Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Biopsy Findings in Suspected Prostate Cancer

  • Haj-Mirzaian A
  • Burk K
  • Lacson R
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Importance Multiple strategies integrating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical data have been proposed to determine the need for a prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (Gleason score ≥3 + 4). However, inconsistencies across different strategies create challenges for drawing a definitive conclusion. Objective To determine the optimal prostate biopsy decision-making strategy for avoiding unnecessary biopsies and minimizing the risk of missing csPCa by combining MRI Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) and clinical data. Data Sources PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 1, 2022. Study Selection English-language studies that evaluated men with suspected but not confirmed csPCa who underwent MRI PI-RADS followed by prostate biopsy were included. Each study had proposed a biopsy plan by combining PI-RADS and clinical data. Data Extraction and Synthesis Studies were independently assessed for eligibility for inclusion. Quality of studies was appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Mixed-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression models with multimodel inference were performed. Reporting of this study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures Independent risk factors of csPCa were determined by performing meta-regression between the rate of csPCa and PI-RADS and clinical parameters. Yields of different biopsy strategies were assessed by performing diagnostic meta-analysis. Results The analyses included 72 studies comprising 36 366 patients. Univariable meta-regression showed that PI-RADS 4 (β-coefficient [SE], 7.82 [3.85]; P = .045) and PI-RADS 5 (β-coefficient [SE], 23.18 [4.46]; P < .001) lesions, but not PI-RADS 3 lesions (β-coefficient [SE], −4.08 [3.06]; P = .19), were significantly associated with a higher risk of csPCa. When considered jointly in a multivariable model, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) was the only clinical variable significantly associated with csPCa (β-coefficient [SE], 15.50 [5.14]; P < .001) besides PI-RADS 5 (β-coefficient [SE], 9.19 [3.33]; P < .001). Avoiding biopsy in patients with lesions with PI-RADS category of 3 or less and PSAD less than 0.10 (vs <0.15) ng/mL2 resulted in reducing 30% (vs 48%) of unnecessary biopsies (compared with performing biopsy in all suspected patients), with an estimated sensitivity of 97% (vs 95%) and number needed to harm of 17 (vs 15). Conclusions and Relevance These findings suggest that in patients with suspected csPCa, patient-tailored prostate biopsy decisions based on PI-RADS and PSAD could prevent unnecessary procedures while maintaining high sensitivity.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Haj-Mirzaian, A., Burk, K. S., Lacson, R., Glazer, D. I., Saini, S., Kibel, A. S., & Khorasani, R. (2024). Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Biopsy Findings in Suspected Prostate Cancer. JAMA Network Open, 7(3), e244258. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.4258

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free