Teresita Brizmohun Appayya, Mrishta Latifoltojar, Arash Johnston, Edward W. Emberton, Mark Moore, Caroline M. Ahmed, Hashim U. Punwani, Shonit Whitaker, Hayley C. |
author_sort | Pye, Hayley |
collection | PubMed |
description | SIMPLE SUMMARY: As we start to see the increased, routine, use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to inform prostate cancer diagnosis and image-guided biopsy, data collected from University College London Hospital describes the expected diagnostic outcomes of PSA and PSA Density in this pathway as well as the potential space remaining for novel biomarkers to further improve the pathway. ABSTRACT: Objectives: To assess the clinical outcomes of mpMRI before biopsy and evaluate the space remaining for novel biomarkers. Methods: The INNOVATE study was set up to evaluate the validity of novel fluidic biomarkers in men with suspected prostate cancer who undergo pre-biopsy mpMRI. We report the characteristics of this clinical cohort, the distribution of clinical serum biomarkers, PSA and PSA density (PSAD), and compare the mpMRI Likert scoring system to the Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System v2.1 (PI-RADS) in men undergoing biopsy. Results: 340 men underwent mpMRI to evaluate suspected prostate cancer. 193/340 (57%) men had subsequent MRI-targeted prostate biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csigPCa), i.e., overall Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length OR maximum cancer core length (MCCL) ≥4 mm of any grade including any 3 + 3, was found in 96/195 (49%) of biopsied patients. Median PSA (and PSAD) was 4.7 (0.20), 8.0 (0.17), and 9.7 (0.31) ng/mL (ng/mL/mL) in mpMRI scored Likert 3,4,5 respectively for men with csigPCa on biopsy. The space for novel biomarkers was shown to be within the group of men with mpMRI scored Likert3 (178/340) and 4 (70/350), in whom an additional of 40% (70/178) men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 37% (26/70) Likert4 could have been spared biopsy. PSAD is already considered clinically in this cohort to risk stratify patients for biopsy, despite this 67% (55/82) of men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 55% (36/65) Likert4, who underwent prostate biopsy had a PSAD below a clinical threshold of 0.15 (or 0.12 for men aged <50 years). Different thresholds of PSA and PSAD were assessed in mpMRI-scored Likert4 to predict csigPCa on biopsy, to achieve false negative levels of ≤5% the proportion of patients whom who test as above the threshold were unsuitably high at 86 and 92% of patients for PSAD and PSA respectively. When PSA was re tested in a sub cohort of men repeated PSAD showed its poor reproducibility with 43% (41/95) of patients being reclassified. After PI-RADS rescoring of the biopsied lesions, 66% (54/82) of the Likert3 lesions received a different PI-RADS score. Conclusions: The addition of simple biochemical and radiological markers (Likert and PSAD) facilitate the streamlining of the mpMRI-diagnostic pathway for suspected prostate cancer but there remains scope for improvement, in the introduction of novel biomarkers for risk assessment in Likert3 and 4 patients, future application of novel biomarkers tested in a Likert cohort would also require re-optimization around Likert3/PI-RADS2, as well as reproducibility testing. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8074769 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80747692021-04-27 Evaluation of PSA and PSA Density in a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Diagnostic Pathway for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The INNOVATE Trial Pye, Hayley Singh, Saurabh Norris, Joseph M. Carmona Echeverria, Lina M. Stavrinides, Vasilis Grey, Alistair Dinneen, Eoin Pilavachi, Elly Clemente, Joey Heavey, Susan Stopka-Farooqui, Urszula Simpson, Benjamin S. Bonet-Carne, Elisenda Patel, Dominic Barker, Peter Burling, Keith Stevens, Nicola Ng, Tony Panagiotaki, Eleftheria Hawkes, David Alexander, Daniel C. Rodriguez-Justo, Manuel Haider, Aiman Freeman, Alex Kirkham, Alex Atkinson, David Allen, Clare Shaw, Greg Beeston, Teresita Brizmohun Appayya, Mrishta Latifoltojar, Arash Johnston, Edward W. Emberton, Mark Moore, Caroline M. Ahmed, Hashim U. Punwani, Shonit Whitaker, Hayley C. Cancers (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: As we start to see the increased, routine, use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to inform prostate cancer diagnosis and image-guided biopsy, data collected from University College London Hospital describes the expected diagnostic outcomes of PSA and PSA Density in this pathway as well as the potential space remaining for novel biomarkers to further improve the pathway. ABSTRACT: Objectives: To assess the clinical outcomes of mpMRI before biopsy and evaluate the space remaining for novel biomarkers. Methods: The INNOVATE study was set up to evaluate the validity of novel fluidic biomarkers in men with suspected prostate cancer who undergo pre-biopsy mpMRI. We report the characteristics of this clinical cohort, the distribution of clinical serum biomarkers, PSA and PSA density (PSAD), and compare the mpMRI Likert scoring system to the Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System v2.1 (PI-RADS) in men undergoing biopsy. Results: 340 men underwent mpMRI to evaluate suspected prostate cancer. 193/340 (57%) men had subsequent MRI-targeted prostate biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csigPCa), i.e., overall Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length OR maximum cancer core length (MCCL) ≥4 mm of any grade including any 3 + 3, was found in 96/195 (49%) of biopsied patients. Median PSA (and PSAD) was 4.7 (0.20), 8.0 (0.17), and 9.7 (0.31) ng/mL (ng/mL/mL) in mpMRI scored Likert 3,4,5 respectively for men with csigPCa on biopsy. The space for novel biomarkers was shown to be within the group of men with mpMRI scored Likert3 (178/340) and 4 (70/350), in whom an additional of 40% (70/178) men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 37% (26/70) Likert4 could have been spared biopsy. PSAD is already considered clinically in this cohort to risk stratify patients for biopsy, despite this 67% (55/82) of men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 55% (36/65) Likert4, who underwent prostate biopsy had a PSAD below a clinical threshold of 0.15 (or 0.12 for men aged <50 years). Different thresholds of PSA and PSAD were assessed in mpMRI-scored Likert4 to predict csigPCa on biopsy, to achieve false negative levels of ≤5% the proportion of patients whom who test as above the threshold were unsuitably high at 86 and 92% of patients for PSAD and PSA respectively. When PSA was re tested in a sub cohort of men repeated PSAD showed its poor reproducibility with 43% (41/95) of patients being reclassified. After PI-RADS rescoring of the biopsied lesions, 66% (54/82) of the Likert3 lesions received a different PI-RADS score. Conclusions: The addition of simple biochemical and radiological markers (Likert and PSAD) facilitate the streamlining of the mpMRI-diagnostic pathway for suspected prostate cancer but there remains scope for improvement, in the introduction of novel biomarkers for risk assessment in Likert3 and 4 patients, future application of novel biomarkers tested in a Likert cohort would also require re-optimization around Likert3/PI-RADS2, as well as reproducibility testing. MDPI 2021-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8074769/ /pubmed/33924255 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13081985 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Pye, Hayley Singh, Saurabh Norris, Joseph M. Carmona Echeverria, Lina M. Stavrinides, Vasilis Grey, Alistair Dinneen, Eoin Pilavachi, Elly Clemente, Joey Heavey, Susan Stopka-Farooqui, Urszula Simpson, Benjamin S. Bonet-Carne, Elisenda Patel, Dominic Barker, Peter Burling, Keith Stevens, Nicola Ng, Tony Panagiotaki, Eleftheria Hawkes, David Alexander, Daniel C. Rodriguez-Justo, Manuel Haider, Aiman Freeman, Alex Kirkham, Alex Atkinson, David Allen, Clare Shaw, Greg Beeston, Teresita Brizmohun Appayya, Mrishta Latifoltojar, Arash Johnston, Edward W. Emberton, Mark Moore, Caroline M. Ahmed, Hashim U. Punwani, Shonit Whitaker, Hayley C. Evaluation of PSA and PSA Density in a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Diagnostic Pathway for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The INNOVATE Trial |
title | Evaluation of PSA and PSA Density in a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Diagnostic Pathway for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The INNOVATE Trial |
title_full | Evaluation of PSA and PSA Density in a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Diagnostic Pathway for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The INNOVATE Trial |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of PSA and PSA Density in a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Diagnostic Pathway for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The INNOVATE Trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of PSA and PSA Density in a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Diagnostic Pathway for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The INNOVATE Trial |
title_short | Evaluation of PSA and PSA Density in a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Diagnostic Pathway for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The INNOVATE Trial |
title_sort | evaluation of psa and psa density in a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-directed diagnostic pathway for suspected prostate cancer: the innovate trial |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8074769/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33924255 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13081985 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pyehayley evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT singhsaurabh evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT norrisjosephm evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT carmonaecheverrialinam evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT stavrinidesvasilis evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT greyalistair evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT dinneeneoin evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT pilavachielly evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT clementejoey evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT heaveysusan evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT stopkafarooquiurszula evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT simpsonbenjamins evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT bonetcarneelisenda evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT pateldominic evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT barkerpeter evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT burlingkeith evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT stevensnicola evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT ngtony evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT panagiotakieleftheria evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT hawkesdavid evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT alexanderdanielc evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT rodriguezjustomanuel evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT haideraiman evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT freemanalex evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT kirkhamalex evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT atkinsondavid evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT allenclare evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT shawgreg evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT beestonteresita evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT brizmohunappayyamrishta evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT latifoltojararash evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT johnstonedwardw evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT embertonmark evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT moorecarolinem evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT ahmedhashimu evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT punwanishonit evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial AT whitakerhayleyc evaluationofpsaandpsadensityinamultiparametricmagneticresonanceimagingdirecteddiagnosticpathwayforsuspectedprostatecancertheinnovatetrial |