Volume 72, Issue 6, Pages (December 2017)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Prostate cancer update Suresh GANTA Consultant urological surgeon Manor Hospital.
Advertisements

Volume 64, Issue 5, Pages (November 2013)
Volume 62, Issue 4, Pages (October 2012)
Volume 56, Issue 5, Pages (November 2009)
Volume 61, Issue 3, Pages (March 2012)
Volume 72, Issue 1, Pages (July 2017)
Volume 50, Issue 3, Pages (September 2006)
Volume 41, Issue 6, Pages (June 2002)
Volume 71, Issue 6, Pages (June 2017)
Volume 69, Issue 3, Pages (March 2016)
Volume 68, Issue 2, Pages (August 2015)
Volume 68, Issue 6, Pages (December 2015)
Volume 57, Issue 1, Pages (January 2010)
Volume 59, Issue 1, Pages (January 2011)
Testosterone Therapy in Men With Prostate Cancer
Volume 56, Issue 6, Pages (December 2009)
Volume 53, Issue 4, Pages (April 2008)
Volume 70, Issue 6, Pages (December 2016)
Volume 62, Issue 5, Pages (November 2012)
Volume 64, Issue 6, Pages (December 2013)
Volume 71, Issue 1, Pages (January 2017)
Volume 67, Issue 6, Pages (June 2015)
European Urology Oncology
Volume 65, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 61, Issue 3, Pages (March 2012)
Volume 63, Issue 4, Pages (April 2013)
Volume 66, Issue 1, Pages (July 2014)
Volume 64, Issue 5, Pages (November 2013)
Volume 67, Issue 2, Pages (February 2015)
Volume 60, Issue 5, Pages (November 2011)
Volume 69, Issue 3, Pages (March 2016)
European Urology Oncology
Towards Early and More Specific Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer Detection: A View of the Future
Ongoing Gleason Grade Migration in Localized Prostate Cancer and Implications for Use of Active Surveillance  Adam B. Weiner, Ruth Etzioni, Scott E. Eggener 
Volume 68, Issue 3, Pages (September 2015)
Volume 67, Issue 4, Pages (April 2015)
Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions  Anwar R. Padhani, Jeffrey Weinreb, Andrew.
Volume 66, Issue 6, Pages (December 2014)
Volume 53, Issue 4, Pages (April 2008)
Volume 54, Issue 3, Pages (September 2008)
Volume 65, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 67, Issue 6, Pages (June 2015)
Volume 65, Issue 4, Pages (April 2014)
Volume 68, Issue 6, Pages (December 2015)
Is It Necessary to Detect All Prostate Cancers in Men with Serum PSA Levels
Volume 58, Issue 1, Pages (July 2010)
Volume 66, Issue 3, Pages (September 2014)
Volume 50, Issue 5, Pages (November 2006)
Anna Grenabo Bergdahl, Erik Holmberg, Sue Moss, Jonas Hugosson
European Urology Oncology
European Urology Oncology
Volume 75, Issue 4, Pages (April 2019)
Volume 59, Issue 4, Pages (April 2011)
Volume 73, Issue 1, Pages (January 2018)
European Urology Oncology
Volume 72, Issue 1, Pages (July 2017)
Volume 75, Issue 4, Pages (April 2019)
Jonathan S. Brajtbord, Michael S. Leapman, Matthew R. Cooperberg 
Thomas Steuber, Matthew Frank O'Brien, Hans Lilja  European Urology 
Volume 74, Issue 6, Pages (December 2018)
Volume 54, Issue 5, Pages (November 2008)
The Comparability of Models for Predicting the Risk of a Positive Prostate Biopsy with Prostate-Specific Antigen Alone: A Systematic Review  Fritz Schröder,
Not All Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Biopsies Are Equal: The Impact of the Type of Approach and Operator Expertise on the Detection.
Volume 68, Issue 2, Pages (August 2015)
Edith Canby-Hagino, Javier Hernandez, Timothy C. Brand, Ian Thompson 
Volume 74, Issue 6, Pages (December 2018)
Volume 54, Issue 3, Pages (September 2008)
Introduction European Urology Supplements
Assessing a Patient’s Individual Risk of Biopsy-detectable Prostate Cancer: Be Aware of Case Mix Heterogeneity and A Priori Likelihood  Jan F.M. Verbeek,
Presentation transcript:

Volume 72, Issue 6, Pages 888-896 (December 2017) Combined Clinical Parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Advanced Risk Modeling of Prostate Cancer—Patient-tailored Risk Stratification Can Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies  Jan Philipp Radtke, Manuel Wiesenfarth, Claudia Kesch, Martin T. Freitag, Celine D. Alt, Kamil Celik, Florian Distler, Wilfried Roth, Kathrin Wieczorek, Christian Stock, Stefan Duensing, Matthias C. Roethke, Dogu Teber, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Markus Hohenfellner, David Bonekamp, Boris A. Hadaschik  European Urology  Volume 72, Issue 6, Pages 888-896 (December 2017) DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.039 Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 1 Risk model to predict sPC including mpMRI PI-RADS, PSA, age, prostate volume and DRE for (A) biopsy-naïve men and (B) men after previous biopsy. The regression equations are as follows. For the risk model for biopsy-naïve men:logπi1−πi=−2.206+1.056 logPSAi−0.021 volumei+0.018 agei+1.407 IDREi≥cT2−0.156 IPIRADSi=2+0.627 IPIRADSi=3+1.533 IPIRADSi=4+2.081 IPIRADSi=5 where πi is the (conditional) probability of significant PC for patient i given values of the covariates, volume is the prostate volume per 10ml, and age is the patient's age per 5 yr. I(DREi≥cT2) denotes the dummy variable that is 1 if the digital rectal examination value is ≥cT2 (suspicious) and 0 otherwise. I(PIRADSi=j) denotes the dummy variable that is 1 if PIRADSi=j for j=2,..., 5 (reference category PI-RADS=1). For the risk model for men after previous biopsy:logπi1−πi=−3.623+0.550logPSAi−0.020 volumei+0.034 agei+0.712 IDREi≥cT2+0.299 IPIRADSi=2+1.198 IPIRADSi=3+1.841 IPIRADSi=4+3.094 IPIRADSi=5 DRE=digital-rectal examination; mpMRI=multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; PC=prostate cancer; PI-RADS=Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System; PSA=prostate-specific antigen; sPC=significant prostate cancer. European Urology 2017 72, 888-896DOI: (10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.039) Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 2 ROC curve analysis for the performance of mpMRI PI-RADSv1.0 (yellow line), ERSPC-RC3/4 (green line), refitted RC3/4 (pink line), ERSPC-RC3/4+mpMRI PI-RADSv1.0 (blue line), and novel risk model (orange line) to predict sPC for (A) biopsy-naïve and (B) postbiopsy men. AUCs are given in Table 3. AUC=area under the curve; ERSPC=European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer; mpMRI=multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; PI-RADS=Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System; RC=risk calculator; sPC=significant prostate cancer. European Urology 2017 72, 888-896DOI: (10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.039) Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 3 Calibration plots for the risk models to predict sPC. (A) Calibration plot for biopsy-naïve men. (B) Calibration plot for postbiopsy men. sPC=significant prostate cancer. European Urology 2017 72, 888-896DOI: (10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.039) Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 4 Net decision curve analyses demonstrating the benefit for predicting sPC on biopsy: (A) for biopsy-naïve men and (C) for men after previous biopsy. The turquoise line is the net benefit of providing all patients with MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy, and the horizontal black line is the net benefit of providing no patients with biopsy. The net benefit provided by each prediction tool is given (green line for ERSPC-RCs, pink line for refitted ERSPC-RCs, yellow line for mpMRI Likert PI-RADS, blue line for ERSPC-RC3/4+mpMRI PI-RADSv1.0, and orange line for the RMs). The net reduction analyses demonstrate in how many patients a biopsy could be avoided without missing any sPC, based on the decision derived from the RMs (orange lines), ERSPC-RCs (green lines), refitted ERSPC-RCs (pink lines), mpMRI PI-RADS (yellow lines), and ERSPC-RC3/4+mpMRI PI-RADSv1.0 (blue lines) in (B) in biopsy-naïve and (D) postbiopsy men. ERSPC=European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer; mpMRI=multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; MRI=magnetic resonance imaging; PI-RADS=Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System; RC=risk calculator; RM=risk model; sPC=significant prostate cancer; TRUS=transrectal ultrasound. European Urology 2017 72, 888-896DOI: (10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.039) Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions