Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Predictive Models for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

被引:18
|
作者
Triquell, Marina [1 ,2 ]
Campistol, Miriam [1 ,2 ]
Celma, Ana [1 ,2 ]
Regis, Lucas [1 ,2 ]
Cuadras, Merce [1 ,2 ]
Planas, Jacques [1 ,2 ]
Trilla, Enrique [1 ,2 ]
Morote, Juan [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Vall dHebron Univ Hosp, Dept Urol, Barcelona 08035, Spain
[2] Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Dept Surg, E-08193 Barcelona, Spain
关键词
prostate cancer; magnetic resonance imaging; predictive model; risk calculator; ISUP CONSENSUS CONFERENCE; PI-RADS V2; INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY; RISK CALCULATOR; BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; TRIAL; MRI; PREVENTION; GUIDELINES;
D O I
10.3390/cancers14194747
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Simple Summary Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has allowed the early detection of PCa to evolve towards clinically significant PCa (csPCa), decreasing unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdetection of insignificant tumours. MRI identifies suspicious lesions of csPCa, predicting the semi-quantitative risk through the prostate imaging report and data system (PI-RADS), and enables guided biopsies, increasing the sensitivity of csPCa. Predictive models that individualise the risk of csPCa have also evolved adding PI-RADS score (MRI-PMs), improving the selection of candidates for prostate biopsy beyond the PI-RADS category. During the last five years, many MRI-PMs have been developed. Our objective is to analyse the current developed MRI-PMs and define their clinical usefulness through a systematic review. We have found high heterogeneity between MRI technique, PI-RADS versions, biopsy schemes and approaches, and csPCa definitions. MRI-PMs outperform the selection of candidates for prostate biopsy beyond MRI alone and PMs based on clinical predictors. However, few developed MRI-PMs are externally validated or have available risk calculators (RCs), which constitute the appropriate requirements used in routine clinical practice. MRI can identify suspicious lesions, providing the semi-quantitative risk of csPCa through the Prostate Imaging-Report and Data System (PI-RADS). Predictive models of clinical variables that individualise the risk of csPCa have been developed by adding PI-RADS score (MRI-PMs). Our objective is to analyse the current developed MRI-PMs and define their clinical usefulness. A systematic review was performed after a literature search performed by two independent investigators in PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases, with the Medical Subjects Headings (MESH): predictive model, nomogram, risk model, magnetic resonance imaging, PI-RADS, prostate cancer, and prostate biopsy. This review was made following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria and studied eligibility based on the Participants, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes (PICO) strategy. Among 723 initial identified registers, 18 studies were finally selected. Warp analysis of selected studies was performed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Clinical predictors in addition to the PI-RADS score in developed MRI-PMs were age, PCa family history, digital rectal examination, biopsy status (initial vs. repeat), ethnicity, serum PSA, prostate volume measured by MRI, or calculated PSA density. All MRI-PMs improved the prediction of csPCa made by clinical predictors or imaging alone and achieved most areas under the curve between 0.78 and 0.92. Among 18 developed MRI-PMs, 7 had any external validation, and two RCs were available. The updated PI-RADS version 2 was exclusively used in 11 MRI-PMs. The performance of MRI-PMs according to PI-RADS was only analysed in a single study. We conclude that MRI-PMs improve the selection of candidates for prostate biopsy beyond the PI-RADS category. However, few developed MRI-PMs meet the appropriate requirements in routine clinical practice.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Negative predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer in repeat biopsy setting: Based on transperineal saturation biopsy
    Yu, Jiwoong
    Chung, Jae Hoon
    Song, Wan
    Kang, Minyong
    Sung, Hyun Hwan
    Jeon, Byong Chang
    Seo, Seong Il
    Jeon, Seong Soo
    Lee, Hyun Moo
    Jeon, Hwang Gyun
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 27 : 18 - 19
  • [42] Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Schoots, Ivo G.
    Petrides, Neophytos
    Giganti, Francesco
    Bokhorst, Leonard P.
    Rannikko, Antti
    Klotz, Laurence
    Villers, Arnauld
    Hugosson, Jonas
    Moore, Caroline M.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2015, 67 (04) : 627 - 636
  • [43] Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management: a systematic review
    Monni, Fabio
    Fontanella, Paolo
    Grasso, Angelica
    Wiklund, Peter
    Ou, Yen-Chuan
    Randazzo, Marco
    Rocco, Bernardo
    Montanari, Emanuele
    Bianchi, Giampaolo
    MINERVA UROLOGICA E NEFROLOGICA, 2017, 69 (06) : 567 - 578
  • [44] Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Haider, M. A.
    Yao, X.
    Loblaw, A.
    Finelli, A.
    CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2016, 28 (09) : 550 - 567
  • [45] The Utility of Combined Target and Systematic Prostate Biopsies in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 Based on Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Kato, Daiki
    Ozawa, Kaori
    Takeuchi, Shinichi
    Kawase, Makoto
    Kawase, Kota
    Nakai, Chie
    Takai, Manabu
    Iinuma, Koji
    Nakane, Keita
    Kato, Hiroki
    Matsuo, Masayuki
    Suzui, Natsuko
    Miyazaki, Tatsuhiko
    Koie, Takuya
    CURRENT ONCOLOGY, 2021, 28 (02) : 1294 - 1301
  • [46] Magnetic resonance imaging-based treatment planning for prostate brachytherapy
    Albert, Jeffrey M.
    Swanson, David A.
    Pugh, Thomas J.
    Zhang, Michael
    Bruno, Teresa L.
    Kudchadker, Rajat J.
    Frank, Steven J.
    BRACHYTHERAPY, 2013, 12 (01) : 30 - 37
  • [47] A nomogram based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients
    Hu, Beibei
    Zhang, Huili
    Zhang, Yueyue
    Jin, Yongming
    CANCER IMAGING, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [48] Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Outperforms the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator in Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
    Salami, Simpa S.
    Vira, Manish A.
    Turkbey, Baris
    Fakhoury, Mathew
    Yaskiv, Oksana
    Villani, Robert
    Ben-Levi, Eran
    Rastinehad, Ardeshir R.
    CANCER, 2014, 120 (18) : 2876 - 2882
  • [49] Evaluation of Proclarix, a prostate cancer risk score, used together with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Pye, Hayley
    Ahmed, Hashim
    Heavey, Susan
    Stopka-Farooqui, Urszula
    Johnston, Edward
    Schiess, Ralph
    Gillessen, Silke
    Punwani, Shonit
    Emberton, Mark
    Whitaker, Hayley
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 38 (06)
  • [50] Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Risk Calculators to Predict Prostate Cancer Risk
    Patel, Hiten D.
    Remmers, Sebastiaan
    Ellis, Jeffrey L.
    Li, Eric V.
    Roobol, Monique J.
    Fang, Andrew M.
    Davik, Petter
    Rais-Bahrami, Soroush
    Murphy, Adam B.
    Ross, Ashley E.
    Gupta, Gopal N.
    JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2024, 7 (03) : E241516