A nomogram based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients

被引:3
|
作者
Hu, Beibei [1 ]
Zhang, Huili [1 ]
Zhang, Yueyue [2 ]
Jin, Yongming [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Jiangsu Vocat Coll Med, Dept Med Imaging, Yancheng, Peoples R China
[2] Soochow Univ, Affiliated Hosp 2, Dept Radiol, Suzhou, Peoples R China
[3] Southeast Univ, Affiliated Yancheng Hosp, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Yancheng, Peoples R China
[4] Yancheng Third Peoples Hosp, Yancheng, Peoples R China
关键词
bpMRI; Prostate cancer; Diagnosis; Model; Nomogram; MRI; COMBINATION; DIAGNOSIS; ACCURACY; DENSITY;
D O I
10.1186/s40644-023-00606-2
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose This study aimed to develop and validate a model based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biopsy-naive patients. Method This retrospective study included 324 patients who underwent bpMRI and MRI targeted fusion biopsy (MRGB) and/or systematic biopsy, of them 217 were randomly assigned to the training group and 107 were assigned to the validation group. We assessed the diagnostic performance of three bpMRI-based scorings in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Subsequently, 3 models (Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3) combining bpMRI scorings with clinical variables were constructed and compared with each other using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC). The statistical significance of differences among these models was evaluated using DeLong's test. Results In the training group, 68 of 217 patients had pathologically proven csPCa. The sensitivity and specificity for Scoring 1 were 64.7% (95% CI 52.2%-75.9%) and 80.5% (95% CI 73.3%-86.6%); for Scoring 2 were 86.8% (95% CI 76.4%-93.8%) and 73.2% (95% CI 65.3%-80.1%); and for Scoring 3 were 61.8% (95% CI 49.2%-73.3%) and 80.5% (95% CI 73.3%-86.6%), respectively. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that scorings based on bpMRI, age, and prostatespecific antigen density (PSAD) were independent predictors of csPCa. The AUCs for the 3 models were 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93), 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.94), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93), respectively. Model 2 showed significantly higher performance than Model 1 (P = 0.03) and Model 3 (P < 0.01). Conclusion All three scorings had favorite diagnostic accuracy. While in conjunction with age and PSAD the prediction power was significantly improved, and the Model 2 that based on Scoring 2 yielded the highest performance.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naive men with suspicion of prostate cancer
    Hansen, Nienke L.
    Barrett, Tristan
    Kesch, Claudia
    Pepdjonovic, Lana
    Bonekamp, David
    O'Sullivan, Richard
    Distler, Florian
    Warren, Anne
    Samel, Christina
    Hadaschik, Boris
    Grummet, Jeremy
    Kastner, Christof
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2018, 122 (01) : 40 - 49
  • [22] A predictive model based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters for improved risk assessment and selection of biopsy-naive men for prostate biopsies
    Boesen, Lars
    Thomsen, Frederik B.
    Norgaard, Nis
    Logager, Vibeke
    Balslev, Ingegerd
    Bisbjerg, Rasmus
    Thomsen, Henrik S.
    Jakobsen, Henrik
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2019, 22 (04) : 609 - 616
  • [23] Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasonography fusion targeted prostate biopsy finds more significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive Japanese men compared with the standard biopsy
    Fujii, Shinsuke
    Hayashi, Tetsutaro
    Honda, Yukiko
    Terada, Hiroaki
    Akita, Ryuji
    Kitamura, Naoyuki
    Ueda, Eikoh
    Han, Xiangrui
    Ueno, Takeshi
    Miyamoto, Shunsuke
    Kitano, Hiroyuki
    Inoue, Shogo
    Teishima, Jun
    Abdi, Hamidreza
    Awai, Kazuo
    Takeshima, Yukio
    Sentani, Kazuhiro
    Yasui, Wataru
    Matsubara, Akio
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 27 (02) : 140 - 146
  • [24] A magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for predicting clinically significant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy
    Castellani, Daniele
    Cecchini, Sara
    Mazzucchelli, Roberta
    Soraci, Luca
    Di Rosa, Mirko
    Fabbietti, Paolo
    Palagonia, Erika
    Puccio, Francesca
    Carnevali, Francesca
    Paci, Enrico
    Montironi, Rodolfo
    Galosi, Andrea Benedetto
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2022, 40 (08) : 379.e1 - 379.e8
  • [25] MR/US FUSION-GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY IMPROVES CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT PROSTATE CANCER DETECTION FOR BIOPSY-NAIVE PATIENTS ACROSS DIVERSE PRACTICE SETTINGS
    Watson, Brett
    Qi, Ji
    Johnson, Anna
    George, Arvin
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 203 : E1193 - E1193
  • [26] New Diagnostic Model for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Men With PIRADS 3
    Huang, Chen
    Qiu, Feng
    Jin, Di
    Wei, Xuedong
    Chen, Zongxin
    Wang, Ximing
    Zhao, Xiaojun
    Guo, Linchuan
    Pu, Jinxian
    Hou, Jianquan
    Huang, Yuhua
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2022, 12
  • [28] Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer by Using Abbreviated Biparametric Prostate MR Imaging
    Ueno, Yoshiko
    Tamada, Tsutomu
    Takahashi, Satoru
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 286 (03) : 1093 - 1093
  • [29] Presence of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Suspicious Lesion Predicts Gleason 7 or Greater Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Patients
    Weaver, John K.
    Kim, Eric H.
    Vetter, Joel M.
    Fowler, Kathryn J.
    Siegel, Cary L.
    Andriole, Gerald L.
    UROLOGY, 2016, 88 : 119 - 124
  • [30] Detection of Gleason 6 prostate cancer in patients with clinically significant prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
    Chaloupka, M.
    Bischoff, R.
    Pfitzinger, P.
    Lellig, E.
    Ledderose, S.
    Buchner, A.
    Schlenker, B.
    Stief, C.
    Clevert, D-A
    Apfelbeck, M.
    CLINICAL HEMORHEOLOGY AND MICROCIRCULATION, 2019, 73 (01) : 105 - 111