25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          High-quality evidence shows that MRI in biopsy-naive men can reduce the number of men who need prostate biopsy and can reduce the number of diagnoses of clinically insignificant cancers that are unlikely to cause harm. In men with prior negative biopsy results who remain under persistent suspicion, MRI improves the detection and localization of life-threatening prostate cancer with greater clinical utility than the current standard of care, systematic transrectal US-guided biopsy. Systematic analyses show that MRI-directed biopsy increases the effectiveness of the prostate cancer diagnosis pathway. The incorporation of MRI-directed pathways into clinical care guidelines in prostate cancer detection has begun. The widespread adoption of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for multiparametric MRI data acquisition, interpretation, and reporting has promoted these changes in practice. The PI-RADS MRI-directed biopsy pathway enables the delivery of key diagnostic benefits to men suspected of having cancer based on clinical suspicion. Herein, the PI-RADS Steering Committee discusses how the MRI pathway should be incorporated into routine clinical practice and the challenges in delivering the positive health impacts needed by men suspected of having clinically significant prostate cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Reporting and Interpreting Decision Curve Analysis: A Guide for Investigators

          Context: Urologists regularly develop clinical risk prediction models to support clinical decisions. In contrast to traditional performance measures, decision curve analysis (DCA) can assess the utility of models for decision making. DCA plots net benefit (NB) at a range of clinically reasonable risk thresholds. Objective: To provide recommendations on interpreting and reporting DCA when evaluating prediction models. Evidence acquisition: We informally reviewed the urological literature to determine investigators’ understanding of DCA. To illustrate, we use data from 3616 patients to develop risk models for high-grade prostate cancer ( n = 313, 9%) to decide who should undergo a biopsy. The baseline model includes prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination; the extended model adds two predictors based on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Evidence synthesis: We explain risk thresholds, NB, default strategies (treat all, treat no one), and test tradeoff. To use DCA, first determine whether a model is superior to all other strategies across the range of reasonable risk thresholds. If so, that model appears to improve decisions irrespective of threshold. Second, consider if there are important extra costs to using the model. If so, obtain the test tradeoff to check whether the increase in NB versus the best other strategy is worth the additional cost. In our case study, addition of TRUS improved NB by 0.0114, equivalent to 1.1 more detected high-grade prostate cancers per 100 patients. Hence, adding TRUS would be worthwhile if we accept subjecting 88 patients to TRUS to find one additional high-grade prostate cancer or, alternatively, subjecting 10 patients to TRUS to avoid one unnecessary biopsy. Conclusions: The proposed guidelines can help researchers understand DCA and improve application and reporting. Patient summary: Decision curve analysis can identify risk models that can help us make better clinical decisions. We illustrate appropriate reporting and interpretation of decision curve analysis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades.

            Prior studies assessing the correlation of Gleason score (GS) at needle biopsy and corresponding radical prostatectomy (RP) predated the use of the modified Gleason scoring system and did not factor in tertiary grade patterns. To assess the relation of biopsy and RP grade in the largest study to date. A total of 7643 totally embedded RP and corresponding needle biopsies (2004-2010) were analyzed according to the updated Gleason system. All patients underwent prostate biopsy prior to RP. The relation of upgrading or downgrading to patient and cancer characteristics was compared using the chi-square test, Student t test, and multivariable logistic regression. A total of 36.3% of cases were upgraded from a needle biopsy GS 5-6 to a higher grade at RP (11.2% with GS 6 plus tertiary). Half of the cases had matching GS 3+4=7 at biopsy and RP with an approximately equal number of cases downgraded and upgraded at RP. With biopsy GS 4+3=7, RP GS was almost equally 3+4=7 and 4+3=7. Biopsy GS 8 led to an almost equal distribution between RP GS 4+3=7, 8, and 9-10. A total of 58% of the cases had matching GS 9-10 at biopsy and RP. In multivariable analysis, increasing age (p<0.0001), increasing serum prostate-specific antigen level (p<0.0001), decreasing RP weight (p<0.0001), and increasing maximum percentage cancer/core (p<0.0001) predicted the upgrade from biopsy GS 5-6 to higher at RP. Despite factoring in multiple variables including the number of positive cores and the maximum percentage of cancer per core, the concordance indexes were not sufficiently high to justify the use of nomograms for predicting upgrading and downgrading for the individual patient. Almost 20% of RP cases have tertiary patterns. A needle biopsy can sample a tertiary higher Gleason pattern in the RP, which is then not recorded in the standard GS reporting, resulting in an apparent overgrading on the needle biopsy. Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement

              To endorse Cancer Care Ontario's guideline on Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines developed by other professional organizations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Radiology
                Radiology
                Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
                0033-8419
                1527-1315
                June 07 2019
                June 07 2019
                : 182946
                Article
                10.1148/radiol.2019182946
                6677282
                31184561
                de1db723-548f-409d-b3a9-b29534320bed
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article