Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for Initial Prostate Biopsy by Incorporating the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading and Cribriform growth

Roobol, Monique J.; Verbeek, Jan; Kwast, Theodorus H. van der; Kümmerlin, Intan P.E.D.; Kweldam, Charlotte F.; Leenders, Geert J.L.H. van

doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.033

Cited by 66 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The high positive predictive value of IDC/CC at biopsy (90%) and its strong association with advanced pathological stage would support this notion. Conversely, NPV at biopsy for IDC/CC was moderate (60%), and therefore its absence in the biopsy cannot serve as a sufficiently reliable stand‐alone biomarker for deferred treatment …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Concordance of biopsy and prostatectomy diagnosis of intraductal and cribriform carcinoma in a prospectively collected data set

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conversely, NPV at biopsy for IDC/CC was moderate (60%), and therefore its absence in the biopsy cannot serve as a sufficiently reliable stand-alone biomarker for deferred treatment. 25…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concordance of biopsy and prostatectomy diagnosis of intraductal and cribriform carcinoma in a prospectively collected data set

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clinical risk assessment for high-grade prostate cancer is increasingly supplemented with prostate MRI, in which the likelihood of clinically significant cancer is scored using PI-RADS v2. 21,22,27,28 Because contrast-enhanced MRI techniques are only used to recategorize peripheral zone lesion risk from PI-RADS 3 to 4 in the current scoring system, the value of performing contrast-enhanced imaging has been questioned. Without contrast-enhanced imaging, a threshold of PI-RADS 3 would determine the need for biopsy without further risk-stratifying information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinically, consideration of biopsy for HGPCA is recommended when the probability threshold is no lower than 3–5%, due to potential complications from biopsy . Thus, undergoing prostate MRI may be most relevant to patients who have an estimated pretest risk of HGPCA in the range of 5–20%, where the risk of unnecessary biopsy is weighed against detection of HGPCA …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12,13 Thus, undergoing prostate MRI may be most relevant to patients who have an estimated pretest risk of HGPCA in the range of 5-20%, where the risk of unnecessary biopsy is weighed against detection of HGPCA. 21,22 The decision curve method allows for examination of multiple thresholds for biopsy simultaneously. Each set of decision curves employs control-risk models of "biopsy all" and "biopsy none," with a variable number of additional decision risk models (such as MRI with or without contrast) added.…”

Section: Overview Of Decision Curve Analysis and Risk Models Comparedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Population net benefit of prostate MRI with high spatiotemporal resolution contrast‐enhanced imaging: A decision curve analysis

Prabhu

Rosenkrantz

Otazo

et al. 2019

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The value of dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) sequences in prostate MRI compared with noncontrast MRI is controversial. Purpose To evaluate the population net benefit of risk stratification using DCE‐MRI for detection of high‐grade prostate cancer (HGPCA), with or without high spatiotemporal resolution DCE imaging. Study Type Decision curve analysis. Population Previously published patient studies on MRI for HGPCA detection, one using DCE with golden‐angle radial sparse parallel (GRASP) images and the other using standard DCE‐MRI. Field Strength/Sequence GRASP or standard DCE‐MRI at 3 T. Assessment Each study reported the proportion of lesions with HGPCA in each Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI‐RADS v2) category (1–5), before and after reclassification of peripheral zone lesions from PI‐RADS 3–4 based on contrast‐enhanced images. This additional risk stratifying information was translated to population net benefit, when biopsy was hypothetically performed for: all lesions, no lesions, PI‐RADS ≥3 (using NC‐MRI), and PI‐RADS ≥4 on DCE. Statistical Tests Decision curve analysis was performed for both GRASP and standard DCE‐MRI data, translating the avoidance of unnecessary biopsies and detection of HGPCA to population net benefit. We standardized net benefit values for HGPCA prevalence and graphically summarized the comparative net benefit of biopsy strategies. Results For a clinically relevant range of risk thresholds for HGPCA (>11%), GRASP DCE‐MRI with biopsy of PI‐RADS ≥4 lesions provided the highest net benefit, while biopsy of PI‐RADS ≥3 lesions provided highest net benefit at low personal risk thresholds (2–11%). In the same range of risk thresholds using standard DCE‐MRI, the optimal strategy was biopsy for all lesions (0–15% risk threshold) or PI‐RADS ≥3 on NC‐MRI (16–33% risk threshold). Data Conclusion GRASP DCE‐MRI may potentially enable biopsy of PI‐RADS ≥4 lesions, providing relatively preserved detection of HGPCA and avoidance of unnecessary biopsies compared with biopsy of all PI‐RADS ≥3 lesions. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1400–1408.

show abstract

Prostate Cancer Screening—The Need for and Clinical Relevance of Decision Analytical Models

Borre

2021

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prostate cancer affects men's health worldwide, being the second most common cancer in Western countries, surpassed only by nonmelanoma skin cancers. Prostate cancer is a localized disease that rarely exhibits symptoms, and its aggressiveness varies significantly between indolent disease to highly aggressive cancer. Moreover, risk factors for prostate cancer differ for every individual, based on family history, race/ethnicity, and other factors. The diagnostic strategies using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening have been controversial since the PSA protein was identified more than 4 decades ago. Frequent, opportunistic PSA screening is initiated by the patient or physician for reasons specific to each individual patient, which is a strategy that entails the risk of either overdiagnosis or undertreatment. However, recent advances in diagnostic imaging and therapy argue for more timely diagnostic strategies based on a risk-stratified approach. Risk-stratification and Magnetic Resonance ImagingMultivariable estimation models have been found to be superior to conventional decision-making models that are based solely on PSA testing and digital rectal examination, 1 and in general, prostate

show abstract

Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for Initial Prostate Biopsy by Incorporating the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading and Cribriform growth

Cited by 66 publications

References 27 publications

Concordance of biopsy and prostatectomy diagnosis of intraductal and cribriform carcinoma in a prospectively collected data set

Concordance of biopsy and prostatectomy diagnosis of intraductal and cribriform carcinoma in a prospectively collected data set

Population net benefit of prostate MRI with high spatiotemporal resolution contrast‐enhanced imaging: A decision curve analysis

Prostate Cancer Screening—The Need for and Clinical Relevance of Decision Analytical Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About