Advertisement

Combined MRI and PSA Strategy Improves Biopsy Decisions Compared with PSA Only: Longitudinal Observations of a Cohort of Patients with a PSA Level Less Than 20 ng/mL

Published:September 17, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2022.07.020

      Rationale and Objectives

      To assess the diagnostic performances of prostate specific antigen (PSA) and PSA with prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to predict prostate cancer in patients with PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL.

      Materials and methods

      Patients suspected of prostate cancer with a PSA test and prebiopsy MRI were included (n = 881). Prostate biopsy results or follow-up clinical data for 2 years were used to determine the presence of prostate cancer. The diagnostic performance of PSA, MRI, and PSA with MRI (referred to as the protocol) was evaluated. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the MRI were calculated in subgroups of patients with specific ranges of PSA level.

      Results

      Prostate cancer and CSC were diagnosed in 220 and 162 patients, respectively. Adding MRI to PSA could greatly improve specificity and PPV (0.833 and 0.567) for detecting CSC, compared to PSA ≥ 4 ng/mL alone (0.248 and 0.0219). Even though the sensitivity of the protocol (0.679) was lower than PSA (0.938), the NPV of the protocol was comparable to PSA (0.929 vs. 0.924). The protocol consistently showed the superior PPV and NVP to PSA only in not only patients within the gray zone of PSA, but also in patients with higher PSA.

      Conclusion

      In conclusion, this longitudinal observational study confirmed that adding prebiopsy MRI to PSA was consistently beneficial in patients with PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL for avoiding unnecessary biopsy despite decrease in the sensitivity.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Jeong SH
        • Raman JD.
        Impact of the evolving United States Preventative Services Task Force policy statements on incidence and distribution of prostate cancer over 15 years in a statewide cancer registry.
        Prostate Int. 2021; 9: 12-17https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2020.06.002
        • Aminsharifi A
        • Howard L
        • Wu Y
        • et al.
        Prostate specific antigen density as a predictor of clinically significant prostate cancer when the prostate specific antigen is in the diagnostic gray zone: defining the optimum cutoff point stratified by race and body mass index.
        J Urol. 2018; 200: 758-766https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.016
        • Halpern JA
        • Oromendia C
        • Shoag JE
        • et al.
        Use of digital rectal examination as an adjunct to prostate specific antigen in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2018; 199: 947-953https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.021
        • Wolf AM
        • Wender RC
        • Etzioni RB
        • et al.
        American cancer society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2010; 60: 70-98https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.20066
        • Lojanapiwat B
        • Anutrakulchai W
        • Chongruksut W
        • Udomphot C.
        Correlation and diagnostic performance of the prostate-specific antigen level with the diagnosis, aggressiveness, and bone metastasis of prostate cancer in clinical practice.
        Prostate Int. 2014; 2: 133-139https://doi.org/10.12954/PI.14054
        • 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. 2017; 389: 815-822https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
        • Kasivisvanathan V
        • Rannikko AS
        • Borghi M
        • et al.
        MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis.
        N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 1767-1777https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
        • Rouviere O
        • Puech P
        • Renard-Penna R
        • et al.
        Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study.
        Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20: 100-109https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
        • van der Leest M
        • Cornel E
        • Israel 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-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study.
        Eur Urol. 2019; 75: 570-578https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
      1. EAU Guidelines: prostate cancer. Edn.
        in: presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2022. EAU Guidelines Office. Arnhem, The Netherlands. 2022
        • Purysko AS
        • Mielke N
        • Bullen J
        • et al.
        Influence of enema and dietary restrictions on prostate MR image quality: a multireader study.
        Acad Radiol. 2022; 29: 4-14https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2020.10.019
        • Luzzago S
        • de Cobelli O
        • Mistretta FA
        • et al.
        MRI-targeted or systematic random biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy naive patients: follow-up of a PRECISION trial-like retrospective cohort.
        Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021; 24: 406-413https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-020-00290-4
        • Kim CH
        • Kim CK
        • Park JJ
        • Park SY
        • Yoon YC.
        Yield of concurrent systemic biopsy during MRI-targeted biopsy according to prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 in patients with suspected prostate cancer.
        Eur Radiol. 2021; 31: 1667-1675https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07167-z
        • Drost FH
        • Osses DF
        • Nieboer D
        • et al.
        Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 4CD012663https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2
        • Ahdoot M
        • Wilbur AR
        • Reese SE
        • et al.
        MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis.
        N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 917-928https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1910038
        • Thompson IM
        • Ankerst DP
        • Chi C
        • et al.
        Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/ml or lower.
        JAMA. 2005; 294: 66-70https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.294.1.66
        • Thompson IM
        • Pauler DK
        • Goodman PJ
        • et al.
        Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter.
        N Engl J Med. 2004; 350: 2239-2246https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa031918
        • Park KJ
        • Choi SH
        • Lee JS
        • et al.
        Risk stratification of prostate cancer according to PI-RADS(R) version 2 categories: meta-analysis for prospective studies.
        J Urol. 2020; 204: 1141-1149https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001306
        • Oerther B
        • Engel H
        • Bamberg F
        • et al.
        Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level.
        Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1
        • de Rooij M
        • Israel 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: 5404-5416https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z
        • Weinreb JC
        • Barentsz JO
        • Choyke PL
        • et al.
        PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 16-40https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052