Highlights
- •Patients with negative MRI can be safely followed-up without a prostate biopsy.
- •PSA Density levels should guide prostate cancer screening in the community.
- •Age, PSA Density and Likert score are associated with the risk of significant cancer.
- •The RosCaP score may support decision to biopsy in low to equivocal risk cases.
Abstract
Introduction
Patients and Methods
Results
Conclusion
Keywords
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical Genitourinary CancerReferences
- 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: 402-414https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.048
- 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.Eur Urol. 2020; 77: 78-94https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.023
Mottet N, Cornford P, Van Den Bergh RC, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2022.
NICE guideline [NG131] - prostate cancer: diagnosis and management. Published online May 9, 2019. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131 [Last accessed on 13th February 2022]
- Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.Eur Urol. 2019; 76: 340-351https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
- PI-RADS version 2.1: one small step for prostate MRI.Clin Radiol. 2019; 74: 841-852https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.05.019
- Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 Category cases at Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance for Prostate Cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur Urol Focus. 2020; 6: 463-478https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.06.014
- Sub-differentiating equivocal PI-RADS-3 lesions in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate to improve cancer detection.Eur J Radiol. 2017; 95: 307-313https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.08.017
- Impact of PI-RADS Category 3 lesions on the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting prostate cancer and the prevalence of prostate cancer within each PI-RADS category: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BJR. 2021; 9420191050https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20191050
- Multivariate risk prediction tools including MRI for individualized biopsy decision in prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions.World J Urol. 2020; 38: 517-529https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02707-9
- Prediction of high-grade prostate cancer following multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: improving the rotterdam European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators.Eur Urol. 2019; 75: 310-318https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.07.031
- Combined clinical parameters and multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for advanced risk modeling of prostate cancer—patient-tailored risk stratification can reduce unnecessary biopsies.Eur Urol. 2017; 72: 888-896https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.039
- A multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based risk model to determine the risk of significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy.BJU Int. 2017; 120: 774-781https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13814
- A Magnetic Resonance Imaging–based prediction model for prostate biopsy risk stratification.JAMA Oncol. 2018; 4: 678https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5667
- External validation and comparison of Prostate Cancer risk calculators incorporating multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for prediction of clinically significant Prostate Cancer.J Urol. 2020; 203: 719-726https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000622
- External validation of two MRI-based risk calculators in prostate cancer diagnosis.World J Urol. 2021; 39: 4109-4116https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03770-x
- The influence of prostate-specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting.BJU Int. 2017; 119: 724-730https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13619
- National implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection - recommendations from a UK consensus meeting.BJU Int. 2018; 122: 13-25https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14361
- Avoiding unnecessary Biopsy: MRI-based risk models versus a PI-RADS and PSA density strategy for clinically significant prostate cancer.Radiology. 2021; 300: 369-379https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021204112
- Three-year experience of a dedicated prostate mpMRI pre-biopsy programme and effect on timed cancer diagnostic pathways.Clin Radiol. 2019; 74 (894.e1-894.e9)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.06.004
- Prostate MRI quality: clinical impact of the PI-QUAL score in prostate cancer diagnostic work-up.BJR. 2022; (Published online February 18)20211372https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20211372
- Certification in reporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: recommendations of a UK consensus meeting.BJU Int. 2021; 127: 304-306https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15285
- ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training.Eur Radiol. 2020; 30: 5404-5416https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z
- Five-point Likert scaling on MRI predicts clinically significant prostate carcinoma.BMC Urol. 2015; 15: 91https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-015-0087-5
- Comparison of Likert and PI-RADS version 2 MRI scoring systems for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.BJR. 2020; 9320200298https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20200298
- Similarities and differences between Likert and PIRADS v2.1 scores of prostate multiparametric MRI: a pictorial review of histology-validated cases.Clin Radiol. 2019; 74 (895.e1-895.e15)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.08.020
- Optimal biopsy approach for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.BJR. 2022; 9520210413https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20210413
- The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29: 1228-1242https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1
- Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer: What's Next?.Eur Urol. 2018; 74: 48-54https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.007
- Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and follow-up to avoid prostate biopsy in 4259 men: mpMRI and follow up to avoid prostate biopsy.BJU Int. 2019; 124: 775-784https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14853
- Special issue on prostate imaging.Clin Radiol. 2019; 74: 821-822https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.06.013
- Likert vs PI-RADS v2: a comparison of two radiological scoring systems for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.BJU Int. 2020; 125: 49-55https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14916
- Re-evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of PSA as a referral test to detect clinically significant prostate cancer in contemporary MRI-based image-guided biopsy pathways.J Clin Urol. 2021; (Published online December 1205141582110590)https://doi.org/10.1177/20514158211059057
- The diagnostic impact of UK regional variations in age-specific prostate-specific antigen guidelines.BJU Int. 2021; 128: 298-300https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15484
- The association between age, prostate cancer risk, and higher gleason score in a long-term screening program: results from the Göteborg-1 prostate cancer screening trial.Eur Urol. February 2022; (Published onlineS0302283822000197)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.018
- Age dependence of modern clinical risk groups for localized prostate cancer—a population-based study.Cancer. 2020; 126: 1691-1699https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32702
- Combined use of prostate-specific antigen density and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for prostate biopsy decision planning: a retrospective multi-institutional study using the Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Outcome Database (PROMOD).Eur Urol Oncol. 2021; 4: 971-979https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.014
- 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.Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 2: 311-319https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.001
- Defining the impact of family history on detection of high-grade prostate cancer in a large multi-institutional cohort.Eur Urol. 2021; (Published onlineS0302283821022223)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.12.011
- Germline genetics of prostate cancer: prevalence of risk variants and clinical implications for disease management.Cancers. 2021; 13: 2154https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13092154
- Is there still a role for digital rectal examination in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway in the COVID-19 and post COVID-19 era?.Aging Male. 2021; 24: 92-94https://doi.org/10.1080/13685538.2020.1786047
- A reflection on an adapted approach from face-to-face to telephone consultations in our Urology Outpatient Department during the COVID-19 pandemic - a pathway for change to future practice? Changing Urology practice due to COVID-19.BJU Int. 2020; 126: 339-341https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15119
- The impact of COVID-19 on urology office visits and adoption of telemedicine services.Curr Opin Urol. 2022; 32: 152-157https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000957