-
Something wrong with this record ?
The predictive value of the prostate health index vs. multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in prostate biopsy
J. Stejskal, V. Adamcová, M. Záleský, V. Novák, O. Čapoun, V. Fiala, O. Dolejšová, H. Sedláčková, Š. Veselý, R. Zachoval
Language English Country Germany
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Multicenter Study
Grant support
15-27047A
Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky
NLK
ProQuest Central
from 1997-02-01 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2000-02-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 1997-02-01 to 1 year ago
- MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging * MeSH
- Prostatic Neoplasms diagnostic imaging pathology MeSH
- Predictive Value of Tests MeSH
- Retrospective Studies MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Image-Guided Biopsy MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Multicenter Study MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
PURPOSE: To compare the ability of Prostate Health Index (PHI) to diagnose csPCa, with that of total PSA, PSA density (PSAD) and the multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMRI) of the prostate. METHODS: We analysed a group of 395 men planned for a prostate biopsy who underwent a mpMRI of the prostate evaluated using the PIRADS v1 criteria. All patients had their PHI measured before prostate biopsy. In patients with an mpMRI suspicious lesions, an mpMRI/ultrasound software fusion-guided biopsy was performed first, with 12 core systematic biopsy performed in all patients. A ROC analysis was performed for PCa detection for total PSA, PSAD, PIRADS score and PHI; with an AUC curve calculated for all criteria and a combination of PIRADS score and PHI. Subsequent sub-analyses included patients undergoing first and repeat biopsy. RESULTS: The AUC for predicting the presence of csPCa in all patients was 59.5 for total PSA, 69.7 for PHI, 64.9 for PSAD and 62.5 for PIRADS. In biopsy naive patients it was 61.6 for total PSA, 68.9 for PHI, 64.6 for PSAD and 63.1 for PIRADS. In patients with previous negative biopsy the AUC for total PSA, PHI, PSAD and PIRADS was 55.4, 71.2, 64.4 and 69.3, respectively. Adding of PHI to PIRADS increased significantly (p = 0.007) the accuracy for prediction of csPCa. CONCLUSION: Prostate Health Index could serve as a tool in predicting csPCa. When compared to the mpMRI, it shows comparable results. The PHI cannot, however, help us guide prostate biopsies in any way, and its main use may, therefore, be in pre-MRI or pre-biopsy triage.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc21025706
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20211026133559.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 211013s2021 gw f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1007/s00345-020-03397-4 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)32761380
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a gw
- 100 1_
- $a Stejskal, Jiří $u Department of Urology, 3rd Faculty of Medicine of Charles University and Thomayer Hospital, Vídeňská 800, Prague, 14059, Czech Republic. jiri.stejskal@ftn.cz
- 245 14
- $a The predictive value of the prostate health index vs. multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in prostate biopsy / $c J. Stejskal, V. Adamcová, M. Záleský, V. Novák, O. Čapoun, V. Fiala, O. Dolejšová, H. Sedláčková, Š. Veselý, R. Zachoval
- 520 9_
- $a PURPOSE: To compare the ability of Prostate Health Index (PHI) to diagnose csPCa, with that of total PSA, PSA density (PSAD) and the multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMRI) of the prostate. METHODS: We analysed a group of 395 men planned for a prostate biopsy who underwent a mpMRI of the prostate evaluated using the PIRADS v1 criteria. All patients had their PHI measured before prostate biopsy. In patients with an mpMRI suspicious lesions, an mpMRI/ultrasound software fusion-guided biopsy was performed first, with 12 core systematic biopsy performed in all patients. A ROC analysis was performed for PCa detection for total PSA, PSAD, PIRADS score and PHI; with an AUC curve calculated for all criteria and a combination of PIRADS score and PHI. Subsequent sub-analyses included patients undergoing first and repeat biopsy. RESULTS: The AUC for predicting the presence of csPCa in all patients was 59.5 for total PSA, 69.7 for PHI, 64.9 for PSAD and 62.5 for PIRADS. In biopsy naive patients it was 61.6 for total PSA, 68.9 for PHI, 64.6 for PSAD and 63.1 for PIRADS. In patients with previous negative biopsy the AUC for total PSA, PHI, PSAD and PIRADS was 55.4, 71.2, 64.4 and 69.3, respectively. Adding of PHI to PIRADS increased significantly (p = 0.007) the accuracy for prediction of csPCa. CONCLUSION: Prostate Health Index could serve as a tool in predicting csPCa. When compared to the mpMRI, it shows comparable results. The PHI cannot, however, help us guide prostate biopsies in any way, and its main use may, therefore, be in pre-MRI or pre-biopsy triage.
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a ultrazvukem navigovaná biopsie $7 D061705
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 12
- $a multiparametrická magnetická rezonance $7 D000081364
- 650 _2
- $a prediktivní hodnota testů $7 D011237
- 650 _2
- $a nádory prostaty $x diagnostické zobrazování $x patologie $7 D011471
- 650 _2
- $a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
- 700 1_
- $a Adamcová, Vanda $u Department of Urology, 3rd Faculty of Medicine of Charles University and Thomayer Hospital, Vídeňská 800, Prague, 14059, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Záleský, Miroslav $u 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Novák, Vojtěch $u Department of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine of Charles University, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Čapoun, Otakar $u Department of Urology, 1st Faculty of Medicine of Charles university, General Universtity Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Fiala, Vojtěch $u Department of Urology, 1st Faculty of Medicine of Charles university, General Universtity Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Dolejšová, Olga $u Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, University Hospital in Pilsen, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Sedláčková, Hana $u Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, University Hospital in Pilsen, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Veselý, Štěpán $u Department of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine of Charles University, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Zachoval, Roman $u Department of Urology, 3rd Faculty of Medicine of Charles University and Thomayer Hospital, Vídeňská 800, Prague, 14059, Czech Republic
- 773 0_
- $w MED00004739 $t World journal of urology $x 1433-8726 $g Roč. 39, č. 6 (2021), s. 1889-1895
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32761380 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20211013 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20211026133605 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1714654 $s 1146213
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2021 $b 39 $c 6 $d 1889-1895 $e 20200806 $i 1433-8726 $m World journal of urology $n World J Urol $x MED00004739
- GRA __
- $a 15-27047A $p Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20211013
