Cargando…
A SelectMDx/magnetic resonance imaging‐based nomogram to diagnose prostate cancer
BACKGROUND: 70%–80% of prostate cancer (PCa) biopsies performed in the US annually may be unnecessary. Specific antigen testing (PSA) and tans rectal ultrasound (TRUS) are imprecise predictive methods for risk of PCa. Novel strategies are critical to guide biopsy decision‐making. AIM: We assessed th...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9875685/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36168681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1668 |
_version_ | 1784878014195040256 |
---|---|
author | Wagaskar, Vinayak G. Levy, Micah Ratnani, Parita Sullimada, Sharmila Gerenia, Mae Schlussel, Kacie Choudhury, Samia Gabriele, Marla Haas, Ian Haines, Kenneth Tewari, Ash |
author_facet | Wagaskar, Vinayak G. Levy, Micah Ratnani, Parita Sullimada, Sharmila Gerenia, Mae Schlussel, Kacie Choudhury, Samia Gabriele, Marla Haas, Ian Haines, Kenneth Tewari, Ash |
author_sort | Wagaskar, Vinayak G. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: 70%–80% of prostate cancer (PCa) biopsies performed in the US annually may be unnecessary. Specific antigen testing (PSA) and tans rectal ultrasound (TRUS) are imprecise predictive methods for risk of PCa. Novel strategies are critical to guide biopsy decision‐making. AIM: We assessed the utility and accuracy of combining Select MDx and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) scores for predicting risk of PCa. METHODS AND RESULTS: Our study was conducted at Mount Sinai hospital at Urology department in New York City from January 2020 to April 2021. Total 129 men performed select MDx test. Indications for prostate biopsy were high‐risk Select MDx score, suspicious DRE, PI‐RADS scores 3/4/5 on mpMRI, or any combination of these. Fifty‐one percentage of 129 patients underwent systemic or combined systemic and MRI/US (ultrasound) fusion biopsy; All men underwent 3 T MRI of Prostate w/wo contrast using standard protocols prior to biopsy. A single surgeon performed prostate biopsies. Gleason score ≥3 + 3 on biopsy is defined as outcome. Descriptive statistics were calculated as cross tables. Binary logistic regression model is used to determine the outcome. The nomogram was based on the coefficients of the logit function. ROCs were plotted and decision curve analysis was performed. Using both high‐risk Select MDx and PI‐RADS scores of 4/5, 87% of biopsies could have been avoided, while detecting 64% of PCa and missing 36%. If biopsies were performed on men with positive Select MDx or PI‐RADS 4/5 results, 16% of biopsies could have been avoided while detecting all PCa. Combining these scores improved specificity and accuracy for the detection of PCa over either used alone. Study limitations include limited sample size, sole institution study, and risk or overfitting for the proposed model which may limit generalizability. CONCLUSION: Combining SelectMDx and mpMRI PI‐PADS scores of 4/5 may be useful for PCa biopsy decision‐making. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9875685 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98756852023-01-25 A SelectMDx/magnetic resonance imaging‐based nomogram to diagnose prostate cancer Wagaskar, Vinayak G. Levy, Micah Ratnani, Parita Sullimada, Sharmila Gerenia, Mae Schlussel, Kacie Choudhury, Samia Gabriele, Marla Haas, Ian Haines, Kenneth Tewari, Ash Cancer Rep (Hoboken) Original Articles BACKGROUND: 70%–80% of prostate cancer (PCa) biopsies performed in the US annually may be unnecessary. Specific antigen testing (PSA) and tans rectal ultrasound (TRUS) are imprecise predictive methods for risk of PCa. Novel strategies are critical to guide biopsy decision‐making. AIM: We assessed the utility and accuracy of combining Select MDx and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) scores for predicting risk of PCa. METHODS AND RESULTS: Our study was conducted at Mount Sinai hospital at Urology department in New York City from January 2020 to April 2021. Total 129 men performed select MDx test. Indications for prostate biopsy were high‐risk Select MDx score, suspicious DRE, PI‐RADS scores 3/4/5 on mpMRI, or any combination of these. Fifty‐one percentage of 129 patients underwent systemic or combined systemic and MRI/US (ultrasound) fusion biopsy; All men underwent 3 T MRI of Prostate w/wo contrast using standard protocols prior to biopsy. A single surgeon performed prostate biopsies. Gleason score ≥3 + 3 on biopsy is defined as outcome. Descriptive statistics were calculated as cross tables. Binary logistic regression model is used to determine the outcome. The nomogram was based on the coefficients of the logit function. ROCs were plotted and decision curve analysis was performed. Using both high‐risk Select MDx and PI‐RADS scores of 4/5, 87% of biopsies could have been avoided, while detecting 64% of PCa and missing 36%. If biopsies were performed on men with positive Select MDx or PI‐RADS 4/5 results, 16% of biopsies could have been avoided while detecting all PCa. Combining these scores improved specificity and accuracy for the detection of PCa over either used alone. Study limitations include limited sample size, sole institution study, and risk or overfitting for the proposed model which may limit generalizability. CONCLUSION: Combining SelectMDx and mpMRI PI‐PADS scores of 4/5 may be useful for PCa biopsy decision‐making. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9875685/ /pubmed/36168681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1668 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Wagaskar, Vinayak G. Levy, Micah Ratnani, Parita Sullimada, Sharmila Gerenia, Mae Schlussel, Kacie Choudhury, Samia Gabriele, Marla Haas, Ian Haines, Kenneth Tewari, Ash A SelectMDx/magnetic resonance imaging‐based nomogram to diagnose prostate cancer |
title | A SelectMDx/magnetic resonance imaging‐based nomogram to diagnose prostate cancer |
title_full | A SelectMDx/magnetic resonance imaging‐based nomogram to diagnose prostate cancer |
title_fullStr | A SelectMDx/magnetic resonance imaging‐based nomogram to diagnose prostate cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | A SelectMDx/magnetic resonance imaging‐based nomogram to diagnose prostate cancer |
title_short | A SelectMDx/magnetic resonance imaging‐based nomogram to diagnose prostate cancer |
title_sort | selectmdx/magnetic resonance imaging‐based nomogram to diagnose prostate cancer |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9875685/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36168681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1668 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wagaskarvinayakg aselectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT levymicah aselectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT ratnaniparita aselectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT sullimadasharmila aselectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT gereniamae aselectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT schlusselkacie aselectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT choudhurysamia aselectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT gabrielemarla aselectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT haasian aselectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT haineskenneth aselectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT tewariash aselectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT wagaskarvinayakg selectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT levymicah selectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT ratnaniparita selectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT sullimadasharmila selectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT gereniamae selectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT schlusselkacie selectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT choudhurysamia selectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT gabrielemarla selectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT haasian selectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT haineskenneth selectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer AT tewariash selectmdxmagneticresonanceimagingbasednomogramtodiagnoseprostatecancer |