Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

A predictive model based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters for improved risk assessment and selection of biopsy-naïve men for prostate biopsies

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 22, pages 609–616 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background

Prostate cancer risk prediction models and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) are used for individualised pre-biopsy risk assessment. However, biparametric MRI (bpMRI) has emerged as a simpler, more rapid MRI approach (fewer scan sequences, no intravenous contrast-media) to reduce costs and facilitate a more widespread clinical implementation. It is unknown how bpMRI and risk models perform conjointly. Therefore, the objective was to develop a predictive model for significant prostate cancer (sPCa) in biopsy-naive men based on bpMRI findings and clinical parameters.

Methods

Eight hundred and seventy-six biopsy-naive men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen, <50 ng/mL; tumour stage, <T3) underwent pre-biopsy prostate bpMRI (T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted) followed by 10-core standard biopsies (all men) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies of bpMRI-suspicious lesions (suspicion score, ≥3). Prediction models based on bpMRI scores and clinical parameters (age, tumour stage, prostate-specific-antigen [PSA] level, prostatevolume, and PSAdensity) were created to detect sPCa (any biopsy-core with Gleason grade-group, ≥2) and compared by analysing the areas under the curves and decision curves.

Results

Overall, sPCa was detected in 350/876 men (40%) with median (inter-quartile range) age and PSA level of 65 years (60–70) and 7.3 ng/mL (5.5–10.6), respectively. The model defined by bpMRI scores, age, tumour stage, and PSAdensity had the highest discriminatory power (area under the curve, 0.89), showed good calibration on internal bootstrap validation, and resulted in the greatest net benefit on decision curve analysis. Applying a biopsy risk threshold of 20% meant that 42% of men could avoid a biopsy, 50% fewer insignificant cancers were diagnosed, and only 7% of significant cancers (grade-group, ≥2) were missed.

Conclusions

A predictive model based on bpMRI scores and clinical parameters significantly improved risk stratification for sPCa in biopsy-naïve men and could be used for clinical decision-making and counselling men prior to prostate biopsies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Roobol MJ, Van Vugt HA, Loeb S, Zhu X, Bul M, Bangma CH, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol. 2012;61:577–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, et al. Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:529–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Foley RW, Maweni RM, Gorman L, Murphy K, Lundon DJ, Durkan G, et al. European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators significantly outperform the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int. 2016;118:706–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD, Asroff SW, Bailen JL, Cochran JS, et al. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:464–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Grönberg H, Adolfsson J, Aly M, Nordström T, Wiklund P, Brandberg Y, et al. Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50–69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1667–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Loeb S, Sanda MG, Broyles DL, Shin SS, Bangma CH, Wei JT, et al. The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193:1163–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wei JT, Feng Z, Partin AW, Brown E, Thompson I, Sokoll L, et al. Can urinary PCA3 supplement PSA in the early detection of prostate cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:4066–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Loeb S, Shin SS, Broyles DL, Wei JT, Sanda M, Klee G, et al. Prostate Health Index improves multivariable risk prediction of aggressive prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017;120:61–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG. Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol. 2008;10:262–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ukimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A, Emberton M, Epstein JI, Freedland SJ, et al. Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol. 2013;63:214–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Der Kwast TH, Roobol MJ. Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10:473–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. van Leeuwen PJ, Hayen A, Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R, Böhm M, et al. A multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based risk model to determine the risk of significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy. BJU Int. 2017;120:774–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Rais-Bahrami S, Oto A, Bednarova S, Nix JW, et al. A magnetic resonance imaging–based prediction model for prostate biopsy risk stratification. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:678–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C, Freitag MT, Alt CD, Celik K, et al. 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;72:888–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, Schoots IG, Chiu PK, Osses DF, et al. 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. 2018;75:310–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.07.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389:815–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, Lu DY, Kwan L, Marks LS, et al. Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol. 2015;67:569–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67:627–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Thompson JE, van Leeuwen PJ, Moses D, Shnier R, Brenner P, Delprado W, et al. The diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;195:1428–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sherrer RL, Glaser ZA, Gordetsky JB, Nix JW, Porter KK, Rais-Bahrami S. Comparison of biparametric MRI to full multiparametric MRI for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0107-0.

  21. Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Krämer N, Nebelung S, Heidenreich A, Schrading S. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology. 2017;285:493–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V, Balslev I, Bisbjerg R, Thestrup K-C, et al. Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1:e180219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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;69:16–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nordström T, Akre O, Aly M, Grönberg H, Eklund M. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21:57–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE, Borsboom GJ, Eijkemans MJ, Vergouwe Y, Habbema JD. Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:774–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Fascelli M, Rais-Bahrami S, Sankineni S, Brown AM, George AK, Ho R, et al. Combined biparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen in the detection of prostate cancer: a validation study in a biopsy-naive patient population. Urology. 2016;88:125–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, Eberhardt SC, Eggener SE, Gaitonde K, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol. 2016;196:1613–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. El-Shater Bosaily A, Parker C, Brown LC, Gabe R, Hindley RG, Kaplan R, et al. PROMIS—Prostate MR imaging study: a paired validating cohort study evaluating the role of multi-parametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Conte Clin Trials. 2015;42:26–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study. Eur Urol. 2018;75:570–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kim SJ, Vickers AJ, Hu JC. Challenges in adopting level 1 evidence for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker for prostate cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:1663–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.4160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Barnett CL, Davenport MS, Montgomery JS, Wei JT, Montie JE, Denton BT. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;122:50–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology and Urological Research, Herlev Gentofte University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark

    Lars Boesen, Frederik B. Thomsen, Nis Nørgaard, Rasmus Bisbjerg & Henrik Jakobsen

  2. Department of Radiology, Herlev Gentofte University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark

    Vibeke Løgager & Henrik S. Thomsen

  3. Department of Pathology, Herlev Gentofte University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark

    Ingegerd Balslev

Authors
  1. Lars Boesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frederik B. Thomsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nis Nørgaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vibeke Løgager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ingegerd Balslev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rasmus Bisbjerg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Henrik S. Thomsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Henrik Jakobsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lars Boesen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boesen, L., Thomsen, F.B., Nørgaard, N. et al. A predictive model based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters for improved risk assessment and selection of biopsy-naïve men for prostate biopsies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 22, 609–616 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0149-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0149-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links