Combination of PI-RADS score and PSAD can improve the diagnostic accuracy of prostate cancer and reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies

Objectives The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical variables of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) and to provide a strategy to reduce unnecessary biopsies. Patients and methods A Chinese cohort that consists of 833 consecutive patients who underwent prostate biopsies from January 2018 to April 2022 was collected in this retrospective study. Diagnostic ability for total PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was evaluated by prostate imaging–reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and other clinical variables. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to figure out the independent predictors. Diagnostic accuracy was estimated by plotting receiver operating characteristic curves. Results The results of univariate and multivariable analyses demonstrated that the PI-RADS score (P < 0.001, OR: 5.724, 95% CI: 4.517–7.253)/(P < 0.001, OR: 5.199, 95% CI: 4.039–6.488) and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) (P < 0.001, OR: 2.756, 95% CI: 1.560–4.870)/(P < 0.001, OR: 4.726, 95% CI: 2.661–8.396) were the independent clinical factors for predicting total PCa/csPCa. The combination of the PI-RADS score and PSAD presented the best diagnostic performance for the detection of PCa and csPCa. For the diagnostic criterion of “PI-RADS score ≥ 3 or PSAD ≥ 0.3”, the sensitivity and negative predictive values were 94.0% and 93.1% for the diagnosis of total PCa and 99.2% and 99.3% for the diagnosis of csPCa, respectively. For the diagnostic criterion “PI-RADS score >3 and PSAD ≥ 0.3”, the specificity and positive predictive values were 96.8% and 92.6% for the diagnosis of total PCa and 93.5% and 82.4% for the diagnosis of csPCa, respectively. Conclusions The combination of the PI-RADS score and PSAD can implement the extraordinary diagnostic performance of PCa. Many patients may safely execute active surveillance or take systematic treatment without prostate biopsies by stratification according to the PI-RADS score and the value of PSAD.

[1]  Wanqing Chen,et al.  Cancer statistics in China and United States, 2022: profiles, trends, and determinants , 2022, Chinese medical journal.

[2]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2022 , 2022, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[3]  Lei Wang,et al.  Construction and Validation of a Clinical Predictive Nomogram for Improving the Cancer Detection of Prostate Naive Biopsy Based on Chinese Multicenter Clinical Data , 2022, Frontiers in Oncology.

[4]  K. Schwamborn,et al.  Radical Prostatectomy Without Prior Biopsy Following Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography. , 2021, European urology.

[5]  H. Woo,et al.  The Additive Diagnostic Value of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography to Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Triage in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PRIMARY): A Prospective Multicentre Study. , 2021, European urology.

[6]  Karthik V. Sarma,et al.  Optimizing Spatial Biopsy Sampling for the Detection of Prostate Cancer , 2021, The Journal of urology.

[7]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  Prostate cancer , 2021, Nature Reviews Disease Primers.

[8]  F. Montorsi,et al.  Positive Predictive Value of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2020, European urology oncology.

[9]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. , 2020, European urology.

[10]  E. Klein,et al.  Clinical utility of PSAD combined with PI-RADS category for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. , 2020, Urologic oncology.

[11]  F. Hamdy,et al.  Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2020, European urology.

[12]  H. Welch,et al.  Reconsidering Prostate Cancer Mortality - The Future of PSA Screening. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  N. Lawrentschuk,et al.  Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study , 2020, The Lancet.

[14]  Silvina P. Dutruel,et al.  PI-RADS: what is new and how to use it , 2020, Abdominal Radiology.

[15]  P. Choyke,et al.  MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  H. Payne,et al.  Comparison of complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population‐based study , 2020, BJU international.

[17]  M. Duffy Biomarkers for prostate cancer: prostate-specific antigen and beyond , 2019, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[18]  D. Margolis,et al.  Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. , 2019, European urology.

[19]  Yinghao Sun,et al.  Prostate cancer risk prediction models in Eastern Asian populations: current status, racial difference, and future directions , 2019, Asian journal of andrology.

[20]  Xiangyi Zheng,et al.  Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2019, World Journal of Surgical Oncology.

[21]  M. Stern,et al.  Which Patients with Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Can Safely Avoid Biopsy for Prostate Cancer? , 2019, The Journal of urology.

[22]  Laurent Lemaitre,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. , 2019, The Lancet. Oncology.

[23]  Thomas Agoritsas,et al.  Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[24]  B. Dennis,et al.  Digital Rectal Examination for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2018, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[25]  M. Delgado-Rodríguez,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2017, Medicina intensiva.

[26]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  What Are We Missing? False-Negative Cancers at Multiparametric MR Imaging of the Prostate. , 2018, Radiology.

[27]  T. Miyagawa,et al.  Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI‐RADS) score and prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients , 2017, BJU international.

[28]  David Gillatt,et al.  10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  B. Delahunt,et al.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[30]  U. Capitanio,et al.  Repeat Prostate Biopsy: Rationale, Indications, and Strategies. , 2015, European urology focus.

[31]  Lori J Sokoll,et al.  Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- vs high-grade prostate cancer. , 2014, Urology.

[32]  Bo Dai,et al.  External validation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculators in a Chinese cohort. , 2012, Asian journal of andrology.

[33]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. , 2010, European urology.