Predictors of prostate carcinoma in PSA gray zone patients with PI-RADS score of 3

Year 2024, Volume: 41 Issue: 2, 317 - 323, 19.05.2024

Coşkun Bostancı Kazım Erdem Ufuk Bozkurt Meriç Doğukan Demir Muhammed Cemre Cevrin Ferhat Yıldız

Abstract

Our aim was to evaluate the predictors of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level between 4-10 ng/ml who had pre-biopsy Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 3. The study analyzed data from 94 patients who underwent transrectal prostate biopsy with the PI-RADS score of 3 between January 2019 and December 2023. The detection rates of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer were calculated. Simple and multiple logistic regression analysis were conducted to evaluate the predictors of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer. The receiver operating characteristics curve analysis and area under curve values were used to determine the priority of parameters. In our study, the incidence of PI-RADS 3 lesion was 18.5%. The overall prostate cancer detection rate was 38.2% with the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was 22.3%. For prostate carcinoma and clinically significant prostate carcinoma logistic regression analysis revealed that free to total prostate-specific antigen (f/t PSA) ratio and age were the independent predictors. Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis and area under curve revealed that f/t PSA ratio had the highest value (0.770) followed by prostate volume (PV) (0,751) for clinically significant prostate cancer. Prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) had the third highest area under curve value of 0.739. Although current guidelines recommend not performing biopsy for patients with PSAD<0.10 ng/ml/cc in patients with PI-RADS score 3, our clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was 13% with this level. Therefore, we recommend that each patient should be evaluated individually with PI-RADS score 3. For deciding on biopsy, not only PSAD but also f/t PSA and PV should be considered, especially in PSA gray zone patients. However, further studies with more patients are required to validate this recommendation.

Keywords

prostate biopsy, PI-RADS, prostate-specific antigen density, prostate cancer

Ethical Statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were under the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Ethical approval was waived by the local Ethics Committee of the University Karabuk, given the study's retrospective nature with the number 2024/1636; on 11/02/2024, all the procedures being performed were part of the routine care.

Supporting Institution

N/A

Thanks

N/A

References

• Zhou Z, Liang Z, Zuo Y, Zhou Y, Yan W, Wu X, et al. Development of a nomogram combining multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and PSA-related parameters to enhance the detection of clinically significant cancer across different region. Prostate. 2022; 82(5):556-65.
• Aly M, Dyrdak R, Nordström T, Jalal S, Weibull CE, et al. Rapid increase in multidrug-resistant enteric bacilli blood stream infection after prostate biopsy - A 10-year population-based cohort study. Prostate. 2015; 75(9):947-56.
• Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, et al. The 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2016;40:244–52.
• Mistry K and Cable G: Meta-analysis of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination as screening tests for prostate carcinoma. J Am Board Fam Pract 2003; 16(2): 95-101.
• Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, Bolla M, Bourke L, Cornford P, et al. EAU – ESTRO – ESUR – SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2021. European Association of Urology Guidelines 2021 Edition. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2021. Arnhem, The Netherlands: European Association of Urology Guidelines Office; 2021.
• Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al; PRECISION Study Group Collaborators. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767-77.
• Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al.; European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746-57.
• Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(1):16-40.
• Padhani AR, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, Turkbey B, Barentsz J. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions. Eur Urol. 2019; 75(3):385-96.
• van der Sar ECA, Kasivisvanathan V, Brizmohun M, Freeman A, Punwani S, Hamoudi R, et al. Management of Radiologically Indeterminate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Signals in Men at Risk of Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(1):62-8.
• Hansen NL, Koo BC, Gallagher FA, Warren AY, Doble A, Gnanapragasam V, et al. Comparison of initial and tertiary center second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(6):2259-66.
• Luzzago S, Petralia G, Musi G, Catellani M, Alessi S, Di Trapani E, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Second Opinion May Reduce the Number of Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies: Time to Improve Radiologists' Training Program? Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17(2):88-96.
• Schoots IG. MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions? Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(1):70-82.
• Maggi M, Panebianco V, Mosca A, Salciccia S, Gentilucci A, Di Pierro G, et al. 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(3):463-78.
• Oerther B, Engel H, Bamberg F, Sigle A, Gratzke C, Benndorf M. Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022;25(2):256-63.
• Zhang Y, Zeng N, Zhang F, Huang Y, Tian Y. How to make clinical decisions to avoid unnecessary prostate screening in biopsy-naïve men with PI-RADs v2 score ≤ 3? Int J Clin Oncol. 2020;25(1):175-86.
• Kim TJ, Lee MS, Hwang SI, Lee HJ, Hong SK. Outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging fusion-targeted biopsy of prostate imaging reporting and data system 3 lesions. World J Urol. 2019;37:1581-86.
• Ullrich T, Quentin M, Arsov C, Schmaltz AK, Tschischka A, Laqua N, et al. Risk Stratification of Equivocal Lesions on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate. J Urol. 2018;199(3):691-98.
• Liddell H, Jyoti R, Haxhimolla HZ. mp-MRI Prostate Characterised PIRADS 3 Lesions are Associated with a Low Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer - A Retrospective Review of 92 Biopsied PIRADS 3 Lesions. Curr Urol. 2015; 8(2):96-100.
• Erol B, Gulpinar MT, Bozdogan G, Ozkanli S, Onem K, Mungan G, et al. The cutoff level of free/total prostate specific antigen (f/t PSA) ratios in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a validation study on a Turkish patient population in different age categories. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2014; 30(11):545-50.
• Damaschke NA, Yang B, Bhusari S, Svaren JP, Jarrard DF. Epigenetic susceptibility factors for prostate cancer with aging. Prostate. 2013;73(16):1721-30.
• Sheridan AD, Nath SK, Syed JS, Aneja S, Sprenkle PC, Weinreb JC, et al. Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Associated with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 (Equivocal) Lesions Identified on Multiparametric Prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(2):347-57.
• Yang S, Zhao W, Tan S, Zhang Y, Wei C, Chen T, et al. Combining clinical and MRI data to manage PI-RADS 3 lesions and reduce excessive biopsy. Transl Androl Urol. 2020; 9(3):1252-61.
• Kim M, Ryu H, Lee HJ, Hwang SI, Choe G, Hong SK. Who can safely evade a magnetic resonance imaging fusion-targeted biopsy (MRIFTB) for prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) 3 lesion? World J Urol. 2021;39(5):1463-71.
• Schoots IG, Padhani AR. Risk-adapted biopsy decision based on prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density for enhanced biopsy avoidance in first prostate cancer diagnostic evaluation. BJU Int. 2021; 127:175-8.
• Görtz M, Radtke JP, Hatiboglu G, Schütz V, Tosev G, Güttlein M, et al. The Value of Prostate-specific Antigen Density for Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 3 Lesions on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Strategy to Avoid Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies. Eur Urol Focus. 2021; 7(2):325-31.
• Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T, Koo B, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, et al. Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy. BJU Int. 2017; 120(5):631-8.
• Araújo D, Gromicho A, Dias J, Bastos S, Maciel RM, Sabença A, et al. Predictors of prostate cancer detection in MRI PI-RADS 3 lesions - Reality of a tertiary center. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2023; 95(4):11830.