Prostate biopsy strategy integrating prostate health index and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging optimizes the predictive value of clinically significant prostate cancer in prostate imaging reporting and data system gray-zone imaging

Purpose: The Prostate Health Index (PHI) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) are used as complementary tools for more accurate diagnosis in men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). This study investigated whether the combination of PHI and mpMRI better predict clinically significant PCa (csPCa), defined as a Gleason score of ≥7. Materials and Methods: Ninety-four men with clinical suspicion of csPCa were prospectively included. PHI was determined before the prostate biopsy. A uroradiologist reviewed mpMRI findings by using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS version 2.1). Fusion-targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy was performed in patients with any suspicious lesions on MRI (PI-RADS assessment category ≥3), whereas systematic biopsy was performed in patients without suspicious lesions. The diagnostic values of different biomarkers and PI-RADS were compared by the area under the receiver operating curve (area under the curve [AUC]) for detecting csPCa. Results: Forty-nine (52%) patients were diagnosed with csPCa. The csPCa group had higher median PHI and more abnormal MRI findings than did the non-csPCa group. The median total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was similar between the PI-RADS 3 and 4 lesion groups. The median PHI values increased and more patients were diagnosed as having csPCa with an increase in PI-RADS. The receiver operating characteristic curve indicated that PHI and MRI (AUC 0.85 and 0.82, respectively) predicted csPCa more accurately than did the total PSA, free PSA ratio, and PSA density. Adding PHI to mpMRI significantly increased the diagnostic accuracy for csPCa (P = 0.004). PHI remained the optimal biomarker in patients with “gray zone” PI-RADS 3 or PI-RADS 4 lesions. Conclusion: PHI can guide decision-making for prostate biopsy for patients with gray-zone mpMRI lesions. We proposed a biopsy strategy incorporating PHI and MRI which resulted in the avoidance of biopsies in 35% of the patients.

[1]  F. Bray,et al.  Epidemiology and Prevention of Prostate Cancer. , 2021, European urology oncology.

[2]  R. Kučera,et al.  Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Algorithm as a “Road Map” from the First Stratification of the Patient to the Final Treatment Decision , 2021, Life.

[3]  Hao-min Cheng,et al.  The Prostate Health Index aids multi-parametric MRI in diagnosing significant prostate cancer , 2021, Scientific Reports.

[4]  G. Karsenty,et al.  Nonsuspicious prebiopsy multiparametric MRI: is prostate biopsy still necessary? , 2020, Abdominal Radiology.

[5]  V. Adamcová,et al.  The predictive value of the prostate health index vs. multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in prostate biopsy , 2020, World Journal of Urology.

[6]  V. Varca,et al.  The role of MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer , 2020, Therapeutic advances in urology.

[7]  R. Autorino,et al.  Beyond PSA: The Role of Prostate Health Index (phi) , 2020, International journal of molecular sciences.

[8]  S. Verma,et al.  Prostate biopsy: when and how to perform. , 2019, Clinical radiology.

[9]  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.

[10]  Feng-bo Zhang,et al.  How to make clinical decisions to avoid unnecessary prostate screening in biopsy-naïve men with PI-RADs v2 score ≤ 3? , 2019, International Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[11]  Hsi-Chin Wu,et al.  Combining prostate health index and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in an Asian population , 2019, World Journal of Urology.

[12]  I. Balslev,et al.  Prebiopsy Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Combined with Prostate-specific Antigen Density in Detecting and Ruling out Gleason 7-10 Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-naïve Men. , 2019, European urology oncology.

[13]  D. Nieboer,et al.  A Multicentre Evaluation of the Role of the Prostate Health Index (PHI) in Regions with Differing Prevalence of Prostate Cancer: Adjustment of PHI Reference Ranges is Needed for European and Asian Settings. , 2019, European urology.

[14]  Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa,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-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study. , 2019, European urology.

[15]  Hong-Chiang Chang,et al.  The application of p2PSA% and prostate health index in prostate cancer detection: A prospective cohort in a Tertiary Medical Center. , 2019, Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi.

[16]  James L Mohler,et al.  NCCN Guidelines Updates: Prostate Cancer and Prostate Cancer Early Detection. , 2018, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[17]  A. Partin,et al.  Combining Prostate Health Index density, magnetic resonance imaging and prior negative biopsy status to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer , 2018, BJU international.

[18]  D. Margolis,et al.  MRI‐Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate‐Cancer Diagnosis , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  M. Parmar,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study , 2017, The Lancet.

[20]  F. Gallagher,et al.  The Prostate Health Index adds predictive value to multi-parametric MRI in detecting significant prostate cancers in a repeat biopsy population , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[21]  John T. Wei,et al.  The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[22]  T. Tammela,et al.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. , 2014, European Urology.

[23]  John T. Wei,et al.  A multicenter study of [-2]pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[24]  C C Schulman,et al.  Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop? , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[25]  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.

[26]  D. Nieboer,et al.  Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging, with or Without Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy, and Systematic Biopsy for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2020, European urology.

[27]  Yair Lotan,et al.  Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. , 2013, European urology.