Combination of PI-RADS Score and PSAD Can Improve the Diagnostic Accuracy of Prostate Cancer and Reduce Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies

Overview

Journal Front Oncol

Specialty Oncology

Date 2022 Dec 5

PMID 36465344

Authors

Changming Wang

Lei Yuan

Deyun Shen

Bin Zhang

Baorui Wu

Panrui Zhang

Jun Xiao

Tao Tao

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

An online clustering algorithm predicting model for prostate cancer based on PHI-related variables and PI-RADS in different PSA populations.

Hu J, Miao Q, Ren J, Su H, Zhang X, Bi J Cancer Cell Int. 2025; 25(1):44.

PMID: 39948672 PMC: 11827463. DOI: 10.1186/s12935-025-03677-2.

Optimizing prostate biopsy decision-making for patients with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥3 lesions: novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based nomograms.

Chen Y, Lin J, Cao W, Meng T, Ling J, Wen Z Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2024; 14(12):8196-8210.

PMID: 39698614 PMC: 11651980. DOI: 10.21037/qims-24-1072.

Radical prostatectomy without prostate biopsy based on a noninvasive diagnostic strategy: a prospective single-center study.

Wang C, Xie Q, Yuan L, Ni M, Zhuo D, Gao Y Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024; .

PMID: 39695194 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00931-y.

Precision in prostate cancer detection: integrating prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) to provide additional risk stratification for a more accurate diagnostic decision.

Hruba T, Kubas V, Franko M, Balaz V, Spurny M, Mistinova J Ir J Med Sci. 2024; 193(6):2635-2642.

PMID: 39093531 PMC: 11666638. DOI: 10.1007/s11845-024-03771-w.

A novel model incorporating quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound into PI-RADSv2-based nomogram detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.

Huang K, Luo L, Hong R, Zhao H, Li Y, Jiang Y Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):11083.

PMID: 38745087 PMC: 11093975. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-61866-x.

References

Hofman M, Lawrentschuk N, Francis R, Tang C, Vela I, Thomas P . 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. Lancet. 2020; 395(10231):1208-1216. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7. View

Borofsky S, George A, Gaur S, Bernardo M, Greer M, Mertan F . What Are We Missing? False-Negative Cancers at Multiparametric MR Imaging of the Prostate. Radiology. 2017; 286(1):186-195. PMC: 5749595. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017152877. View

Roobol M, Steyerberg E, Kranse R, Wolters T, van den Bergh R, Bangma C . A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2009; 57(1):79-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.08.025. View

Stevens E, Truong M, Bullen J, Ward R, Purysko A, Klein E . Clinical utility of PSAD combined with PI-RADS category for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2020; 38(11):846.e9-846.e16. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.05.024. View

Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz A, Haider M, Padhani A, Villeirs G, Macura K . Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019; 76(3):340-351. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033. View

Emmett L, Buteau J, Papa N, Moon D, Thompson J, Roberts M . 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. Eur Urol. 2021; 80(6):682-689. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.08.002. View

Duffy M . Biomarkers for prostate cancer: prostate-specific antigen and beyond. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2019; 58(3):326-339. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2019-0693. View

Mottet N, van den Bergh R, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch M, De Santis M . EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2020; 79(2):243-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042. View

Mazzone E, Stabile A, Pellegrino F, Basile G, Cignoli D, Cirulli G . 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. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020; 4(5):697-713. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.12.004. View

10.

Dutruel S, Jeph S, Margolis D, Wehrli N . PI-RADS: what is new and how to use it. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020; 45(12):3951-3960. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02482-x. View

11.

Ankerst D, Hoefler J, Bock S, Goodman P, Vickers A, Hernandez J . Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- vs high-grade prostate cancer. Urology. 2014; 83(6):1362-7. PMC: 4035700. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.035. View

12.

Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, Konishi T, Hirai M, Kobayashi Y . 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. BJU Int. 2016; 119(2):225-233. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13465. View

13.

Sathianathen N, Omer A, Harriss E, Davies L, Kasivisvanathan V, Punwani S . 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. Eur Urol. 2020; 78(3):402-414. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.048. View

14.

Siegel R, Miller K, Fuchs H, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022; 72(1):7-33. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21708. View

15.

Meissner V, Rauscher I, Schwamborn K, Neumann J, Miller G, Weber W . Radical Prostatectomy Without Prior Biopsy Following Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography. Eur Urol. 2021; 82(2):156-160. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.11.019. View

16.

Rouviere O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mege-Lechevallier F . 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. Lancet Oncol. 2018; 20(1):100-109. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2. View

17.

Ahdoot M, Wilbur A, Reese S, Lebastchi A, Mehralivand S, Gomella P . MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382(10):917-928. PMC: 7323919. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038. View

18.

Rebello R, Oing C, Knudsen K, Loeb S, Johnson D, Reiter R . Prostate cancer. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021; 7(1):9. DOI: 10.1038/s41572-020-00243-0. View

19.

Capitanio U, Pfister D, Emberton M . Repeat Prostate Biopsy: Rationale, Indications, and Strategies. Eur Urol Focus. 2017; 1(2):127-136. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2015.05.002. View

20.

He B, Chen R, Sun T, Yang Y, Zhang C, Ren S . Prostate cancer risk prediction models in Eastern Asian populations: current status, racial difference, and future directions. Asian J Androl. 2019; 22(2):158-161. PMC: 7155801. DOI: 10.4103/aja.aja_55_19. View